Gyroscopic Investing

bedraggled wrote: THis topic has gone viral as mentioned in the June 19 Economist.

Got a link?

No link.  I read it in a paper copy.

bedraggled wrote: No link.  I read it in a paper copy.

Paper? What's that?

We get the Economist via snail mail.  You people did see that I have two functioning rotary phones, right?.  I am impressed the way posters here quote stuff!  All those blue paragraphs!  Golly! Gee whiz! 

Apparently, Seinfeld and Chris Rock are worried about saying "something" in a performance.  Do they still do shows?  Big loss if Chris Rock shuts it down.

bedraggled wrote: Apparently, Seinfeld and Chris Rock are worried about saying "something" in a performance.  Do they still do shows?  Big loss if Chris Rock shuts it down.

Jeeze, people need to grow a pair and thick skin.  How are we going to reverse this trend?

MachineGhost wrote:

bedraggled wrote: Apparently, Seinfeld and Chris Rock are worried about saying "something" in a performance.  Do they still do shows?  Big loss if Chris Rock shuts it down.

Jeeze, people need to grow a pair and thick skin.  How are we going to reverse this trend?

Grow a pair? Wake up.  Why would anyone who didn't have to deal with the trigger warnings, the "you hurt my feelings" BS.  The risk that anything they said be twitted as evidence they are not PC?

How are we going to reverse this trend? 
We ain't.  Not till we have a minister of (PC) speech and e.g. global warming "denial" is an actual crime. 

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

bedraggled wrote: Apparently, Seinfeld and Chris Rock are worried about saying "something" in a performance.  Do they still do shows?  Big loss if Chris Rock shuts it down.

Jeeze, people need to grow a pair and thick skin.  How are we going to reverse this trend?

Grow a pair? Wake up.  Why would anyone who didn't have to deal with the trigger warnings, the "you hurt my feelings" BS.  The risk that anything they said be twitted as evidence they are not PC?

How are we going to reverse this trend? 
We ain't.  Not till we have a minister of (PC) speech and e.g. global warming "denial" is an actual crime. 

Equating government free-speech violations with that of the private sector reactions is one of the biggest mistakes we could be making in this arena. Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying (secretly), and the executive branch can do anything up to taking unilateral murdering action against "terrorists" (secretively), and especially when this spying and terrorist-labeling is being use against the only real media we have in this country.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative, since they support (usually) those violations. It's a lot more fun to talk about A&E firing a redneck from their reality show line up for what he said, or general social mores around certain conversations of religion, gender, etc.

But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks.

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Jeeze, people need to grow a pair and thick skin.  How are we going to reverse this trend?

Grow a pair? Wake up.  Why would anyone who didn't have to deal with the trigger warnings, the "you hurt my feelings" BS.  The risk that anything they said be twitted as evidence they are not PC?

How are we going to reverse this trend? 
We ain't.  Not till we have a minister of (PC) speech and e.g. global warming "denial" is an actual crime. 

Equating government free-speech violations with that of the private sector reactions is one of the biggest mistakes we could be making in this arena. Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying (secretly), and the executive branch can do anything up to taking unilateral murdering action against "terrorists" (secretively), and especially when this spying and terrorist-labeling is being use against the only real media we have in this country.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative, since they support (usually) those violations. It's a lot more fun to talk about A&E firing a redneck from their reality show line up for what he said, or general social mores around certain conversations of religion, gender, etc.

But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks.

Moda,

1.  "Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying "

Perhaps this is semantics, but the NSA is a threat to privacy, not free speech.  Is anyone (aside from e.g. drug dealers, murderers, etc) going to change what they say based on knowing that the NSA may or may not be listening?  Today people are changing what they say e.g. not saying things, comedians are not willing to perform on college campuses because of the PC/leftist nonsense.  And as I say, I do not believe we have reached peak leftism so I expect this to continue to get worse. 

2.  We have the most progressive president ever who by no coincidence is the least transparent/most secretive administration ever, who is in favor of all the NSA spying.  Yes many on the right agree with him on NSA spying, but you can't blame it on the right when you have a guy in the white house that Nixon would envy (on many levels).  Of course Hillary may be worse.

