CDZ Obama, Hillary, Trump, Fake News, Mueller, The Swamp.....

[Mac1958]

Isn't it obvious. We are a nation ruled by an ideology of individualism and self interest. What you are seeing is the result.

I agree to a point, but I do think that going too far in the opposite direction (another one of our traits) is not the answer, either.

We don't appear to have the intellectual patience required to find points of equilibrium.
.

Well, at some point you will have to come to terms with the idea that equilibrium is not in the economic interests of the ruling class. Or not.

Of course it isn't. That's not my point.
.

Do you accept the premise of a ruling class that dominates our discourse? I don't mean in a coordinated or conspiratorial fashion.

Dominates, probably. But we're still responsible for our own words and actions, so I don't blame anyone for that other than us.
.

 

[Tehon]

Well, at some point you will have to come to terms with the idea that equilibrium is not in the economic interests of the ruling class. Or not.

No more than someone coming to terms with the fact potential is not a measure of actual achievement ...

.​

We aren't having this discussion for no reason.

 

[Tehon]

Isn't it obvious. We are a nation ruled by an ideology of individualism and self interest. What you are seeing is the result.

I agree to a point, but I do think that going too far in the opposite direction (another one of our traits) is not the answer, either.

We don't appear to have the intellectual patience required to find points of equilibrium.
.

Well, at some point you will have to come to terms with the idea that equilibrium is not in the economic interests of the ruling class. Or not.

Of course it isn't. That's not my point.
.

Do you accept the premise of a ruling class that dominates our discourse? I don't mean in a coordinated or conspiratorial fashion.

Dominates, probably. But we're still responsible for our own words and actions, so I don't blame anyone for that other than us.
.

Okay, I understand. We are ultimately responsible for filtering everything.

My point is though that we first must understand the nature of the problem and have an open discussion about it. The purpose of all the disinformation and emotional baiting is to prevent that from occurring, imo.

Am I getting too conspiratorial?

 

[BlackSand]

We aren't having this discussion for no reason.

I never suggested we were discussing things for no reason.

I am just suggesting that people talk about potential all the time.
They talk about what could, should or would be ... And complain about what is.

If we are discussing things to build support for what isn't ...
Forgive me if I tend to identify where what is ... Probably is, and will be ... Because we are looking in the wrong place for a solution.

.​

 

[Mac1958]

My point is though that we first must understand the nature of the problem and have an open discussion about it. The purpose of all the disinformation and emotional baiting is to prevent that from occurring. Am I getting too conspiratorial?

I think it all goes into the mix. And it depends on how you define "the ruling class".

My opinion is that most of this has come about from the efforts and efficacy of those I call the "Division Pimps", those in the various media who have a vested professional interest in keeping their flocks myopic, conspiratorial, angry, mal-informed, shallow and divisive.

Worse, I agree completely with those who believe that it has been so long since we exercised our rational, curious, critical thinking skills that we may have literally LOST those skills as a culture. That scares me, literally.

I woudn't put this on a ruling class within the government. This is cultural in my view.
.

 

[Tehon]

My point is though that we first must understand the nature of the problem and have an open discussion about it. The purpose of all the disinformation and emotional baiting is to prevent that from occurring. Am I getting too conspiratorial?

I think it all goes into the mix. And it depends on how you define "the ruling class".

My opinion is that most of this has come about from the efforts and efficacy of those I call the "Division Pimps", those in the various media who have a vested professional interest in keeping their flocks myopic, conspiratorial, angry, mal-informed, shallow and divisive.

Worse, I agree completely with those who believe that it has been so long since we exercised our rational, curious, critical thinking skills that we may have literally LOST those skills as a culture. That scares me, literally.

I woudn't put this on a ruling class within the government. This is cultural in my view.
.

I agree that it is cultural, that is why my first point was to address the dominant cultural economic philosophy out of which society takes shape.

It is not radical to discuss it.

 

[BlackSand]

I agree that it is cultural, that is why my first point was to address the dominant cultural economic philosophy out of which society takes shape.

When economic philosophy/direction is determined by government ... It is for the express purpose of shaping society.
If anyone has a problem with the ruling class ... It's because you gave/give them the tools necessary to rule through government.

.
.​

 

[Tehon]

I agree that it is cultural, that is why my first point was to address the dominant cultural economic philosophy out of which society takes shape.

When economic philosophy/direction is determined by government ... It is for the express purpose of shaping society.
If anyone has a problem with the ruling class ... It's because you gave/give them the tools necessary to rule through government.

.
.​

I don't believe the economic philosophy emanated from government. I believe it came from the private sector. Milton Friedman and the Koch brothers come to mind.

