Gyroscopic Investing

I don't see the light as incompatible with conflict anymore. Turning towards the light sometimes requires fighting the darkness. Luke Skywalker doesn't become a bad guy because he fights Darth Vader. He does have to struggle a bit with the concept of fighting in the name of good, which is what the cave scene in The Empire Strikes Back is about. But he makes the right decision and becomes a warrior for good.

And I guess I do think that people who are okay with ripping children away from their parents seeking asylum at the border are heartless bastards. There it is.

One of the reasons why I left this place was I didn't want to hang out with those kinds of people online anymore. I didn't like the effect that the exposure had been having on me for all those years. Despite the appeal of intellectual sparring, thought experimentation, and deep discussions that I loved so much, I resisted coming back because I was afraid I would be too weak to resist the lure of Heartless Bastardism that I had fed on for so long. But now I feel like it's actually a different problem: that I'm so incredibly angry at those people for their willingness to constantly excuse the greatest evils I've witnessed in my life that I've lost all ability to empathize and communicate with them.

I guess I'll leave again.

You're living in a dream world. Governments need to enforce the laws that are on the books. If that doesn't happen, then we just slowly turn into the type of nation that these immigrants are trying to get away from.

Government bureaucracy is a terrible thing to fall into. Ask me how I know. It's not because it's evil, just heartless. That's just the way it is. There's no getting around it.

If people don't want their children "ripped from their arms by Hitler himself", then very simple, don't try to enter this country illegally.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that the same sorts of things happened under lots of presidents, not just Trump. It's just that the media with its fixation on demonizing Trump has focused a lot more attention on these things.

stuper1 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:24 pm You're living in a dream world. Governments need to enforce the laws that are on the books. If that doesn't happen, then we just slowly turn into the type of nation that these immigrants are trying to get away from.

Government bureaucracy is a terrible thing to fall into. Ask me how I know. It's not because it's evil, just heartless. That's just the way it is. There's no getting around it.

If people don't want their children "ripped from their arms by Hitler himself", then very simple, don't try to enter this country illegally.

By the way, I'm pretty sure that the same sorts of things happened under lots of presidents, not just Trump. It's just that the media with its fixation on demonizing Trump has focused a lot more attention on these things.

If hawkish border policy will simply make "illegals" miserable, while not having a meaningfully beneficial effect on native-born Americans, then it's perhaps you, not PS, that lives in a "Dream World." I mean the point isn't just to make people miserable, right? It's to actually have some sort of net-benefit on humanity?

And yes government bureaucracy is antiseptic and can be utterly brutal... so probably best to limit the most violent and restrictive arm of its brutality and have it stick to issuing Social Security checks and delivering mail clumsily rather than holding people in cages.

And let's not pretend this has anything to do with some principle of "The Rule of Law." I have yet to meet anyone who will, when asked, admit to wanting every law in the U.S. enforced as rigidly as possible, as I believe they realize, as I do, the system would literally collapse under its own weight... so it's a matter of people's individual priority which laws they want enforced through a militarized police state and which ones they want borderline-ignored for most people. Therefore, there are implied value-judgments there that usurp/override so-called "rule of law" principles.

To any folks who fancy themselves some degree of civil libertarian (even if they only value these principles for American citizens), I'd challenge you to look into the many cases of American citizens getting swept up in the "brutal bureaucracy" of immigration enforcement. There's no clean, natural way to tell that someone is an American citizen. American citizens have been detained for weeks while "the bureaucracy" bumbles about. It puts individual rights on their heels, and reinforces/fortifies violent state powers.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 9:52 amTo any folks who fancy themselves some degree of civil libertarian (even if they only value these principles for American citizens), I'd challenge you to look into the many cases of American citizens getting swept up in the "brutal bureaucracy" of immigration enforcement. There's no clean, natural way to tell that someone is an American citizen. American citizens have been detained for weeks while "the bureaucracy" bumbles about. It puts individual rights on their heels, and reinforces/fortifies violent state powers.

The border is the place to do that in a clean, natural way. If the border were not porous, then the issues you describe wouldn't happen, right?

Here's what I think is a great fact-based look at the family separation issue. I hadn't heard of the Bipartisan Policy Center before, but it looks like they did a great job here of describing the situation:
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/why-a ... explainer/

The introductory paragraph (emphasis mine):

A new Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security “zero-tolerance policy” against illegal entry into the United States means that everyone caught trying to enter the country between lawful ports of entry would be referred for criminal prosecution.

The family separations stemmed (by law) from the decision to treat this attempted entry as criminal rather than civil, which is apparently an option the President has under the law. An issue on which he campaigned and won. (And it's my understanding that Mexico, just as an example, treats illegal entry as a felony and not just merely criminal!)