3.  "But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks. "

Lets talk about actual risks.  Today.  IF the NSA heard every word of every conversation of everyone on this board what would be the actual risk?  The actual risk, today of saying non-PC things is real and well publicized.

I have to say that I agree with Benko on this. The NSA is spying, not censoring. The modern social media outrage and shaming machine is real. People write or tweet things that are not 100% PC and lose their jobs in the ensuing manufactured pearl-couching spree. This is not to say that the NSA is benign, but again, they're not actually restraining any speech. If you feel they are, it's all in your mind. But the PC machine is not in your mind; if you say something they don't like, they can and will call you out over it with 10,000 outraged brainwashed teenagers and college students, resulting in very real consequences to you. It's not about "free speech" from a first amendment perspective, but it's a very real threat to the actual freedom of speech in private contexts.

Pointedstick wrote: I have to say that I agree with Benko on this. The NSA is spying, not censoring. The modern social media outrage and shaming machine is real. People write or tweet things that are not 100% PC and lose their jobs in the ensuing manufactured pearl-couching spree. This is not to say that the NSA is benign, but again, they're not actually restraining any speech. If you feel they are, it's all in your mind. But the PC machine is not in your mind; if you say something they don't like, they can and will call you out over it with 10,000 outraged brainwashed teenagers and college students, resulting in very real consequences to you. It's not about "free speech" from a first amendment perspective, but it's a very real threat to the actual freedom of speech in private contexts.

Isn't this all a free market response though?  Consumers don't like what they hear and they take action by [threatening to] withhold[ing] their support aka ostracism.  So can't be too hypocritical as a free market ideologue that it's occurring in the private sector instead of via statism.  This problem transcends ideology unless you can make a convincing case it is actually a result of liberalism (and not partisan fear-mongering from conservatives -- what are they never fear-mongering over by virture of their inherent nature?)

I'm glad this intellectual honeypot isn't PC because I'd be fired and buried six feet under several times over (next to Reub).  Ah, such bittersweet injustice!

MachineGhost wrote: Isn't this all a free market response though?  Consumers don't like what they hear and they take action by [threatening to] withhold[ing] their support aka ostracism.  So can't be too hypocritical as a free market ideologue that it's occurring in the private sector instead of via statism.

Absolutely. I've never claimed that this was governmental in nature. It's purely private. But why are problems limited to the government? Like Tenn, I too suspect that it will sort itself out eventually, like all bad things in the private sector do. But it's still damn annoying in the present!

MachineGhost wrote: This problem transcends ideology unless you can make a convincing case it is actually a result of liberalism (and not partisan fear-mongering from conservatives -- what are they never fear-mongering over by virture of their inherent nature?)

The current crop of endless butthurt over everything does not transcend ideology; it's a predominately liberal thing. This is not to say that conservatives don't have aggravating censorious tendencies as well, but they've been nowhere near as successful as liberals have been in mobilizing connected idiots to publicly shame and harm faraway strangers en masse. It's quite a phenomenon, really; as fascinating as it is disturbing.

Pointedstick wrote: The current crop of endless butthurt over everything does not transcend ideology; it's a predominately liberal thing. This is not to say that conservatives don't have aggravating censorious tendencies as well, but they've been nowhere near as successful as liberals have been in mobilizing connected idiots to publicly shame and harm faraway strangers en masse. It's quite a phenomenon, really; as fascinating as it is disturbing.

Well, okay, but lets call that Democrat ingroupthink ideology and not liberal.  Liberal implies progressivism, tolerance and open-minded; the anti-thesis of conservatism.

MachineGhost wrote: Liberal implies progressivism, tolerance and open-minded; the anti-thesis of conservatism.

The 1960s liberals i.e. "JFK liberals" are a totally different animal from the "progressives" of today.

IN many ways I admire the 1960's open minded liberals.  But they ain't the "for your own good", Alinsky, Marxist group which runs the Ds today.  The open minded liberals of old are gone. 

Not saying that the Rs are without fault (obviously).

