Biden Administration misc. activities

[In2ition]

https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/natio ... ry-07-2022

[Nodack]

He looks like a pissed off Jesus. I used to think of Republicans as the old white man club all wearing black and white suits. Now they have long hair and dress like 60’s hippies. Who knew?

[Indy]

He looks like a pissed off Jesus. I used to think of Republicans as the old white man club all wearing black and white suits. Now they have long hair and dress like 60’s hippies. Who knew?

?? He isn't a Republican or Democrat. He used to be against all political parties, but more recently has been supporting the Labour side in the UK.

[3rdside]

Once again Mori, just like Peterson you've played the man and not the ball - this is the worst kind of ignorance also.

Four points to raise here:

1. In case you didn't watch it, Brand cites valid sources so it's not really a 'Russell Brand' opinion piece, it's more him being a vehicle for legitimate evidence - he does, of course, give valid commentary on this.

2. Brand is financially sorted for life so has no ulterior motives other than to enlighten, and when you consider he has a strong track record of being a left leaning / help the poor type character then this, along with his high IQ and marginalised back ground (he was a heroin addict and has campaigned for addiction to be treated as a disease rather than a criminal act) his authenticity shouldn't really be in doubt.

In 2015, Prospect magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_(magazine)) voted Brand the fourth-most influential thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis, and Naomi Klein - if you don't know who those other three are, they are serious heavy hitters in the world.

Considering all that, it's interesting to watch him "promote anti-left / anti-liberal" stories because he is unquestionably a left leaning liberal .. it's fairly obvious - at least to me - what one should make of all that.

3. You can see why CNN is raging at guys like Joe Rogan - he's annihilating them in viewership - and Brand with his nearly 5m subscribers along with many others are doing the same; maybe i'm a little obvious and a little slow with this comment but they're redefining how we consume news and with a bit of luck we get past the MSM (CNN, MSNBC, Fox etc) bullsh*t we've been subjected to for too long that could, in an ideal world, lead to a cleaning up of politics through shining a light on said bullsh*t.

4. That said, if you want a great take on why harvesting and selling on data is such a nefarious thing to do - and where it could lead in a non-ideal world - then read this article by Yuval Noah Harari (of Sapiens fame - probably my favourite book) where he uses Aldous Huxley's Brave New World as an analogy.

"The underlying assumption of the book is that humans are biochemical algorithms, that science can hack the human algorithm, and that technology can then be used to manipulate not just individuals but entire societies" :

Spoiler: show/hide

Why Brave New World is a terrifying guidebook to our future

In today’s society, the greatest prize is happiness. Want to know what’s wrong with that? Read Huxley's masterpiece, says Yuval Noah Harari

By Yuval Noah Harari.

Brave New World Aldous Huxley Yuval Noah Harari

Prophetic: with every passing year, the 1932 novel by Aldous Huxley feels more relevant.

The most important technological revolution of the 21st century is the ability to hack human beings. To hack human beings means to understand them better than they understand themselves. If a government or a corporation understands us better than we understand ourselves, it can then predict our feelings and decisions, manipulate our feelings and decisions, and eventually make all the crucial decisions on our behalf.

In order to hack human beings, you need three things: a lot of biological knowledge, a lot of data, and a lot of computing power. Until today, nobody had all of these. Even the most totalitarian regimes did not have enough biological knowledge, enough data and enough computing power to systematically hack millions of people. So even in Nazi Germany or in the Soviet Union, the government could not really know and manipulate what every person was thinking and feeling.

But soon, some governments and corporations will have enough biological knowledge, enough data and enough computing power to monitor all the people all the time, and to know what each of us is thinking and feeling in every moment. They will know us better than we know ourselves.

What will happen then?

If the power to hack humans falls into the hands of a 21st-century Stalin, the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in history. It will be far worse than anything seen in the 20th century. And there are already several applicants for the job of 21st-­century Stalin. But even if we avoid the establishment of such a digital dictatorship, the power to hack humans might still undermine human freedom in a myriad of ways.

As people rely on algorithms to make more and more individual and collective decisions, authority will gradually shift from humans to these algorithms. This shift is already under way: billions of people trust the Facebook algorithm to tell us what is new, the Google algorithm to tell us what is true, Google Maps to tell us where to go, ­Netflix to tell us what to watch, and the Amazon algorithm to tell us what to buy.

Humans are used to thinking about life as a drama of decision-making. Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism see the individual as an autonomous agent constantly making choices about the world. Works of art – be they Shakespeare plays, Tolstoy novels, or tacky Hollywood comedies – usually revolve around the hero having to make some particularly crucial ­decision: to be or not to be? To stay with Mr Karenin or run away with the dashing Count Vronsky? ­Christian and Muslim theology similarly focus on the drama of decision-making, arguing that ever­lasting salvation or damnation depends on making the right choice. What will happen once algorithms tell us what to do, and even refashion our bodies and brains?

