Cuz Merica

[RatVonDude]

Michelangelo died rich and well spoken

[RatVonDude]

The fundamental differences between a renaissance artist and a post ww2 artist is the detachment from architecture and churchs.

[datzenmike]

Churches paid well.....

[Dolomite]

I love how the story is poor "artists" with little attention to the fact the building was a warehouse, therefore being illegal to live or have large parties in. Looks like it was illegally devided into basically an indoor shanty town. Sure, it sucks people died, but anyone with a brain would realize the danger of what they were doing in said building. The real tragedy here is the unknown numbers of Kerouac's On theroad that perished in the blaze.

[datzenmike]

Accident.... the unforeseen consequences of known causes.

 

Complacency can also be a factor.

[125 CSL]

Well I'm willing to let true artists have a little leeway. Life is enriched by their art, something akin to the mystery of childbirth. To make something out of nothing that can last beyond their lives making them immortal. To say what you cannot in a song, to paint or mold images to delight the eyes, to evoke the senses in a manner that confounds us. It's said that to be great you must suffer for your art. Like all walks of life there is that one out of ten thousand destined to be a Michelangelo.  

I would question the idea that artist were living there. What artist is going to let a rave happen next to their life's work?

[datzenmike]

I doubt there were any 'life's work' around. It was an enclave of artists, wannabe artists or those who just wanted to live 'on the edge' of society but not' that' on the edge. Whatever.... it's all fun and games until something goes wrong and someone is hurt. .

[racerx]

Part of the problem is the cost of housing in the Bay Area.  There's a lot of places like the Ghost Ship in my area and it's obvious people are living there.  Housing is major problem here and I'm seeing more and more people living in vans, their cars and RVs.

[KoHeartsGPA]

Wait....a rave is what led to the fire?.... :rofl: burn baby burn!!!, all the art was consumed by the blaze?....good riddance!

[DaBlist]

[a.d._510_n_ok]

I love how the story is poor "artists" with little attention to the fact the building was a warehouse, therefore being illegal to live or have large parties in. Looks like it was illegally devided into basically an indoor shanty town. Sure, it sucks people died, but anyone with a brain would realize the danger of what they were doing in said building. The real tragedy here is the unknown numbers of Kerouac's On theroad that perished in the blaze.

pepe supporters are now encouraging the alt-right neckbeards to seek out such lefty DIY venues on social media, attend happenings, film code violations and report the violations to local authorities - not to save lives, of course - just as payback for SJWs shitting on nerd/gamer culture as well the hypocrisy of holding big government socialist views while risking people's lives by putting on shows in venues that can't pass basic code and safety standards and greedily refusing to pay "the man" for permits.

[dhp123166]

I trust Forbes as far as an entity that is motivated by money, that is more than a politically biased entity;

 

 http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2016/12/12/the-real-fake-news-is-the-mainstream-media/#72d7eae16a5b

[KoHeartsGPA]

I trust Forbes as far as an entity that is motivated by money, that is more than a politically biased entity;

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbasile/2016/12/12/the-real-fake-news-is-the-mainstream-media/#72d7eae16a5b

We live in the information age and social media has been the steroid injection that tipped the scale against propaganda, this is the media war that's waging right now, i predict there will be major changes as to how news is transmitted by MSM, they know the public doesn't trust them and the viewership numbers support that.

[DaBlist]

[a.d._510_n_ok]

Creationism and socialism ? fuckin apples and oranges, nothing alike. So why does socialism prevail then? In Darwinism, that which does not have an evolutionary advantage is left behind by something that does. Maybe we have to wait longer to see the final outcome... maybe it's still evolving.

Socialism is in direct opposition to evolution. That is your economic survival in socialism is not based on survival of the fittest. You are taken care of regardless of your productivity in socialism. Evolution is survival of the fittest based on heritable characteristics. Creationism is not survival of the fittest just as socialism is not the survival of the most economically fit or productive.

[MikeRL411]

The basic Socialist mantra "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" was long ago disproven as a workable social contract.  It was called Jamestown!  Dilletants blithly went about looking for gold ans other windfalls while eating up the produce of the farmers.  Captain John Smith put an end to this foolishness with his decree "If you don't work, you don't eat." 

 

Yes, the first permanent English settlement in North America was properly called a Communard.

Edited December 12, 2016 by MikeRL411

[KoHeartsGPA]

And history teaches you a lot, the larger the community, the less effective socialism becomes, that is a fact.

[tr8er]

Socialism is in direct opposition to evolution. That is your economic survival in socialism is not based on survival of the fittest. You are taken care of regardless of your productivity in socialism. Evolution is survival of the fittest based on heritable characteristics. Creationism is not survival of the fittest just as socialism is not the survival of the most economically fit or productive.

