Gyroscopic Investing

Coffee,

1. You make good points, e.g.

"They're using a different tactic on us that involves using our own political correctness against us"

that many really are blind to, but you could choose a word with less emotional charge (than animal).

2. An announcer (sports?) of  some sort recently reffered to a sports player's wife as very attractive** (or some such words) and Obama recently referred to a woman as very attractive (or some words like  that).  The fact that these were considered inappropriate and became news stories should tell you how far gone (down the PC rabbit hole) many are.  It is like NBCs "dog whistle" (i.e. anything that criticizes Obama =racism).

**I don't know the context of the announcers comments e.g. the context could very well have  been appropriate, but in both his and Obamas case it was referring to a woman as attractive that provoked the reaction. 

I love how easy it is to view ourselves as ruggid individuals, sovereign to ourselves and nobody else, yet unfairly exposed to coercion and confiscation at every turn at the hand of our Socialist dictator Obama, but when we look at "them" we just see a big hive mind that all condones the worst actions of the hive. 

If immigration, multiplication, and using our "political correctness" (I thought referring to human beings as human beings was just "correct," not "politically correct") against us is "war," then I suppose it's within our rights to just start killing them....

Methinks most genocides in history started with this kind of logic.  "They're declaring war on us by (insert undesired yet non-violent social relation here)!!"

And in a country where 30% of the population thinks the President is a Kenyan born Muslim and freely admits it, who's being "politically correct?"  Some professors and liberal elites out there? 

We've killed far more of their innocents than they have of ours.  Oh wait... their "innocents" are actually "animals."  I suppose that only counts as 1/5 of a death or something to that degree... Oh well... I'm willing to bet we'd still be higher at that ratio.

Simonjester wrote: is killing them really the only answer? that seems like a traditional warfare response to an asymmetrical battle,
seems to me if they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare with us using PC and liberty against us (we have to be tolerant) then we should be fighting against them using non conventional tactics as well..  start dropping cheep tablet computers filled with all the horrible (to them) truth about  unalienable rights, equality. religious freedom and civil rights all over the middle east...

Some of Bush cronies proposed starting a new agency to do just that, similar to what was done against those oh-so-fearsome Communists.

It really is funny how people treat the hallucinotions in their minds as so starkly real.  Ever noticed how its always conservatives that get their panties all twisted in a bunch?  Conservatives here are worried about conservatives "over there".  Well, it takes one to know  one, I say!  I'm not even 100% confident that conservatives "here" are for the liberalism that underpins our free speech, democracy, voting rights, equality, religious freedom, etc.

In my experience, Conservatives are extremely sensitive to threats to the in-group originating from the out-group. That's just the way their brains are wired, similar to how I think liberals' brains are primarily wired to see in-group-out-group dichotomies as harmful, preferring to imagine everyone part of a big in-group. That's what seems to drive these kinds of conversations.

"There's a threat to us from outside our group!"

"No there isn't, the true threat is that our group itself might not be harmonious enough!"

Coffee, you paint a realistic picture of a barbaric group of people who… pose very little threat to us. They have expanded into poor areas with significant Muslim populations; neither conditions are true here. Militant Islam is an ideology of liberation that appeals to righteous poor Muslims, not residents of the most powerful country on Earth. Most of the Americans I've met have been Christians who are rich beyond the wildest dreams of the average Muslim living in a non-western country. There's a cultural divide a thousand miles wide that prevents their violent, barbaric ideology from spreading here to any significant degree. Put simply, we're better than that.

Their clumsy attacks have killed an infinitesimally small number of Americans compare to the number of them we've killed in retaliation. More kids have drowned in bathtubs since 9/11 than the number of people actually killed in that attack. They're flies to us. They're pathetic.

And if they turned off the oil, I bet you even the most liberal politician would suddenly support shale-oil fracking reeeeeally quickly to make up the difference; they don't even provide 50% of our oil.

MachineGhost wrote: I'm not even 100% confident that conservatives "here" are for the liberalism that underpins our free speech, democracy, voting rights, equality, religious freedom, etc.

Good point, many probably aren't (see RINO).  But you can be sure the people trying to tell you what size soda you can and can't drink, trying to confiscate...oops sorry "regulate" your guns, aren't fans either.

Moda,

1.  My use of political corrrectness referred to imaginary racism, silly reactions to men referring to women as attractive/very attractive (horror of horrors), etc. 

Referring to anyone with derogratory terms (aside from e.g. liberal/statist) I agree is not appropriate.

2.  You really have not one clue as to what most conservatives think/want to happen.  Look at what the grounds are like after a tea party rally vs what the grounds are like after a...whatever those people who were campning out in US cites and protesting are called.  Why do you think  there is a difference.  I'll side with/own tea partiers.