If and when this happens, human life will cease to be a drama of decision-making. Democratic elections and free markets will make little sense. So will most religions and works of art. Imagine your favourite Shakespeare play with all the crucial decisions made by the Google algorithm. Hamlet will have a much more comfortable life, but what kind of life will it be? Do we have philosophical and spiritual models for making sense of such a life?

We are enjoying an unprecedented technological bonanza, but at the same time we are facing philosophical bankruptcy. The usual bargain between philosophers and politicians is that philosophers have a lot of fanciful ideas, and politicians explain that they ­cannot be implemented due to lack of means. Now, we are in the opposite situation. The new technologies are giving politicians the means to create heaven and hell, but the philosophers are having trouble conceptualising what the new heaven and hell will look like.

History won’t wait for us: Sapiens author, Yuval Noah Harari

History abhors a vacuum. And history won’t wait for us. If we fail to conceptualise the new heaven quickly enough, we might be easily misled by naïve utopias. And if we fail to conceptualise the new hell quickly enough, we might find ourselves trapped in it with no way out. So we need a map of the new heaven and hell, and we need it fast. We need a guidebook to the future.

Perhaps the best guidebook I know is an oldie: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. The book explores what happens when the government can hack humans, and can control society by manipulating the internal realities of our bodies instead of the external realities of the world. Huxley wrote his master­piece in 1931, and he didn’t know anything about genetics, artificial intelligence or the internet. His technological vision of the future is therefore outdated. Readers will have to bear with that.

Yet despite its technological obsolescence, Brave New World is the most prophetic book of the 20th century, and one of the most profound discussions of technology in modern philosophy. Indeed, with each passing year Brave New World is becoming even more relevant.

When Huxley wrote Brave New World, Soviet Communism was ascending to new heights of brutality, fascism was entrenching in Italy, Nazism was about to take over Germany, militaristic Japan was embarking on its war of conquest in China, and the world was gripped by the Great Depression. Yet Huxley managed to see through all these dark clouds, and envision a future society without wars, famines and plagues, enjoying uninterrupted peace, abundance and health. It is a consumerist world, which gives completely free rein to sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll, and whose supreme value is happiness.

Clear-sighted visionary: Aldous Huxley, pictured in 1930

The underlying assumption of the book is that humans are biochemical algorithms, that science can hack the human algorithm, and that technology can then be used to manipulate not just individuals but entire societies. In Huxley’s brave new world, the World Government uses advanced biotechnology and social engineering to make sure that everyone is always content, and no one has any reason to rebel. There is therefore no need of secret police, of concentration camps, or of an Orwellian Ministry of Love. Indeed, Huxley’s genius consists in showing that people can be controlled far more securely through love, pleasure and consumption than through violence, fear and austerity.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, it is clear that Orwell is describing a frightening, nightmarish world, and the only question left is “How do we avoid reaching such a terrible state?” Reading Brave New World is a far more disconcerting and challenging experience, because you are hard-pressed to put your finger on what exactly makes it dystopian. The world is peaceful and prosperous, and everyone is supremely satisfied all the time. What could possibly be wrong with that?

When Brave New World was published in 1932, both Huxley and his readers knew perfectly well that he was describing a dangerous dystopia. Yet many present-day readers could easily mistake Brave New World for a utopia, and our consumerist society is actually geared to realising Huxley’s vision. Today, happiness is the supreme value, and we increasingly use biotechnology and social engineering to ensure maximum satisfaction to all citizen-customers.

You want to know what could be wrong with that? Read Brave New World. The climactic dialogue between Mustapha Mond and John the Savage is among the most profound discussions of technology, happiness and the meaning of life in modern ­Western philosophy.

[Indy]

You can see why CNN is raging at guys like Joe Rogan

People are calling out Joe Rogan because he is openly racist and promoting lies that endanger people's health.

[Indy]

Brand is financially sorted for life so has no ulterior motives other than to enlighten

At first I thought you were joking with this comment, but after reading the rest of it I realize you were serious.

[3rdside]

You can see why CNN is raging at guys like Joe Rogan

People are calling out Joe Rogan because he is openly racist and promoting lies that endanger people's health.

Ok libtard

[3rdside]

Brand is financially sorted for life so has no ulterior motives other than to enlighten

At first I thought you were joking with this comment, but after reading the rest of it I realize you were serious.

Ok so he's building an audience also, but to question his intentions as somehow being self serving for capitalistic reasons or that he's behaving without morality and integrity as his main drivers is incorrect.

[Indy]

You can apologize for being a racist all you want, doesn't make you not a racist.

And as for Brand, it is just my point that rich people who don't need another dollar to live the rest of their lives are constantly looking for ways to make more dollars to live the rest of their lives. They are not saying what they want to say and doing what the want to say because they care about humanity and just want to help. If that were the case, we wouldn't hear about them. They would be quietly helping homeless shelters and clean water projects and sustainable food projects. Not telling us they are doing those things.

