The Left is eating itself

[jafs]

I like some of PS's comments, particularly the idea that both conservatives and liberals bring things of value to society, and that we're better off incorporating both of those elements.

And, generally speaking, I find liberals to be more open, warmer and more friendly than conservatives, who tend to be more closed, cooler and more restrained.

But, as far as openness to new experiences, that seems more like an age-linked thing to me - young people are generally more interested in that, and as we get older, we get more set in our ways.  My father was pretty liberal, and he had a pretty set routine towards the end of his life, with little interest in exploring new experiences.  My father-in-law is very liberal, but sticks to similar routines as well.  And, I've become much more set in my ways as I've gotten older too.

[Gabe]

Hahaha, it just gets better!

https://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this ... y-on-femin

[MachineGhost]

I tell my wife about these things and she finds it hilarious as well because when she goes in her girl's locker room (which I imagine has pillow fights, smooth funk music playing, and everyone looks like a supermodel), she never sees women walking around naked. Not sure if it is just more practical for guys to walk around naked, and that's what guys are all about, or women worry more about judging if people walked around naked, I dunno.

Guys do it because it purportedly shows machismo and security.  Women don't do it because its polite and tactful.

In reality, I suspect the guys doing it because they're insecure but don't want to appear to be and women aren't doing it because they're fat and unattractive.

[MachineGhost]

This may be off topic, but "Gender Fluid" would be a great name for a rock band.

Make that a heavy metal band!  And I'll front it as the screamer singer.

[MachineGhost]

Follow-up question:  How much in Social Security benefits do undocumented workers accrue?  The answer, I suspect, is quite short.  Starts with Z.

Don't fall for the usual conservative fear-mongering about illegals.  Illegals have their FICA earnings reassigend after the mess is extracted at the SS office from all of the original SSN's they used.  That, of course, assumes they're then legal!

[MachineGhost]

But more generally, free trade and free movement of people have a net positive impact on living standards. Yes, of course there will always be people whose livelihood is negatively affected, but that is true of any type of freedom. E.g., forcing employers to hire only union members can raise the standard of living of those people in the union while lowering the standard of living of others, and removing that restriction, while raising the standard of living of most people, can definitely lower the standard of living of those in the formerly protected class.

The problem in this case is where is the "union" for the vast majority of people that are not benefiting from "free trade"?  That is what Sanders and Trump are tapping into.  "Free trade" is a great ideal if its actually free, fair and reciprocal, which is hardly the case at present.

So ideological generalities don't matter; specifics do.

[MachineGhost]

For example, I care about the economy, but also about the environment.  And, it's not easy to sort this out, because often what's better for one is worse for the other.  It's clearly better for the environment for people to buy/use less stuff, and at the same time, better for the economy for people to spend/buy more.

At the highest resolution level at the end of the line, what you ultimately care about is justice.

If any topic arrives at but justice, then its no different than saying you care about your "God".  Exact same self-delusional thinking process.  And guess what?  People act out in the real world as if their bogus beliefs are valid and real.  That is what is scary.

Liberals aren't the only ones that's guilty of it.  Conservatives have their fair share of delusions.  But conservatives aren't empathetic and expansive by nature since they're the Daddy party vs the Mommy.

[MachineGhost]

Leftists are mentally undeveloped. They are just not wired correctly to see and respond to threats. That's why they can say and do crazy stuff like this and it doesn't bother them. They simply aren't able to process the information correctly.

Rightists are mentally undeveloped.  They are just not wired correctly to not perceive and overrespond to threats literally everywhere, no matter how minor or fictitious.  That's why they can say and do crazy stuff on Fox News or the National Review and it doesn't bother them.  They simply aren't able to process reality correctly.

[MachineGhost]

There are any number of reasonable ideas about immigration, including a total ban on it for some period of time.

But let's not create a mythical USA that has some sort of racial/cultural purity and homogeneity.

But the lack of cultural assimilation by these immigrants is destroying the fabric of the USA!

If you can convince me nonassimilation its limited to illegals, then I'll be glad to deport them all out and have them go through the proper processes to come back in, i.e. assimilation.