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The current crop of endless butthurt over everything does not transcend ideology; it's a predominately liberal thing. This is not to say that conservatives don't have aggravating censorious tendencies as well, but they've been nowhere near as successful as liberals have been in mobilizing connected idiots to publicly shame and harm faraway strangers en masse. It's quite a phenomenon, really; as fascinating as it is disturbing.

Well, okay, but lets call that Democrat ingroupthink ideology and not liberal.  Liberal implies progressivism, tolerance and open-minded; the anti-thesis of conservatism.

I'm not even sure the USA, and perhaps the world, is divided along Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative, or haves/have nots any more - those divisions make great sensational news and political rhetoric but don't really seem to describe reality as they did in the past.  It seems to me to be more divided along the line of "self-centered/want it my way" vs. "caring about others and be willing to self-sacrafice to help them".

... Mountaineer

MachineGhost wrote:

bedraggled wrote: Apparently, Seinfeld and Chris Rock are worried about saying "something" in a performance.  Do they still do shows?  Big loss if Chris Rock shuts it down.

Jeeze, people need to grow a pair and thick skin.  How are we going to reverse this trend?

Grow a pair?  This post is offensive to wymyn everywhere.  Stop oppressing me with you phallacracy, Cock-oppressor!

Pointedstick wrote:
The current crop of endless butthurt over everything does not transcend ideology; it's a predominately liberal thing. This is not to say that conservatives don't have aggravating censorious tendencies as well, but they've been nowhere near as successful as liberals have been in mobilizing connected idiots to publicly shame and harm faraway strangers en masse. It's quite a phenomenon, really; as fascinating as it is disturbing.

Please, have you even heard about the "war on Christmas" as evidenced by people sayin "happy holidays?"  There are many examples on both sides of the aisle.  It's possible that democrats are better at mobilizing social media.

dragoncar wrote: Please, have you even heard about the "war on Christmas" as evidenced by people sayin "happy holidays?"  There are many examples on both sides of the aisle.  It's possible that democrats are better at mobilizing social media.

That was my point, yes. When have conservatives ever been successful at getting someone's career flushed down the toilet for saying, "Happy holidays?"

dragoncar wrote: There are many examples on both sides of the aisle. 

Being on this board has been very educational.  A line to this effect i.e. both sides do it, etc.  is talking point #1 whenever the current left (as opposed to the 1960s actually open-minded left) is criticized. 

Benko wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote: Grow a pair? Wake up.  Why would anyone who didn't have to deal with the trigger warnings, the "you hurt my feelings" BS.  The risk that anything they said be twitted as evidence they are not PC?

How are we going to reverse this trend? 
We ain't.  Not till we have a minister of (PC) speech and e.g. global warming "denial" is an actual crime. 

Equating government free-speech violations with that of the private sector reactions is one of the biggest mistakes we could be making in this arena. Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying (secretly), and the executive branch can do anything up to taking unilateral murdering action against "terrorists" (secretively), and especially when this spying and terrorist-labeling is being use against the only real media we have in this country.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative, since they support (usually) those violations. It's a lot more fun to talk about A&E firing a redneck from their reality show line up for what he said, or general social mores around certain conversations of religion, gender, etc.

But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks.

Moda,

1.  "Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying "

Perhaps this is semantics, but the NSA is a threat to privacy, not free speech.  Is anyone (aside from e.g. drug dealers, murderers, etc) going to change what they say based on knowing that the NSA may or may not be listening?  Today people are changing what they say e.g. not saying things, comedians are not willing to perform on college campuses because of the PC/leftist nonsense.  And as I say, I do not believe we have reached peak leftism so I expect this to continue to get worse. 

2.  We have the most progressive president ever who by no coincidence is the least transparent/most secretive administration ever, who is in favor of all the NSA spying.  Yes many on the right agree with him on NSA spying, but you can't blame it on the right when you have a guy in the white house that Nixon would envy (on many levels).  Of course Hillary may be worse.

3.  "But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks. "

Lets talk about actual risks.  Today.  IF the NSA heard every word of every conversation of everyone on this board what would be the actual risk?  The actual risk, today of saying non-PC things is real and well publicized.