I see exactly what you are saying, but you disregard so much in that statement. Individual evolution would benefit from 0 socialist society. But only within a non-socialist community. Within socialism one would evolve to be a better socialist. That construct is the environment one would evolve to be best fit.

 

Also, societies evolve. Not just the individual. A communist species evolves to produce a fittest collective to compete with other species or groups. Ants would be a good example. They evolve as a colony and species. The individual is valuable as part of that collective. Individually that ant dies. So are we interested in advancing individually? Or are we more interested in advancing as a country? Or a combination of the two? I'd say the combination is the most relevant response and it requires a communist and individualist construct. Evolution occurs under both regimes.

[racerx]

And a true Socialist or Communist country can't exist w/out some form of capitalism or it will be isolated and/or economically depraved, specially today with Globalism.  And most is a form of dictatorship, they may say that countries such as Cuba is a Communist but is more like a Dictatorship similar to N. Korea.

[MikeRL411]

The nearest thing to a sucessful Socialist community is a convent.

[tr8er]

The nearest thing to a sucessful Socialist community is a convent.

Bee hives. Ant colonies.

[a.d._510_n_ok]

I see exactly what you are saying, but you disregard so much in that statement. Individual evolution would benefit from 0 socialist society. But only within a non-socialist community. Within socialism one would evolve to be a better socialist. That construct is the environment one would evolve to be best fit.

 

Also, societies evolve. Not just the individual. A communist species evolves to produce a fittest collective to compete with other species or groups. Ants would be a good example. They evolve as a colony and species. The individual is valuable as part of that collective. Individually that ant dies. So are we interested in advancing individually? Or are we more interested in advancing as a country? Or a combination of the two? I'd say the combination is the most relevant response and it requires a communist and individualist construct. Evolution occurs under both regimes.

But you've strayed from what Darwin initially meant by evolution (species acquiring better, stronger traits, weaker specimens dying off naturally) to something that is not so much "evolution" as it social planning.

 

the weak ants and bees die off - natural selection.

 

we now keep the weak and frail humans alive - not because it makes us a physically stronger race and a more caring society but it's not evolution in the gene-improving fashion described by Darwin.

 

hell, socialism doesn't even benefit from keeping the frail folks around. in fact it weakens the support network by taking care of ones who can offer nothing but prolonged dependency and by using financial resources taken by the producers and given to those who can only consume - again, the opposite of evolution.

 

BTW, I don't advocate for the killing of anyone to save a few bucks. I just maintain that pure human evolution is the opposite of socialism.

[tr8er]

But you've strayed from what Darwin initially meant by evolution (species acquiring better, stronger traits, weaker specimens dying off naturally) to something that is not so much "evolution" as it social planning.

 

the weak ants and bees die off - natural selection.

 

we now keep the weak and frail humans alive - not because it makes us a physically stronger race and a more caring society but it's not evolution in the gene-improving fashion described by Darwin.

 

hell, socialism doesn't even benefit from keeping the frail folks around. in fact it weakens the support network by taking care of ones who can offer nothing but prolonged dependency and by using financial resources taken by the producers and given to those who can only consume - again, the opposite of evolution.

 

BTW, I don't advocate for the killing of anyone to save a few bucks. I just maintain that pure human evolution is the opposite of socialism.

I agree with everything you've said. Humans are going down the drain genetically. I've used wisdom teeth as a pun laden example of how humans have just stopped in our tracks evolutionarily. Without modern medicine, generations of wisdom teeth genes would have had a slightly higher chance of mortality. Eventually we'd not have wisdom teeth as anything more than a rare anomaly. This is a big problem because genetic mutation is guaranteed. Unchecked, bad genes become common genes. Short term gains (individual) trump long term gains (species).

 

While I wont conject Darwins future prophetism, is not put it past him. His work was surely focused on the past. And that did not involve much with social planning.

 

But. What if species that operate as a colony or cell dependant on the social planning. Bees have evolved to drone bees, worker bees, nurse bees, soldier bees, green bees. All one species with needed mutations. This eusocial development was surely observed by Darwin, though I've not checked.

[Dguy210]

Anyone want to hear a cell biologist rant on why the descriptions y'all giving on natural selection, evolution, and human genetics declining, are mangled and misunderstood? Or should I just save my metaphorical breath on the subject and tune it out? And, yes, I do realize I'm treading very close to the "Appeal to Authority" Logical Fallacy here.

 

[racerx]

Yep, exactly...