Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:40 am**

I have no idea why the GOP ever wanted to align itself with someone like Bryan Fisher in the first place, but I was glad to see this piece of news. It may just be me but I can't understand how you can have financial freedom and socially restrictive policies in the same political platform, or even how one person can simultaneously believe in both concepts.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watc ... 0575171843

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:13 am**

I think that stuff PS posted about rich people getting people of color out of their communities makes all the sense in the world. Some Republicans are just more upfront about it. A better question is why people feel the need to put their politics above their real beliefs? Is it idealism? Why do Democrats feel guilty about being actual homogenous racists but Republicans do not? It's just some very weird dissonance going on. Maybe we're all in denial.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:44 am**

To be clear here, I don't think it's really so much racism as it is culture-ism. Both white liberals and white conservatives like black people and hispanics who happen to share their interests, worldviews, preferred career fields, income bracket, level of education, religiosity, choice of vehicles, taste in music, propensity for international travel, etc. But neither of them much care for people from different cultures.

I think the primary difference is that liberals feel the need to try to temper their disgust for the Other when the Other is an ethnic minority. They certainly feel comfortable expressing the kind of vitriolic hatred against white conservatives and ghetto whites that they see white conservatives expressing against ghetto blacks and hispanics. But those elitist white liberals still don't actually really like ghetto people or non-white foreigners or want to spend any time around them. Nobody likes to spend time around people substantially different from themselves. This is the liberal delusion, because they don't even behave as though they believe it. Elitist liberals vacation in London and Paris, not Mombassa or Riyadh. Conservatives at least are honest about their distaste for people different from themselves; liberals generally aren't.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:32 pm**

Thanks for posting this. I'd never heard of this homophobe
before. The link spells his name both with and without a c, but I guess it's Fischer.

Pointedstick wrote: To be clear here, I don't think it's really so much racism as it is culture-ism. Both white liberals and white conservatives like black people and hispanics who happen to share their interests, worldviews, preferred career fields, income bracket, level of education, religiosity, choice of vehicles, taste in music, propensity for international travel, etc.

This and a little bit of classism. (You did mention income bracket). A black family friend used to say, e.g. of rude people that worked at CVS in the 80s and 90s, "We don't like those people any more than you do."

I think the primary difference is that liberals feel the need to try to temper their disgust for the Other when the Other is an ethnic minority.
...
But those elitist white liberals still don't actually really like ghetto people or non-white foreigners or want to spend any time around them. ...

Reminds me of Colin Quin on Tough Crowd. He mentioned, "The type of girl who goes around making everyone say 'African-American' but who locks her car doors when a black guy walks by in the parking lot."

Sorry if I posted that before. It's a classic.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:33 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: To be clear here, I don't think it's really so much racism as it is culture-ism. Both white liberals and white conservatives like black people and hispanics who happen to share their interests, worldviews, preferred career fields, income bracket, level of education, religiosity, choice of vehicles, taste in music, propensity for international travel, etc. But neither of them much care for people from different cultures.

I think the primary difference is that liberals feel the need to try to temper their disgust for the Other when the Other is an ethnic minority. They certainly feel comfortable expressing the kind of vitriolic hatred against white conservatives and ghetto whites that they see white conservatives expressing against ghetto blacks and hispanics. But those elitist white liberals still don't actually really like ghetto people or non-white foreigners or want to spend any time around them. Nobody likes to spend time around people substantially different from themselves. This is the liberal delusion, because they don't even behave as though they believe it. Elitist liberals vacation in London and Paris, not Mombassa or Riyadh. Conservatives at least are honest about their distaste for people different from themselves; liberals generally aren't.

PS,

I agree with almost everything you said. However, if I had to pick something out, it would be that there seems to be a tribal element to "culturism." It's not just that responsible whites like responsible minorities, and don't like irresponsible ones. There's a statistical racial bias there, too.

For instance, while I truly understand that much of what annoys conservatives about minorities is not their minority status, but their objective cultural priority "failings," I'd say that they often judge "others" more harshly for their failings than those of "their team."

Liberals do this, too. So they don't get a pass.

But I'd be careful to make sure that even though I agree it's more "culture-ism" than racism, that a lot of these "culture-ist" feelings are just very subjective general "tribalist" feelings, in disguise, and a lot of people annoyed with the more hateful elements "black culture" are complacent or borderline supportive of its equivalent in their own culture (militant redneckism... for lack of a better way of describing it).