The only tool they need to shape society is money. If there was no government they could still do it.

 

[BlackSand]

I don't believe the economic philosophy emanated from government. I believe it came from the private sector. Milton Friedman and the Koch brothers come to mind.

The only tool they need to shape society is money. If there was no government they could still do it.

You are drawing closer to the point ... Government is how philosophy affects society through policy.
Most people don't want to change government ... As much as they want to be the ruling class.

If you have a better economic philosophy ... Get to doing it ... That's where those who have get it from (it's no longer potential).

.​

 

[william the wie]

Sure, there's a method to all media coverage these days.
Trump haters listen to the nasty coverage on MSNBC and CNN, and Trump supporters sometimes listen to Fox.
If I listen to the smart-ass remarks by pundits on MSNBC and CNN all I want to do is cave their heads in. They basically repeat over and over how much they loathe Trump and his supporters. That's about all they have to say.

That wasn't my question. I'm talking about anyone taking a "stand" on anything. You taking a stand on USMB, for example. I'll ask again:

Take two people on any issue.

On one hand, we can completely avoid discussing an important issue. Take no "stands" on any issue.

On the other hand, we can divide ourselves by tribes and address the issue with hyperbole, distortions, Straw Man arguments, personal insults, name-calling, myopia, goofy conspiracies, and deflection.

Can you imagine anything, any methods, any behaviors, in between those two things?

Maybe you need to put your own sarcasm aside and look into the meat of the issues rather than dismissing them off-hand like you usually do.

Okay, I think you've answered my question.

This is what I'm talking about. This is what concerns me.
.

Look.....some of us see wrong and want to right it.
You seem to have an issue with that.

You, however, want to sit on the fence and not get involved.
This is because you may not have any core principles.

Being a jelly fish without morals or principles defines the left.

 

[Mac1958]

That wasn't my question. I'm talking about anyone taking a "stand" on anything. You taking a stand on USMB, for example. I'll ask again:

Take two people on any issue.

On one hand, we can completely avoid discussing an important issue. Take no "stands" on any issue.

On the other hand, we can divide ourselves by tribes and address the issue with hyperbole, distortions, Straw Man arguments, personal insults, name-calling, myopia, goofy conspiracies, and deflection.

Can you imagine anything, any methods, any behaviors, in between those two things?

Maybe you need to put your own sarcasm aside and look into the meat of the issues rather than dismissing them off-hand like you usually do.

Okay, I think you've answered my question.

This is what I'm talking about. This is what concerns me.
.

Look.....some of us see wrong and want to right it.
You seem to have an issue with that.

You, however, want to sit on the fence and not get involved.
This is because you may not have any core principles.

Being a jelly fish without morals or principles defines the left.

Not having YOUR morals doesn't mean that a person doesn't have morals.

That's a terribly narcissistic way to go through life.
.

 

[G.T.]

Life seems pretty fuckin good outside of Political bicker-sphere. I see no apparent cause for alarm. Folks have different opinions - some join clubs, some demonstrate in the public sphere, some write blogs and others do the pundit-sphere. Very, very few get violent and begin to rise to the level of Law-breaking.

The sky has always been falling, to some, but life is actually in large part a matter of perspective.

 

[Tehon]

I agree to a point, but I do think that going too far in the opposite direction (another one of our traits) is not the answer, either.

We don't appear to have the intellectual patience required to find points of equilibrium.
.

So you think taking a stand on any issue is wrong?

Um, no.

Is that really what you got from my post?
.

Amongst other things.

Okay. I answered your question, please answer mine.

On one hand, we can completely avoid discussing an important issue. Take no "stands" on any issue.

On the other hand, we can divide ourselves by tribes and address the issue with hyperbole, distortions, Straw Man arguments, personal insults, name-calling, myopia, goofy conspiracies, and deflection.

Can you imagine anything, any methods, any behaviors, in between those two things?
.

Sure, there's a method to all media coverage these days.
Trump haters listen to the nasty coverage on MSNBC and CNN, and Trump supporters sometimes listen to Fox.
If I listen to the smart-ass remarks by pundits on MSNBC and CNN all I want to do is cave their heads in. They basically repeat over and over how much they loathe Trump and his supporters. That's about all they have to say.

Obviously you are unable to process the media from a distance and rationalize what is happening. You succumb to emotional manipulation.

You present Trump haters with no qualifications and use a qualifier for Trump supporters. Wanting to cave in the heads of pundits needs no explanation.

You are emotionally invested in the game and therefore effectively neutralized. You can't be objective.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't believe the economic philosophy emanated from government. I believe it came from the private sector. Milton Friedman and the Koch brothers come to mind.

The only tool they need to shape society is money. If there was no government they could still do it.