EU is just batshit crazy allowing in Muslims refugees with anti-Western values and expecting them to tacitly acknowledge and follow it.  Liberals would seem to get the brunt end of the stick because they're zealous empathetic idealists who think everyone acts good and thinks like they do.

Hence, why a conservative is a former liberal that got raped.

[MachineGhost]

The largest blind spots I see in the way liberals think is their confidence in government as an agent for improving human nature, and in their lack of respect for the rights of those with whom they disagree, especially when it comes to property rights.

In other words, like conservatives, they're all just cult members relying on their gooroo agents, not doing anything significant in the real world themselves.  That minimizes their command and control inflicted damage.

Yet, I don't find these generalizations very useful.  No one is a complete idiot nor a complete genius.  Extrapolating the deluded extremists on either side as being identical to the common rank-and-file is dishonest.

[jafs]

There are any number of reasonable ideas about immigration, including a total ban on it for some period of time.

But let's not create a mythical USA that has some sort of racial/cultural purity and homogeneity.

But the lack of cultural assimilation by these immigrants is destroying the fabric of the USA!

If you can convince me nonassimilation its limited to illegals, then I'll be glad to deport them all out and have them go through the proper processes to come back in, i.e. assimilation.

EU is just batshit crazy allowing in Muslims refugees with anti-Western values and expecting them to tacitly acknowledge and follow it.  Liberals would seem to get the brunt end of the stick because they're zealous empathetic idealists who think everyone acts good and thinks like they do.

Hence, why a conservative is a former liberal that got raped.

The fabric of the USA is a multi-cultural one, and has been for a long time.

That makes a lot of the anti-immigration stuff seem sort of silly to me.  Of course, if people are very anti-Western values, that could be a problem, but we should be able to accommodate a lot of cultural diversity before that point.

[MachineGhost]

As I said before, there are values that may conflict - the value of keeping women safe, and the value of cultural diversity.  That doesn't mean that they don't actually care about either/both of those, it means that they care about both of them, but may have trouble sorting that out.  Just like my example of the economy and the environment.

I'm curious. 

What IS the value of "cultural diversity"? 

Why is expanding energy and working so hard towards "cultural diverisity" justified when it is merely a belief and not a value in economic or financial terms? 

Why does "cultural diversity" have to have so much energy expanded and so worked hard towards instead of ocurring naturally in a spontaneous free market?

[MachineGhost]

They don't have a problem sorting it out at all. They've chosen immigrant rapists over women. This is why any mention of immigration restriction is met with howls of pain. Yet, you bring up 1400+ young girls raped and forced into prostitution in Rotherham England by muslim immigrants and it's all crickets from the feminist left. The left doesn't care about the issue except if it is scoring them points. If it's not scoring points, they ignore it.

It's crickets because its rightwing outrage hyperbole.  Cried wolf one time too many.  No credibility left.

[MachineGhost]

That makes a lot of the anti-immigration stuff seem sort of silly to me.  Of course, if people are very anti-Western values, that could be a problem, but we should be able to accommodate a lot of cultural diversity before that point.

No, the fabric of the USA is SHARED cultural values -- the ones besides being a sprawling giant shopping mall: truth, justice and the American way.  That implies assimilation no matter where immigrants are from.  It certainly helped tremendously that the majority of immigrants all had Anglo-Saxon and Judeo-Christian cultural values.

We haven't had too much problems with Hispanics immigrants because of Catholicism.  Unfortunately, Africans and their descendants are just relegated to the bottom of the totem pole and kept in place by the transnational elite.  But Muslims are an entirely different ball game.  They're not assimilating.  They have completely alien cultural and religious values.  They're fundamentally incompatible with the West.

Yet, I've read that compared to the EU, Muslims are actually assimilating here.  I haven't seen any hard proof but we better hope that is true or we're doomed like Rome was.

[Pointedstick]

What IS the value of "cultural diversity"? 

Why is expanding energy and working so hard towards "cultural diverisity" justified when it is merely a belief and not a value in economic or financial terms? 

Why does "cultural diversity" have to have so much energy expanded and so worked hard towards instead of ocurring naturally in a spontaneous free market?