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:57 pm**

Obviously it's all tribalism. That's my point. We prefer people who are like us, in any and all respects, including the stupid superficial ones, and reverse is true as well.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:40 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: Obviously it's all tribalism. That's my point. We prefer people who are like us, in any and all respects, including the stupid superficial ones, and reverse is true as well.

I wonder how diversified the PP forum is or people that do the PP.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:14 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: Obviously it's all tribalism. That's my point. We prefer people who are like us, in any and all respects, including the stupid superficial ones, and reverse is true as well.
I wonder how diversified the PP forum is or people that do the PP.

Not even remotely. We are likely all very similar people. That's why we found the PP and stick around here.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:19 pm**

I think that if we are a nondiversified group that we should have to give a large portion of our assets to Obama as a punishment.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:00 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
MachineGhost wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: Obviously it's all tribalism. That's my point. We prefer people who are like us, in any and all respects, including the stupid superficial ones, and reverse is true as well.
I wonder how diversified the PP forum is or people that do the PP.
Not even remotely. We are likely all very similar people. That's why we found the PP and stick around here.

Maybe true for most people here, but I personally have quite a bit of disagreement with the worldview of some of the other forum participants.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:30 pm**

Libertarian666 wrote: Maybe true for most people here, but I personally have quite a bit of disagreement with the worldview of some of the other forum participants.

Like?

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 4:29 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: To be clear here, I don't think it's really so much racism as it is culture-ism. Both white liberals and white conservatives like black people and hispanics who happen to share their interests, worldviews, preferred career fields, income bracket, level of education, religiosity, choice of vehicles, taste in music, propensity for international travel, etc. But neither of them much care for people from different cultures.

I think the primary difference is that liberals feel the need to try to temper their disgust for the Other when the Other is an ethnic minority. They certainly feel comfortable expressing the kind of vitriolic hatred against white conservatives and ghetto whites that they see white conservatives expressing against ghetto blacks and hispanics. But those elitist white liberals still don't actually really like ghetto people or non-white foreigners or want to spend any time around them. Nobody likes to spend time around people substantially different from themselves. This is the liberal delusion, because they don't even behave as though they believe it. Elitist liberals vacation in London and Paris, not Mombassa or Riyadh. Conservatives at least are honest about their distaste for people different from themselves; liberals generally aren't.

I like this forum because it is my only contact with people who have a "guns, -climate-change skeptic- and creationism" outlook and that is exotic and intriguing to me and I sometimes like being challenged.

For what its worth, I have been to Mombassa on vacation.

I liked the area when we lived in a "minority-majority" part of Leeds.

I do however feel at home when I see UK TV adverts as compared to say US or German TV adverts or whatever. I feel pleased that I prefer the UK TV adverts. It makes me feel that yes I do belong in my country.

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:07 pm**

stone wrote: I do however feel at home when I see UK TV adverts as compared to say US or German TV adverts or whatever. I feel pleased that I prefer the UK TV adverts. It makes me feel that yes I do belong in my country.

What are the major differences in the adverts among the three? Does this make you feel all warm and fuzzy:

Posted: **Mon Feb 02, 2015 6:20 pm**

Reub wrote: I think that if we are a nondiversified group that we should have to give a large portion of our assets to Obama as a punishment.

hahaha!

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:33 am**

MachineGhost wrote:
What are the major differences in the adverts among the three? Does this make you feel all warm and fuzzy:
<tax_scare.jpg>

Indeed Minitrue are working heroically to root out (non corporate) tax dodging and welfarism, but they don't yet have it all their own way here.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:13 am**

MachineGhost wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: Maybe true for most people here, but I personally have quite a bit of disagreement with the worldview of some of the other forum participants.
Like?