I probably should have been more clear.  The NSA spying, in and of itself, is not a violation of free speech.  Their coordination with other branches of government, however, and those other branches' abilities to enact any number of ridiculous "war-time" powers to arrest or kill "criminals" (like Glenn Greenwald), or "traitors" (like Edward Snowden), or "terrorists" (like (insert unfortunate Muslim in foreign country here)) with little-to-no due process or legal grounds, as well as the defense/gov't agencies to see what the press knows and what they are finding out and getting in front of it, blunting it with other news, etc, is absolutely a violation of free speech.  When there are calls to arrest members of the media and whistle blowers who release "classified information" about ILLEGAL spying programs, rather than the heads of those programs that lied to congress, that is a HUGE threat to free speech and the free press.

But the NSA's work in spying (violation of the 4th amendment... not the 1st, overtly) that is vital to all those other items.  It also helps the defense department and others cover up their own violation of the law.


We have a president that is very progressive in some areas.  I don't care what word you want to put on advocating for a spy-state... "conservative," or "statist."  But it's supported by lots of conservatives even more-so than most liberals, regardless of what label you want to put on Obama, so (obviously) it doesn't fit into the traditional right v. left framework, and doesn't get folks as fired up as when they talk about tracking gun ownership, which is a FAR less obvious threat to our liberties and the checks/balances WITHIN our government than protecting the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of Americans.  I'm not saying this makes conservatives wrong on the 2nd Amendment.  I'm just saying it's obvious where the true motivations are for far too many people when defending the constitution... and those are tribal... not fundamental/philosophical.

The "risk" of the NSA hearing words that are outside the standard and appear to be anything close to fomenting some sort of revolution could be huge. I would definitely read up on some Glenn Greenwald (the best advocate for civil libertarianism I've heard).  After following some of his best speeches/debates on youtube, or best articles, you'll see how clear the threat is... or at least I think you will.  I never really saw it as that much of a threat, but GG's arguments are pretty damn well put together... I haven't heard anyone on the defense hawk side come even close to dismantling his position.  I honestly think that the present nat'l security / spy state is the biggest threat to our country.  Not because people involved are evil.  But because the people involved are PEOPLE.  When you can do the kinds of things the NSA and other associated agencies within the government can do without oversight or due process, the amount of damage and manipulation you can engineer is unbelievable.

But I hate to simply hand the torch to someone else, but I think Tenn will agree with me that simply following Glenn Greenwald is one of the best ways to understand where we're coming from, and starting to see the threats.  It's like deferring to MG on supplements, Gumby on diet, or Desert on brisket.

If I had to put it succinctly, it opens me up to the structural danger of centralized, unchecked power... but unlike many conservatives, it's not looking at "the federal government," necessarily, as "unchecked, centralized power," but a lack of checks/balances and due process within the activities of the federal government that truly represent the catastrophic threat.  Basically, as long as you maintain checks/balances and due process, and avoid a "war-time" state of operations permanently, the federal government isn't just one entity... it serves to look at it as three entities tasked with checking each other, or perhaps even more split up.  However, when you allow groups within government to operate in secrecy (mainly defense/NSA/CIA), they tend towards the lowest common denominator.

I'm doing a pretty piss-poor job explaining it.  Hopefully Glenn Greenwald articles/videos will help.  Here's some links to hours of videos that I think are great... might take a while to get you motivated to watch them, but I got hooked pretty quick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1jAOJHvll0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=282mzrjytgs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq2Hi_SD8pQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktRzyiIK1p8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNGGYYF1jdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqc4jWKjB7o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1tw3mEOoE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edOYR79pL-w

You may disagree with him, but if you are going to have to debate anyone on this topic, Glenn Greenwald, IMO, is the tip of the civil libertarian spear.

Pointedstick wrote:

dragoncar wrote: Please, have you even heard about the "war on Christmas" as evidenced by people sayin "happy holidays?"  There are many examples on both sides of the aisle.  It's possible that democrats are better at mobilizing social media.

That was my point, yes. When have conservatives ever been successful at getting someone's career flushed down the toilet for saying, "Happy holidays?"