It's nice to have people who are different from you--but not too different--close by--but not too close by.

The degree of difference and closeness is what people chafe over. Even liberal multiculturalists have their limits and most of them live their true feelings by not actually living in extremely diverse neighborhoods. But whatever their limits are, they're generally wider than the limits of conservatives, who prefer greater sameness or separation and will feel unhappy in a town or neighborhood that a liberal might feel just fine in.

Yet, I've read that compared to the EU, Muslims are actually assimilating here.  I haven't seen any hard proof but we better hope that is true or we're doomed like Rome was.

Muslims assimilate better here because for the most part the only Muslim immigrants we get are elites fleeing their own repressive societies. So they already share a lot of values with the west, which made them dislike where they started out. It also helps that there are very very few of them: less than half of a percent of the USA. It's hard to avoid assimilating when you're such a tiny minority.

[Kriegsspiel]

As I said before, there are values that may conflict - the value of keeping women safe, and the value of cultural diversity.  That doesn't mean that they don't actually care about either/both of those, it means that they care about both of them, but may have trouble sorting that out.  Just like my example of the economy and the environment.

I'm curious. 

What IS the value of "cultural diversity"? 

Why is expanding energy and working so hard towards "cultural diverisity" justified when it is merely a belief and not a value in economic or financial terms? 

Why does "cultural diversity" have to have so much energy expanded and so worked hard towards instead of ocurring naturally in a spontaneous free market?

I recently applied for a job where one of the questions they wanted me to answer was "why is diversity so important." It was tough for me to make up such an absurd answer, since I don't think it is important. They took a page out of Trump's book here, looking past the sale!

[jafs]

As I said before, there are values that may conflict - the value of keeping women safe, and the value of cultural diversity.  That doesn't mean that they don't actually care about either/both of those, it means that they care about both of them, but may have trouble sorting that out.  Just like my example of the economy and the environment.

I'm curious. 

What IS the value of "cultural diversity"? 

Why is expanding energy and working so hard towards "cultural diverisity" justified when it is merely a belief and not a value in economic or financial terms? 

Why does "cultural diversity" have to have so much energy expanded and so worked hard towards instead of ocurring naturally in a spontaneous free market?

Well, having grown up in a very diverse city - NYC in the 60's-70's, I found the experience excellent.  Being able to experience different cultures and learning about them was enriching for me.

We don't have to work towards it - we just have it, unless we try to squelch it, as many seem to want these days.  And, it's just part of our national history/identity, as we are and have been a nation of immigrants since very early on.

[jafs]

That makes a lot of the anti-immigration stuff seem sort of silly to me.  Of course, if people are very anti-Western values, that could be a problem, but we should be able to accommodate a lot of cultural diversity before that point.

No, the fabric of the USA is SHARED cultural values -- the ones besides being a sprawling giant shopping mall: truth, justice and the American way.  That implies assimilation no matter where immigrants are from.  It certainly helped tremendously that the majority of immigrants all had Anglo-Saxon and Judeo-Christian cultural values.

We haven't had too much problems with Hispanics immigrants because of Catholicism.  Unfortunately, Africans and their descendants are just relegated to the bottom of the totem pole and kept in place by the transnational elite.  But Muslims are an entirely different ball game.  They're not assimilating.  They have completely alien cultural and religious values.  They're fundamentally incompatible with the West.

Yet, I've read that compared to the EU, Muslims are actually assimilating here.  I haven't seen any hard proof but we better hope that is true or we're doomed like Rome was.

There were two metaphors used when I was in school - one was a "melting pot", which implies more loss of one's native culture, and the other was a "tossed salad", which implies less of that, and more of different cultures living side by side.

I think it's almost certainly a mistake to think that "Muslims" as a large group are fundamentally incompatible with our culture/values.  There is a wide spectrum among Muslims, and I would bet that many Muslims can live comfortably in our culture, just as Orthodox Jews do, for example, while also having practices that aren't as "equality" oriented as our secular culture is (Orthodox Jews separate men and women in prayer, and a woman has to ask her husband for a divorce, which if not granted, means she can't divorce him religiously).