So these aren't refugees seeking asylum or they'd go to a lawful port of entry. They're trying to sneak across the border.

Give up on the Hate, it will eat you from inside out.


I think I have posted this before but if not here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

shekels wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:01 am Give up on the Hate, it will eat you from inside out.


I think I have posted this before but if not here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Quality of Life anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK6ixvKxw7E

shekels wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:13 am

shekels wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:01 am Give up on the Hate, it will eat you from inside out.


I think I have posted this before but if not here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

Quality of Life anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK6ixvKxw7E

Exponential population.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ9dhqo0LA8

Y'all have a great day.

What I think is funny is that somebody like Trump gets blamed for enforcing our immigration laws, as if it's his problem to deal with the poor life that people in other countries have. Trump's job is to do what's best for Americans.

The people who should be blamed for the poor lives of people in other countries are the leaders of those countries who through mismanagement and a lot of corruption have thrown their own countries under the bus for decades and centuries. It's not Trump's fault if the leaders of Mexico and name a bunch of other countries can't get their acts together and develop their own countries so that their own citizens can get good jobs there and don't want to leave.

I'd like to apologize. I realized that I'm not mad at you guys, I'm really still mad at myself, and I was taking it out on you. It was inappropriate and I'm sorry. Clearly I have more work to do on that front.

Regardless, I do kind of fear for the future when we can have such divergent basic views of what's right and wrong, and what's acceptable to sacrifice in the interests of order or convenience or loyalty. I'll admit that it was a genuine shock to me to learn just how many people shrugged their shoulders or rejoiced as ICE agents ripped families apart and separated children from parents lawfully seeking asylum at the border--even after some of those children died and the conditions of the facilities they're kept in were revealed to be inhumane in the extreme. I mean sure, some of these people broke the law, but... jesus christ man. The utter inhumanity it all is just appalling to me. Surely there must be a better way, so we don't lose our own souls and moral legitimacy in the process.

Pointedstick wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:33 pm I'd like to apologize. I realized that I'm not mad at you guys, I'm really still mad at myself, and I was taking it out on you. It was inappropriate and I'm sorry. Clearly I have more work to do on that front.

Regardless, I do kind of fear for the future when we can have such divergent basic views of what's right and wrong, and what's acceptable to sacrifice in the interests of order or convenience or loyalty. I'll admit that it was a genuine shock to me to learn just how many people shrugged their shoulders or rejoiced as ICE agents ripped families apart and separated children from parents lawfully seeking asylum at the border--even after some of those children died and the conditions of the facilities they're kept in were revealed to be inhumane in the extreme. I mean sure, some of these people broke the law, but... jesus christ man. The utter inhumanity it all is just appalling to me. Surely there must be a better way, so we don't lose our own souls and moral legitimacy in the process.

That's pretty much how I felt when I posted my last reply in the "everything costs too much .... " thread - literally MILLIONS murdered, not many blink an eye. Trump passes gas in public - the unforgivable sin and millions want him gone, many even before he passed gas. Impeachment theatrics - the media goes wild. And the song goes on ......... and on ............................... and on .................................

I'm not rejoicing to see people suffering. I'd love it if everybody could live a happy, prosperous life. However, America has enough people right now. We have enough on our plate just trying to get jobs for the people we already have. Other countries need to step up and take care of their own. If we take all of their best and brightest and hardworkingest, then how will they ever raise themselves up?

It is the corporations benefiting from low wages in places like Shenzhen and Vietnam, but US policies are there to help enable these moves because those same corporations get to buy a lot of laws and regulations via their lobbyists and their campaign contributions - to both major parties. It's a stinking corrupt system. Its only saving grace is the level of systemic incompetence and partisan bickering that limits the damage they can do.

PointedStick, I sympathize with many of the things you said, but you lost me when you started picking political sides. If anything, it's the Democrats who have pushed open-border policies, and the reason is simple: it benefits them and it's their equivalent of Republican gerrymandering. The Democrats could care less about the impact of uncontrolled, unskilled immigration on the native lower class. They are doing this because it's is an easy way to ensure greater numbers of future Democratic voters. I also consider the Democrats to be master media manipulators, especially since the media are practically in their pocket. Republicans do the same yes, but not nearly to the same extent. I'm also not sure your claim is true that it's mainly Republicans who are guilty of ethics violations. It's just that Democrats are less likely to get nailed for it because of said media manipulation - or it's simply not reported widely even if it does happen. I don't get how you're giving all this a free pass.

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose. My half cent.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:20 pm I don't have anything to add, but I would like to cast my vote.