Oh I missed that.  I'm sure it's happened, but less prevalent.  I'm biased, though, and will say that's more because firing someone for being unacceptably or illegally intolerant of others is more justified than firing someone for being tolerant and inclusive (eg happy holidays)

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Jeeze, people need to grow a pair and thick skin.  How are we going to reverse this trend?

Grow a pair? Wake up.  Why would anyone who didn't have to deal with the trigger warnings, the "you hurt my feelings" BS.  The risk that anything they said be twitted as evidence they are not PC?

How are we going to reverse this trend? 
We ain't.  Not till we have a minister of (PC) speech and e.g. global warming "denial" is an actual crime. 

Equating government free-speech violations with that of the private sector reactions is one of the biggest mistakes we could be making in this arena. Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying (secretly), and the executive branch can do anything up to taking unilateral murdering action against "terrorists" (secretively), and especially when this spying and terrorist-labeling is being use against the only real media we have in this country.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative, since they support (usually) those violations. It's a lot more fun to talk about A&E firing a redneck from their reality show line up for what he said, or general social mores around certain conversations of religion, gender, etc.

But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks.

You are clearly in the right on this issue. I don't give a crap what PC nonsense anyone wants to spout, and they can't hurt me with "social disapproval".

The illegal actions of the government are of much more concern to me, because they CAN hurt me.

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Benko wrote: Grow a pair? Wake up.  Why would anyone who didn't have to deal with the trigger warnings, the "you hurt my feelings" BS.  The risk that anything they said be twitted as evidence they are not PC?

How are we going to reverse this trend? 
We ain't.  Not till we have a minister of (PC) speech and e.g. global warming "denial" is an actual crime. 

Equating government free-speech violations with that of the private sector reactions is one of the biggest mistakes we could be making in this arena. Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying (secretly), and the executive branch can do anything up to taking unilateral murdering action against "terrorists" (secretively), and especially when this spying and terrorist-labeling is being use against the only real media we have in this country.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative, since they support (usually) those violations. It's a lot more fun to talk about A&E firing a redneck from their reality show line up for what he said, or general social mores around certain conversations of religion, gender, etc.

But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks.

You are clearly in the right on this issue. I don't give a crap what PC nonsense anyone wants to spout, and they can't hurt me with "social disapproval".

The illegal actions of the government are of much more concern to me, because they CAN hurt me.

Yes!

Plus, it just waters way down the conversation around the Constitution in the first place.  I think it's good that people generally value free speech, but here are the different types of threats to my free speech:

1) Governmental physical threat: This is illegal and is of catastrophic risk to the health of our republic.

2) Individual physical threat:  This is illegal but of little threat to the health of the republic.

3) Individual "PC" threat:  This is legal and little threat to the health of the republic.


When people talk about the first amendment as they focus on A&E firing a bunch of rednecks off their TV line-up, they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  How about we focus on how the U.S. has detained foreign journalists without charges, or is calling for the arrest of journalists that leak illegal actions of the executive branch... and when we don't have dissenters of U.S. foreign policy being automatically labelled as terrorists and taken out by a drone, we can move to the next step...

THEN, let's talk about actual individual THREATS to our liberty (rather than calls for PC'ness).  Like, perhaps, cartoonists getting shot by Muslim extremists.  But let's not advocate for violations of #1 to help us avoid a chance of #2, and pretend to call ourselves "defending the constitution."

Then, and only then should worry about whether Paula Deen has should have a cooking show and whether Donald Sterling stays coach of the a sports team.

moda0306 wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Equating government free-speech violations with that of the private sector reactions is one of the biggest mistakes we could be making in this arena. Currently, the largest threat to free speech, IMO, is the idea that the nsa can tap into what we are saying (secretly), and the executive branch can do anything up to taking unilateral murdering action against "terrorists" (secretively), and especially when this spying and terrorist-labeling is being use against the only real media we have in this country.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative narrative, since they support (usually) those violations. It's a lot more fun to talk about A&E firing a redneck from their reality show line up for what he said, or general social mores around certain conversations of religion, gender, etc.

But banging the tribalist drum has always worked a lot better than actually analyzing the risks.

You are clearly in the right on this issue. I don't give a crap what PC nonsense anyone wants to spout, and they can't hurt me with "social disapproval".