[Pointedstick]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... nt/479049/

“I genuinely cared about these causes—still do,” he wrote, referencing everything from anti-racism to LGBT rights to reproductive health. “I believed I was doing something noble. At the same time,” he added, “a large part of me was not quite in agreement with some of the views and concepts espoused by social-justice groups. Their pro-censorship tendencies, fixation with intersectionality, and constant uproar over seemingly trivial and innocuous matters like ‘cultural appropriation’ and ‘microaggressions’ went against my civil-libertarian sensibilities.”

He fit in fine at the ACLU. But interacting with social-justice groups made up of high school and college students, he increasingly found himself having to bite his tongue.

“I never voiced my personal disagreements because having dissenting views is strictly forbidden in the activist circles I was a part of,” he explained. “If you’re white, you will be charged with being a ‘bad ally.’ (There's also certain gatherings you cannot come to because your mere presence might be threatening.) If you’re a person of color, your disagreements will usually be dismissed as some form of ‘internalized racism,’ ‘internalized sexism,’ or ‘respectability politics,’ among many other activist jargon's thrown at individuals who do not conform the groups views.”

Eventually, he started to speak up anyway, he said.

“On Twitter,” he wrote, “I discussed how trigger warnings have almost been rendered useless now that they’re used to alert individuals when talking about normal everyday things, like food, cars and animals. And that their use could potentially have adverse effects on academic freedom. I was accused of being outrageously insensitive and apparently made three activist cohorts have traumatic breakdowns.”

“In another tweet,” he added, “I criticized the usual tactic of campus activists to disrupt and heckle controversial speakers and advised them to raise their strong objections during the question and answer session, which lectures usually reserve long hours precisely to debate opponents. This time, the attacks got a little more personal. I was accused of being a ‘respectable negro,’ ‘uncle tom,’ ‘local coon’ and defending university officials to continue to ‘systemically oppress minorities.’”

I asked if he thought his race and ethnicity made it easier or harder to dissent. “A little easier, I guess,” he replied, “But it really doesn't feel good being a called a ‘house nigger.’”
[...]
Unfortunately, I think that Mahad Olad is correct to be concerned, and that too many left-wing student groups treat no one as badly as students of color or women who consider themselves to be classical liberals, libertarians, or conservatives, or who merely disagree with the actions of progressive protesters on campus.

They’re seen as special kinds of traitors.
[...]
Back in college, when I edited student newspapers both at Pomona College, my alma mater, and the Claremont Colleges, a consortium of 5 undergraduate institutions, I was constantly urging people who expressed thoughtful opinions in conversation to contribute to our op-ed pages. On four or five occasions, students of color regretfully declined, saying they didn’t feel able to set forth their opinions publicly without being savaged by a tiny subset of campus activists who, despite their small numbers, managed to chill speech. I always wondered if these students were exaggerating the likely backlash—their ostensibly heretical views were almost always extremely mainstream—until a conservative Asian American woman began writing for The Student Life and I got an education in leftist racist hate mail.

[MachineGhost]

What a bunch of freakazoids!  People are way too in their head and treat the contents is if it were reality.  Maybe there's a correlation between increasing Internet use and increasing lack of tolerance for meatspace free expression?

[Libertarian666]

I get solicitations from the ACLU all the time.

Here's what I tell them (and possibly have posted here before, but I forget...)

"I recommend that you split into two groups, one to defend actual rights like the ones in the Bill of Rights, and one to defend made up rights like the 'right to force someone to bake a wedding cake for gays'. I'll contribute to the first, but not the second."

[Benko]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... ers-losses

Karma, it's what's for dinner.

[Kriegsspiel]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... ers-losses

Karma, it's what's for dinner.

Occam's Razor: people are so ashamed of what they've just done, they'd rather say they voted for Sanders instead of Clinton.

[jafs]

Exit polls are a survey of a small percentage of voters, aren't they?

It's not surprising that projections made from those wouldn't necessarily match precisely with actual results, right?

[Xan]

Exit polls are a survey of a small percentage of voters, aren't they?

It's not surprising that projections made from those wouldn't necessarily match precisely with actual results, right?

Have you taken a statistics course?