[3rdside]

Joe Rogan is not a racist - watch Sam Harris and you'll realise how totally wrong you are (I could have told you myself he's not a racist but Sam Harris is far more credible than I am). His podcast has highlighted serious flaws with its format and content, but again that doesn't make him a racist.

Watch the Sam Harris video.

And lol you're such a cynical American .. people can operate from a position of love, and that's it, and that's what Brand does - there are literally hundreds of articles detailing all the charity work he does.

[Indy]

We've had this argument before. For some reason you think that repeatedly using racist terms doesn't mean you are racist. I completely disagree. You don't say that word without being a racist. You just don't. Maybe as a kid before you realize what it means in society. But not as a grown ass man. He is racist and you can see it. I mean describing walking into a mostly Black neighborhood as Planet of the Apes? Fuck that guy. He's a racist.

[Indy]

Joe Rogan is not a racist - watch Sam Harris and you'll realise how totally wrong you are (I could have told you myself he's not a racist but Sam Harris is far more credible than I am). His podcast has highlighted serious flaws with its format and content, but again that doesn't make him a racist.

Watch the Sam Harris video.

And lol you're such a cynical American .. people can operate from a position of love, and that's it, and that's what Brand does - there are literally hundreds of articles detailing all the charity work he does.

Hmmm, why is that you think?

[3rdside]

I'm being a little too idealistic on Brand, but youtube is the perfect medium for him to help and enlighten (which he's been been doing for a long time even pre-youtube success), *and* he gets paid for it so he's absolutely winning.

That he probably wants to win some more (through greater viewership), well I can't fault his ambition on that one as he's doing it by 'helping and enlightening'.

Here's an article that gives some insight into his personality / his views on money, where he says himself he "gave away too much to charity".

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russell-brand ... es-1642459

That said, it also says he ran out of money and needs to work ... which supports your view that he might be operating from not an entirely altruistic position.

[3rdside]

We've had this argument before. For some reason you think that repeatedly using racist terms doesn't mean you are racist. I completely disagree. You don't say that word without being a racist. You just don't. Maybe as a kid before you realize what it means in society. But not as a grown ass man. He is racist and you can see it. I mean describing walking into a mostly Black neighborhood as Planet of the Apes? Fuck that guy. He's a racist.

Give me a break, it's not a great analogy at all, but if you think that's the case-closed sign of Rogan being a racist then you're lost.

Here's a light-hearted article on Shaq and apes.

https://basketnews.com/news-165500-shaq ... ee-me.html

There are similarities because of the black skin ... right?

And Harris says it best about the N word - how pathetic society must be if it chooses to assign magical status to it, so much so that it can't even be discussed? Rogan doesn't ever use it in a racist context, rather he discusses the word itself - big difference.

[3rdside]

Joe Rogan is not a racist - watch Sam Harris and you'll realise how totally wrong you are (I could have told you myself he's not a racist but Sam Harris is far more credible than I am). His podcast has highlighted serious flaws with its format and content, but again that doesn't make him a racist.

Watch the Sam Harris video.

And lol you're such a cynical American .. people can operate from a position of love, and that's it, and that's what Brand does - there are literally hundreds of articles detailing all the charity work he does.

Hmmm, why is that you think?

You think he's that cynical that he's promoting himself by promoting his own charity work?

And you think In2 is a conspiracy theorist..

[Indy]

And Harris says it best about the N word - how pathetic society must be if it chooses to assign magical status to it, so much so that it can't even be discussed?

Yeah we should always take privileged white guys perspective on racism in America.

[Indy]

Joe Rogan is not a racist - watch Sam Harris and you'll realise how totally wrong you are (I could have told you myself he's not a racist but Sam Harris is far more credible than I am). His podcast has highlighted serious flaws with its format and content, but again that doesn't make him a racist.

Watch the Sam Harris video.

And lol you're such a cynical American .. people can operate from a position of love, and that's it, and that's what Brand does - there are literally hundreds of articles detailing all the charity work he does.

Hmmm, why is that you think?

You think he's that cynical that he's promoting himself by promoting his own charity work?

And you think In2 is a conspiracy theorist..

Who is calling the newspaper to tell them he is doing the charity work?
I am not saying that it is bad, at all. It is great he is doing it. But you are pretending that he is doing it to be altruistic and there is no amount of self-serving going on. That just isn't how it works.

[3rdside]

I acknowledged Brand self serving from a financial perspective but I really feel you don't know Brand at all judging by the points you're making.

[Indy]

I acknowledged Brand self serving from a financial perspective but I really feel you don't know Brand at all judging by the points you're making.

You don't either. You know what he puts out there about himself, or his publicist puts out there. You aren't hanging out with him when the cameras and mics aren't around. Same with everyone.

[3rdside]

And Harris says it best about the N word - how pathetic society must be if it chooses to assign magical status to it, so much so that it can't even be discussed?

Yeah we should always take privileged white guys perspective on racism in America.

It's a word, not a magic spell that if we say three times Satan himself appears.