You are drawing closer to the point ... Government is how philosophy affects society through policy.
Most people don't want to change government ... As much as they want to be the ruling class.

If you have a better economic philosophy ... Get to doing it ... That's where those who have get it from (it's no longer potential).

.​

Culture and economic philosophy are not necessarily connected, of course. A dynamic economy can lead to excesses, but that's still a decision made by the culture.
.

 

[BlackSand]

Culture and economic philosophy are not necessarily connected, of course. A dynamic economy can lead to excesses, but that's still a decision made by the culture.
.

Yes ... But philosophy doesn't shape society until it is established in policy.
The policy can and is restricted by the person/people as well as how they bring it to bear.

Excesses are subjective as in how they compare to who is allowed to be subjective.
Where one may see inequality ... I have never seen actual equality (outside of a mathematical equation).
So ... Then it becomes a subjective philosophy on how much one thinks someone else should have in relation to what another has.

Where some rely on their interpretations of right, wrong, good, bad ... It's important to remember ... "For who".
Do you think it is bad for someone who does what they can do to get what they can get from the people willing to give it to them?
Or ... Would you rather support the arbitrary idea someone is owed something because someone thinks they should have it?

.​

 

[Mac1958]

Do you think it is bad for someone who does what they can do to get what they can get from the people willing to give it to them? Or ... Would you rather support the arbitrary idea someone is owed something because someone thinks they should have it?.

I think there's a middle ground between the two that is optimum. A system that can create great wealth for its citizens is going to favor certain citizens over others, because their skill sets and capacities match and are supported by that system. Capitalism, for example. And many simply lack that capacity.

So, in exchange for their good fortune for being able to operate within that system (and not being born in, say, Haiti), I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be required to contribute more into it than others. The key is in finding and maintaining an equilibrium that rewards & motivates them for their efforts without dis-incentivizing them for their efforts. I don't think we're terribly close to that right now.
.

 

[BlackSand]

I think there's a middle ground between the two that is optimum. A system that can create great wealth for its citizens is going to favor certain citizens over others, because their skill sets and capacities match and are supported by that system. Capitalism, for example. And many simply lack that capacity.

So, in exchange for their good fortune for being able to operate within that system (and not being born in, say, Haiti), I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be required to contribute more into it than others. The key is in finding and maintaining an equilibrium that rewards & motivates them for their efforts without dis-incentivizing them for their efforts. I don't think we're terribly close to that right now.
.

I am not talking about middle ground ...
And not interested in giving anyone the authority to determine we are going to do things the way they think is appropriate.

You are talking about economic theory ...

Who you think deserves what ...
Where it should come from ...
Where it should go ...
And how that should affect the outcome.

I am more interested in economic law ...

It doesn't matter what you want or think ...
Until you provide a product or service to another ...
And they provide you with payment ...

You got a whole pile of nothing ...

No matter what one's economic theory or philosophy may be ... Economic law is going to apply.

.​

 

[mudwhistle]

Life seems pretty fuckin good outside of Political bicker-sphere. I see no apparent cause for alarm. Folks have different opinions - some join clubs, some demonstrate in the public sphere, some write blogs and others do the pundit-sphere. Very, very few get violent and begin to rise to the level of Law-breaking.

The sky has always been falling, to some, but life is actually in large part a matter of perspective.

I saw a site last night out of SF that talked about how much human waste was on Mount Everest.

SF is known for their human waste.
Apparently it is becoming a problem on Everest.....according to the author.
Each climber produces 60lbs of crap that is left along the trails and rocky crags and crevasses all over Everest.

 

[G.T.]

Life seems pretty fuckin good outside of Political bicker-sphere. I see no apparent cause for alarm. Folks have different opinions - some join clubs, some demonstrate in the public sphere, some write blogs and others do the pundit-sphere. Very, very few get violent and begin to rise to the level of Law-breaking.

The sky has always been falling, to some, but life is actually in large part a matter of perspective.

I saw a site last night out of SF that talked about how much human waste was on Mount Everest.

SF is known for their human waste.
Apparently it is becoming a problem on Everest.....according to the author.
Each climber produces 60lbs of crap that is left along the trails and rocky crags and crevasses all over Everest.

How long does it take an average human eating trail mix to produce 60lbs. of poop?

 

[candycorn]

Life seems pretty fuckin good outside of Political bicker-sphere. I see no apparent cause for alarm. Folks have different opinions - some join clubs, some demonstrate in the public sphere, some write blogs and others do the pundit-sphere. Very, very few get violent and begin to rise to the level of Law-breaking.

The sky has always been falling, to some, but life is actually in large part a matter of perspective.

Correct.