3. "We've killed far more of their innocents than they have of ours."
I'm sorry are you still talking about the crusades?  Seriously.  In the last 50 years who have we killed that even adds up to the 9-11 deaths?

Slotine,

All my friends are women, so I can assure you I am sensitive to women's issues. 

""If you had engaged them on an equal level as human beings""
The sports reports (best I know) was not engaging with the players wife at all, only making that comment to a third pary.  LIkewise Obama said

"Obama Calls Californian Kamala Harris 'Best Looking' Attorney General"

So neither of them were even engaging the women in question at all. 

Reality is men (and other women) very quickly notice whether a women is attractive. 

It is (or at least should be) highly offensive to women that Obama is in the white house and not Hillary (given how it was done).  That is worth taking offense over.

But getting upset because someone says you're attractive (to a third person), is silly (and I'm not sure it was even the women in question who were upset), as oppose to liberals in general.

Slotine wrote: "Here lies Benko.  He was attractive."

That might actually be quite appropriate!

Benko wrote:All my friends are women

Reality is what it is.  I don't make the rules (and I could care less what my tombstone says )

Women are people and should be responded to appropriately in context, like all other human beings (of any race, color, sexual orientation...).  If  I had to hire a person, I would hire the best person (best I could tell) for that job, and attractiveness would be irrelevant.  I don't judge female friends based on how attractive or not they are.

But men (and other women) notice, and make comments. And we're talking about "attractive", best looking"  not offensive words.

This is human nature,  just like e.g. not being overly fond of the group of people who killed a relative is human nature.  Humans often react in predictable ways.  You can get upset over it, try legislate to prevent it e.g. NY mayor who pass legislation to try to prevent people from drinking large groups, or realize that  people are people, and not get bent out of shape over it.

Our founders included the right to bear arms (I don't  own a gun), not the right not to be offended.

You don't like Penguins?  I think Opus is very attractive.

I think this thread has drifted waaaaay off course.

Ad Orientem wrote: I think this thread has drifted waaaaay off course.

The question is... who hijacked it?

I bet it was a Muslim!



Ok I'm done  .

I think everyone is too damn sensitive about everything anymore.  We're becoming a nation of thin-skinned wimps who are afraid to make relaxed conversation except for with our close friends, and even then we have to make sure we can't be overheard.

This is a true story.  I work with a guy named Rob who is contract, which means he does the same job but the name on the paycheck isn't the same as mine.  It's a way for my company to limit their liability while they "test-drive" employees and also give themselves more flexibility to handle downturns in the economy.  Anyway, this guy is nothing but professional.  I've heard him make perhaps one joke the 2 years I've known him.  Very straight laced guy, does lots of volunteer coaching work, charities, that kind of thing.  So, a team member on one of our projects was moving on and his replacement is a guy who's last name is spelled Furrer.  Now he pronounces this as "Furrier," which I call total bullshit on, but whatever.  We're having a conference call and this guy joins the appshare.  His name pops up on the screen and Rob blurts out, "Oh, it's the Fuehrer!"

The guy totally loses it and starts yelling at Rob over the phone.  This goes on for several minutes before we can finally have our meeting and after that they guy, who is also a full time employee like me, goes to HR about the whole thing and complains.  Now luckily Rob is still working with us, but that guy knows that anyone who looks at his name has a better than average chance of trying to pronounce it like that.  Instead of handling it like and adult and either laughing it off, or explaining that it made him uncomfortable and to please pronounce it like this instead he acted like a petulant child.

I'm not saying that it's never justified and that all behavior should be excused, but I do feel like we're losing our ability to cope with diverse conversation as adults and are becoming quicker to take offense when we need to become less so.

Looks like Japan is first on the list.  Note: Japan doesn't even have it's own army.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/391 ... l-be-Japan

Coffee wrote: Looks like Japan is first on the list.  Note: Japan doesn't even have it's own army.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/391 ... l-be-Japan

That is a rather sensationalist website. A quick glance at some of the other stories leads me to question its creditability. On the other hand more mainstream reports suggest that N Korea may be looking for a face saving way to exit the current crisis. See...
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... s-say?lite

Also Japan does in fact have a small military. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_S ... nse_Forces

It's interesting to me how quickly the media forgot about North Korea in the face of the:

Boston terrorist pressure-cooker bombings
Ricin-laced terror mail to Obama and Congressmen
Fire and explosion at Texas fertilizer plant

I guess North Korea's young 'un was all bark, no bite.  Or he knew he couldn't compete with these kind of back-to-back, wall-to-wall stories. Or he perhaps decided that enough mayhem is carried out in the USA with enough frequency that there was no need to attack us right away.