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:53 pm Shouldn't the anger be directed at the multinational monopolist corporations who, aided and abetted by the U.S. military, a host of NGOs, and approximately 235 whores, have been harvesting these countries for decades? These aren't climate refugees; they are the victims of the proverbial Economic Hitman. It's not terribly hard to understand the political imperative to move these people somewhere else or why the Elites--who have squeezed every dollar they can out of the financial system and who have now set their sights on cornering the world's natural resources (as trustees of the planet, dontcha know)--are so hell bent on perpetuating the narrative of climate change.

Great post, Maddy.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 8:14 am PointedStick, I sympathize with many of the things you said, but you lost me when you started picking political sides. If anything, it's the Democrats who have pushed open-border policies, and the reason is simple: it benefits them and it's their equivalent of Republican gerrymandering. The Democrats could care less about the impact of uncontrolled, unskilled immigration on the native lower class. They are doing this because it's is an easy way to ensure greater numbers of future Democratic voters. I also consider the Democrats to be master media manipulators, especially since the media are practically in their pocket. Republicans do the same yes, but not nearly to the same extent. I'm also not sure your claim is true that it's mainly Republicans who are guilty of ethics violations. It's just that Democrats are less likely to get nailed for it because of said media manipulation - or it's simply not reported widely even if it does happen. I don't get how you're giving all this a free pass.

Also very well stated and I also wonder what PS's Kool-aid got spiked with.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:41 am Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose.

+1. Jeez Moda, you're clearly a smart guy, but you sound like all the others that maintain if you don't agree with their view 100% you are a moron.

I've never agreed with PS 100%, nor anyone here probably. There's a reason I end up coming to blows with only a handful of folks. I have no problem disagreeing with folks based purely on their opinion. Anarchists... libertarians... conservatives like Xan... Monarchists like Ad... liberal-leaning centrists... hard leftists.

Yes I was harsh. So was Maddy's insulting post to PS. Maddy isn't a shadow of what PS or half of the original posters on this forum are/were, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise while Maddy insults people who've practically got their names etched into the foundation of this place... even if I, yes, have to get insulting myself.

And I'm not really that smart. I think I've developed an ability to sniff out b*llshit and bad-faith arguments, and that's about it.

Ugg, and there you have it. What passes for political discussion in America these days.

We should try something really hard...start with facts. If we can't agree on the facts then sides have to state why "their" facts and sources are credible and the other side can rebut. (CNN/FOX/whatever sucks and is never truthful is not a rebuttal...proof of error pertaining to thing being discussed required.)

Then, have a discussion.

Anyone who goes ad hominem on anyone get's all their posts in the thread deleted by the moderator.

I am beyond sick of start with a world view and then fit/reject facts within that view

ugg, ugg, ugg

Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:57 pm I am beyond sick of start with a world view and then fit/reject facts within that view

I almost don't know where to find reliable facts anymore. My tentative assumption whenever I see "facts" presented anywhere that relate even the tiniest bit to politics is that the entity presenting those "facts" might be distorting what they're presenting, omitting other important and relevant facts, etc.

In other words, I don't think it's necessarily simple to "stick to the facts" in this Information Age. We can't even agree 100% on what the facts are.

Tortoise wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:38 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:57 pm I am beyond sick of start with a world view and then fit/reject facts within that view

I almost don't know where to find reliable facts anymore. My tentative assumption whenever I see "facts" presented anywhere that relate even the tiniest bit to politics is that the entity presenting those "facts" might be distorting what they're presenting, omitting other important and relevant facts, etc.

In other words, I don't think it's necessarily simple to "stick to the facts" in this Information Age. We can't even agree 100% on what the facts are.

I've recently been impressed by the Bipartisan Policy Center but I don't really know much about them.

What we refer to as “facts” are actually:

data + interpretation + persuasion

So attempting to base a discussion on “facts” is unlikely to be fruitful, and basing a discussion on raw data is highly impractical.

Facts remain discernible, they really do you just have to know how to look for them.

Let’s run this real quick

Trump made a call to Ukraine

A whistleblower made a complaint about that call

Trump inquired about a Biden investigation during the phone call

These are facts. Both political parties acknowledge the above, there is no dispute about the above.

In this super basic outline this is where we depart from facts and begin the journey into spin.

If we had the time or inclination we could review public testimony and find where there are probable facts...the normal standard here is 2 or more people say the same thing about what happened in terms of what happened not their interpretations of what happened.

For example

The meeting started at 2pm

The meeting started at 215pm...fact the meeting started around 2pm

The president sounded ticked off

The president had a cordial conversation

Fact...the president had a conversation/tone of conversation unknown or disputed

Not saying the above is easy, but personally I usually don’t come to firm conclusions about anything I don’t feel I have a good handle on the facts.

So do I have a quasi opinion on the above, yes. But I fully believe I am at the end of the day uniformed and relying on mental heuristic shortcuts.

