are you your establishment ' s drug dealer ? <| sep |> My question remains why isn ' t the actor responsible for the consequences of their actions ? <| sep |> Not many people are aware how that Nasus works . Whenever someone plays it I see them get flamed because nobody knows why his stacks are so low . How to stop your team from throwing , well that ' s not really up to you . People may say there ' s something you can do , but really if they want to play a certain way they ' re going to do that . Often times telling people to change how they ' re playing doesn ' t really help . <| sep |> Could easily be Bronx Science if making an assumption haha . Then the trouble makers came from Clinton HS ! <| sep |> Firstly , no worries no apology needed . I was mostly trying to figure out how I can communicate better and get my point across without irritating . And it wasn ' t like you wrote a flame post or anything . Speaking of flame , hope your fever is better . On the general question of morality . It seems clear that humans have a moral framework . We make moral decisions all the time and while we may not agree with each other about them , we can understand them , so there must be morality structures in us . Throughout history morality has been largely a philosophical subject but it ' s recently become a topic of scientific inquiry . There are a few people working on it , John Mikhail is the only name I can think of off the top of my head . It ' s a very young field but already there are some interesting things coming out of it . Actually , the lowest strata of society seems to have a pretty decent handle on what ' s going on . For just one example , if you look at polling data which is really all we have to go on you ' ll see something like the lowest 70 % of the income scale thinks their opinions have no impact on what government and big business does . It looks to me like it ' s the upper middle class i . e . those in the top 2030 %, minus the elite 0 . 1 % that most heavily suffer from this aversion to reason and rationality . This is the demographic that ' s been the principle target of the indoctrination system since its inception so it makes sense . Wall St JournalNew York Times readers and their friends , roughly speaking . Thankfully it isn ' t no one committed to objectivity , there aren ' t many but their work is influential though not popular in the mainstream . Chomsky is someone I ' ve yet to see irrationality from , and I ' ve looked pretty hard . He speaks on quite a wide range but there are others in specific areas . A list of names would be pointless , and it ' s usually not hard to tell from reading something whether it ' s analysis or opinion . The position of presidency clearly has quite a bit of power , I ' ve yet to see any serious work suggest otherwise . It ' s been pretty variable in how much of that power is in the hands of the person fulfilling the role Reagan didn ' t seem to know what the US policies even were , it ' s questionable how much Bush Jr . knew what was happening either but the likes of Bill Clinton , Obama , and Trump , don ' t seem to be just actors , and they all have some relevant background note ' relevant ' not ' appropriate '!. If you compare the policies of Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton , across the board Clinton ' s policies are less regressive and she had some progressive programs . If she had gotten in the liberal left could be focussed on trying to push her to get them through , what they ' ll most likely be doing instead under a Trump presidency is fighting to not lose advances that have been made in the recent past . And that ' s just on the liberal end of the left , further left it seems to have already started happening though that ' s just based on anecdotal accounts . The rest is based on looking at their policies and reading analysis , mostly by Media Lens and Chomsky . I didn ' t like seeing anarchists out campaigning for Hilary Clinton . I thought that was a waste of time . It ' s been quite some time since there was as big a difference as this between the two presidential candidates . It ' s still small but it ' s there and it ' s worth spending 10 minutes voting against the worst of the two . The people on the left who chose not to vote did themselves a disservice . Zizek ' s stance couldn ' t be amoral since it ' s on a actual moral question . Do you vote for a president who will have bad policies or one who will have worse policies ? Sure he think it ' s amoral I bet , or maybe even moral . Please tell me what the notion that the president merely presides and is just a figurehead is based on ? Because , on the face of it , the office and the person who fills it seem to have at least some power , if not quite a bit , so you ' d need pretty decent evidence to show that it ' s likely not the case . Remember the burden of proof lies on the more extraordinary claim . I spent days writing this post . Maybe you were right and I don ' t belong on the internet