The illegal actions of the government are of much more concern to me, because they CAN hurt me.

Yes!

Plus, it just waters way down the conversation around the Constitution in the first place.  I think it's good that people generally value free speech, but here are the different types of threats to my free speech:

1) Governmental physical threat: This is illegal and is of catastrophic risk to the health of our republic.

2) Individual physical threat:  This is illegal but of little threat to the health of the republic.

3) Individual "PC" threat:  This is legal and little threat to the health of the republic.


When people talk about the first amendment as they focus on A&E firing a bunch of rednecks off their TV line-up, they're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  How about we focus on how the U.S. has detained foreign journalists without charges, or is calling for the arrest of journalists that leak illegal actions of the executive branch... and when we don't have dissenters of U.S. foreign policy being automatically labelled as terrorists and taken out by a drone, we can move to the next step...

THEN, let's talk about actual individual THREATS to our liberty (rather than calls for PC'ness).  Like, perhaps, cartoonists getting shot by Muslim extremists.  But let's not advocate for violations of #1 to help us avoid a chance of #2, and pretend to call ourselves "defending the constitution."

Then, and only then should worry about whether Paula Deen has should have a cooking show and whether Donald Sterling stays coach of the a sports team.

moda, you will never be elected president.  Far too logical.  Far too unlikely to run with the buffalos.  Are you sure you are not slowly coming out of your closet statism to be more pointedstickedist?  Now, if you can combine pointedstickedness and mountaineering with an herbal supplement and Blue Moon while begraggedly sitting in the desert investorL8ing on your benco reubenating, we might get somewhere.  (Appologies to all those I left out).

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: The current crop of endless butthurt over everything does not transcend ideology; it's a predominately liberal thing. This is not to say that conservatives don't have aggravating censorious tendencies as well, but they've been nowhere near as successful as liberals have been in mobilizing connected idiots to publicly shame and harm faraway strangers en masse. It's quite a phenomenon, really; as fascinating as it is disturbing.

Well, okay, but lets call that Democrat ingroupthink ideology and not liberal.  Liberal implies progressivism, tolerance and open-minded; the anti-thesis of conservatism.

I'm not even sure the USA, and perhaps the world, is divided along Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative, or haves/have nots any more - those divisions make great sensational news and political rhetoric but don't really seem to describe reality as they did in the past.  It seems to me to be more divided along the line of "self-centered/want it my way" vs. "caring about others and be willing to self-sacrafice to help them".

... Mountaineer

BUMP  No comments?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: Well, okay, but lets call that Democrat ingroupthink ideology and not liberal.  Liberal implies progressivism, tolerance and open-minded; the anti-thesis of conservatism.

I'm not even sure the USA, and perhaps the world, is divided along Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative, or haves/have nots any more - those divisions make great sensational news and political rhetoric but don't really seem to describe reality as they did in the past.  It seems to me to be more divided along the line of "self-centered/want it my way" vs. "caring about others and be willing to self-sacrafice to help them".

... Mountaineer

BUMP  No comments?

... Mountaineer

By definition, everyone wants it the way they want it, so therefore everyone is self-centered.
Yes, this means you too.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I'm not even sure the USA, and perhaps the world, is divided along Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative, or haves/have nots any more - those divisions make great sensational news and political rhetoric but don't really seem to describe reality as they did in the past.  It seems to me to be more divided along the line of "self-centered/want it my way" vs. "caring about others and be willing to self-sacrafice to help them".

... Mountaineer

BUMP  No comments?

... Mountaineer

By definition, everyone wants it the way they want it, so therefore everyone is self-centered.
Yes, this means you too.

Technically correct in the absolute.  But how about the 60/40 or 51/49 or 55/45 cases like in our population?  Everyone can be a do gooder or a do badder a small percentage of the time.  I'm thinking the statistics like we use to sterotype liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican etc.  I'm think of the fundamental divider, not the surface fluff.  Do you think I'm wrong and liberal/conservative is the best measure, or something else?  It just seems to me, that over my life time, there are a lot more self-centered pricks than there used to be.

... Mountaineer