Facts remain discernible, they really do you just have to know how to look for them.

Let’s run this real quick

Trump made a call to Ukraine

A whistleblower made a complaint about that call

Trump inquired about a Biden investigation during the phone call

These are facts. Both political parties acknowledge the above, there is no dispute about the above.

In this super basic outline this is where we depart from facts and begin the journey into spin.

If we had the time or inclination we could review public testimony and find where there are probable facts...the normal standard here is 2 or more people say the same thing about what happened in terms of what happened not their interpretations of what happened.

For example

The meeting started at 2pm

The meeting started at 215pm...fact the meeting started around 2pm

The president sounded ticked off

The president had a cordial conversation

Fact...the president had a conversation/tone of conversation unknown or disputed

Not saying the above is easy, but personally I usually don’t come to firm conclusions about anything I don’t feel I have a good handle on the facts.

So do I have a quasi opinion on the above, yes. But I fully concede I am at the end of the day uninformed and relying on mental heuristic shortcuts.

The biggest problem here and in the US in general is that you all spend too much time and energy worrying about things you have no control over. It’s the opposite of why you like the PP.

You nailed it...as an American I think we don’t have any really serious problems so we spin way too much on really stupid stuff.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:41 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose. My half cent.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Maddy's role as a respected "pillar of this place." Maddy has posted many, many times with thoughtful and well-informed views - and don't forget that unlike you, I, or many others here, she has a legal background and thus a better understanding of many issues than we have. I welcome her contributions to this forum even if I disagree with them sometimes (and I have). I think your attempt to demean her because you don't agree with her views is entirely un-called for and not in the spirit of this forum. Moda, I often disagree with your positions no matter how they're stated. Is this how you view me as well?

I'd seriously like to understand why you went after Maddy like that. Plus, realize that people have been banned from this forum for that type of behavior, so can we assume it won't be repeated?

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:01 pm

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 10:41 am

moda0306 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:40 am

Maddy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2020 10:17 am You know, when you announce that your entire family is on Medicaid while simultaneously posting about the joys of early retirement and the creative ways in which your considerable assets and talents are being invested, you sort of disqualify yourself from the soapbox when it comes to the question of how illegal border-crossing should be managed.

Ummm what? There is nothing illegal about using the tools for government gives us to be financial secure, safe, mobile, etc. Perhaps there is something immoral about using those tools, but I'm quite sure a glass house/stones analogy would probably be pertinent here.

PS is a pillar of what this place became at its best, and he could be leading a communist revolution with a trainload of illegal immigrants and still have more clout on this forum than you and your meandering, factless tirades against "The Left."

Moda, that’s rather harsh. I think we all benefit from others points of view, whether we agree with them or not. We all need ears to hear each other or we will become worse than those we oppose. My half cent.

I'd like to give a shout-out to Maddy's role as a respected "pillar of this place." Maddy has posted many, many times with thoughtful and well-informed views - and don't forget that unlike you, I, or many others here, she has a legal background and thus a better understanding of many issues than we have. I welcome her contributions to this forum even if I disagree with them sometimes (and I have). I think your attempt to demean her because you don't agree with her views is entirely un-called for and not in the spirit of this forum. Moda, I often disagree with your positions no matter how they're stated. Is this how you view me as well?

I'd seriously like to understand why you went after Maddy like that. Plus, realize that people have been banned from this forum for that type of behavior, so can we assume it won't be repeated?

WiseOne,

I don't view you this way because you're usually polite, but as expected yes I disagree with you quite often, but as I've said that's not a strong source of my critique here. And I didn't "go after Maddy." My comments were purely about the nature of her posts, and not personal in any way, especially in the context of her insulting post to PS about his opinion not being valid because his kids are on Medicaid. There was some hyperbole, yes, but a far cry from what has ever gotten anyone banned here, unless we're including back when some liberal immigration dove poster got banned for when craig didn't like his style, so as I say that, perhaps there is some precedent to that and feel free to ban away if you think that me insulting Maddy's fact-tracking in her posts is more offensive than her making a very personal-related attack to PS, who was a pillar of this place, then do what y'all gotta do.

I guess we just disagree as to whether her posts have much insight at all, but it has nothing to do with "disagreeing" with her. If someone came on here espousing exactly my views in similar nonsensical ways, I'd find nothing positive about their presence.

We're literally in a zone where anyone who thinks Trump is off his rocker gets accused of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" without a peep... Is that any different than telling someone they are partisan, don't make sense, or are full of it? Not really... and if that slightly more pointed language gets me banned then goodbye, and I dedicate my time here to PS and all the awesome debaters and informed commenters that are no longer present here, and the few that are.

Peace.