Like any of the pro-governmentalists. I'm a self-governor myself, so of course I see government as an unnecessary evil.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:15 am**

"How can it be a lawful killing if he didn't have a gun?" Seriously? How about if he was behaving violently within 21 feet and had a knife, or a club, or weighed 300 pounds, or was hopped up on pain-suppressing drugs, or... I don't know the circumstances of what that poster is referring to but it is absurd to insinuate that people without guns can never lawfully, morally, justifiably be killed.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:02 am**

Pointedstick wrote: "How can it be a lawful killing if he didn't have a gun?" Seriously? How about if he was behaving violently within 21 feet and had a knife, or a club, or weighed 300 pounds, or was hopped up on pain-suppressing drugs, or... I don't know the circumstances of what that poster is referring to but it is absurd to insinuate that people without guns can never lawfully, morally, justifiably be killed.

This link is about that incident: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_M ... n#Shooting

To me it sounds as if the police messed up and shot him after mistakenly believing he was armed, then tried to cover it up.

I'd imagine it is very very difficult being an armed police officer (or anyone else having to use guns).

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:07 am**

This is interesting...

[quote=http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... al-race-1/
]Is it true Republicans haven’t won presidential race since 1928 without a Bush or Nixon?[/quote]

I'm still sticking with Bush.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:10 am**

That Bryan Fischer has a wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Fischer

To avoid being classified as a hate group, the AFA has officially repudiated Fischer's views on Muslims, Native Americans, Hispanics, African Americans, The Holocaust being caused by homosexuals, the outlawing of homosexuality and that LGBT parenting is slavery, and that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian.[6][7]

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:11 am**

Libertarian666 wrote: Like any of the pro-governmentalists. I'm a self-governor myself, so of course I see government as an unnecessary evil.

I see. Well, I now see government as a necessary evil and the cruel thing about it is even if you don't personally believe in it, others certainly do and will manifest it into existence, whether you like it or not. Just like bankers and a pen, you can't ever kill the concept.

Have you ever watched Deadwood? I think you'd really enjoy it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:13 am**

To avoid being classified as a hate group, the AFA has officially repudiated Fischer's views on Muslims, Native Americans, Hispanics, African Americans, The Holocaust being caused by homosexuals, the outlawing of homosexuality and that LGBT parenting is slavery, and that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian.[6][7]

[img width=500]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... statue.jpg[/img]

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 11:38 am**

What I find interesting is that Bryan Fischer is just as "forthright" in his opinions as Hitler was and yet (I hope) he isn't a real threat because he doesn't get support despite having a radio show. I guess there are thousands and thousands of people who are just as twisted as Hitler and yet thankfully they essentially always fail to start any mass movement.

I wonder whether Hitler wasn't all that exceptional. Perhaps he was no more evil than thousands of people present all the time in all societies. The phenomenon of Nazism was perhaps more one of a society being in a frame of mind to bring its nutjob out of the shadows and start doing what the nutjob said.

I often wonder at how, what we ascribe to individual exceptionalism (good or bad), could just be more a case of a societal movement. It seems too much of a coincidence that da Vinci and Michelangelo were at the same place at the same time or Wallace and Darwin etc.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:51 pm**

MachineGhost wrote:
Libertarian666 wrote: Like any of the pro-governmentalists. I'm a self-governor myself, so of course I see government as an unnecessary evil.
I see. Well, I now see government as a necessary evil and the cruel thing about it is even if you don't personally believe in it, others certainly do and will manifest it into existence, whether you like it or not. Just like bankers and a pen, you can't ever kill the concept.

Have you ever watched Deadwood? I think you'd really enjoy it.

I was answering the question of how my opinions differ from most others on this site (as far as I know).

No, I haven't seen Deadwood. The wikipedia article makes it sound very complicated but perhaps interesting. Right now I don't have much spare time left over after work on my personal software project (retirement account withdrawal optimizer), but if it's available on netflix I'll consider adding it to my queue. Thanks.

Posted: **Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:26 pm**

stone wrote:
I'd imagine it is very very difficult being an armed police officer (or anyone else having to use guns).

Only if you are a very poor shot.

And, from my perspective, guns are a tool that can be used or misused according to the mental/emotional/physical acumen and stability of the user/abuser. From the perspective of a dead person on the receiving end of any misused tool, does it really significantly matter whether he/she was shot, stabbed, speared, brass knuckled, clubbed, drowned, choked, smothered, bitten by a snake, smashed by a brick, squeezed by a giant nutcracker, or stabbed in the eye with a pencil?

... Mountaineer

Gyroscopic Investing

A step in the right direction for the RNC

A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC

Re: A step in the right direction for the RNC