Gyroscopic Investing

TennPaGa wrote: So, in the end, the complaint in the OP was pretty much akin to a protestation that homosexuals are co-opting Christmas because they inserted the word "gay" in the lyrics to a beloved Christmas carol.

1.  I was wrong (about the original post)

2.  Your analogy is silly since I didn't have the information (which Gumby researched).

moda0306 wrote: PS,

I know I'm the one who does it haha. I should have been more clear on that.  I'm just saying that it can be exhausting looking at a debate knowing that we'll be carrying 5 levels deep into different topics.

And we are trying to have a philosophical debate here, right?  Not a functional one using "might makes right?"  If that's the case, the holocaust was moral because it happened.

Despite the wording of the phrase, I'm not actually claiming that that the mightiest player has the moral high ground. I'm just using the traditional turn of phrase because my sense is that it's pretty well understood to mean "the strongest gets what he wants."

Obviously the holocaust wasn't moral just because the Jews were too weak to resist at the time. But we can understand it through the disparity of force. A madman who wrote a book about how evil and dirty the Jews were took power and the writing was on the wall. Any Jews who objected on the basis that they had human rights or that their detention was illegal or any other such protestations were pissing into the wind.

When someone wants to kill you, your rights don't mean shit. It's time to save your own life, not look for some passage in a legal document describing how unfair your situation is. Civil and human rights only protect people from those who agree to respect those rights… which is to say, they very rarely protect anyone from anything; more often they simply provide a legal channel for the punishment of the violator be after the fact by the powers that be, should they even care enough about you or the right you're asserting. Often they don't because they themselves are prejudiced, biased, or ideologically opposed to the right in question.

So even if the powers that be succeed in punishing the violator or--more rarely--providing you come sort of compensation, fat lot of good that does you if the violation had the effect of killing you or your family. That's all I'm really saying.

TennPaGa wrote:

Benko wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: So, in the end, the complaint in the OP was pretty much akin to a protestation that homosexuals are co-opting Christmas because they inserted the word "gay" in the lyrics to a beloved Christmas carol.

2.  Your analogy is silly since I didn't have the information (which Gumby researched).

Actually, that's exactly why the analogy is appropriate.

But, let's be clear. This was 100% the media's fault. Today, as we speak, Conservatives are being riled up — all around the country — by a 108-year-old tablet, because someone in a "newsroom" decided it would be fodder to make conservatives hate liberals just a little bit more than they already do. And to what end?

This is why I've given up reading/watching the "news" almost entirely. I've discovered that my life is more peaceful and joyful when I avoid the media as much as possible.

Just a few centuries ago, people would live their lives with very little knowledge of what was going on throughout every corner of the nation or the world. A New England Colonist, during the 18th century, would have had no idea what a group of Muslims in Cairo was doing that would irritate him. His life would have been occupied by things that actually mattered to him. But, today, we find ourselves awash with video, photos and headlines that are engineered to play to our emotions and feed our prejudices. And those modern day Muslims in Cairo are getting the same exact dose on their end.

I'm done with it.

Benko wrote: Keep in mind that we live in a society where universities, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/CNBC, PBS all tout the party line and condition people to view things as they do and do exactly what happened in this thread whenever something happens which disagrees with their view of reality. 

You forgot to include FOX News in this list. 

I would add that because FOX News staff have to do a lot of thought-stopping in order to manufacture their version of reality, they lose touch with the concept of fact-checking.  As a result FOX can't do credible research, leading to frequent, often laughable errors of the type that lay waste to whatever legitimate point they are trying to make.  FOX  cannot be believed about the basic facts in even "simple" news reports.  Since they have no credibility with facts, they rely on drawing audiences based purely on emotional appeals and unnecessary politicization of trivia and ordinary affairs.

The saddest thing is that people who watch FOX (and other "news" and opinion outlets of the thought-stopping ilk) for knowledge about the world sometimes fall under its influence.  When that happens they tend to suspend judgement and common sense, like they're under a cult.  (They even develop a cult language, a FOXNewsspeak, that stands out from common conversation and writing.) They then become despondent when someone outside the FOX universe does a bit of research and fact checking and publicly demonstrates that there are other credible views on any politicized issue.

smurff wrote:

Benko wrote: Keep in mind that we live in a society where universities, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/CNBC, PBS all tout the party line and condition people to view things as they do and do exactly what happened in this thread whenever something happens which disagrees with their view of reality. 

You forgot to include FOX News in this list. 

I would add that because FOX News staff have to do a lot of thought-stopping in order to manufacture their version of reality, they lose touch with the concept of fact-checking.  As a result FOX can't do credible research, leading to frequent, often laughable errors of the type that lay waste to whatever legitimate point they are trying to make.  FOX  cannot be believed about the basic facts in even "simple" news reports.  Since they have no credibility with facts, they rely on drawing audiences based purely on emotional appeals and unnecessary politicization of trivia and ordinary affairs.

The saddest thing is that people who watch FOX (and other "news" and opinion outlets of the thought-stopping ilk) for knowledge about the world sometimes fall under its influence.  When that happens they tend to suspend judgement and common sense, like they're under a cult.  (They even develop a cult language, a FOXNewsspeak, that stands out from common conversation and writing.) They then become despondent when someone outside the FOX universe does a bit of research and fact checking and publicly demonstrates that there are other credible views on any politicized issue.

Case in point... I just posted the Theodore Roosevelt quote on Fox News's article about the Lincoln tablet. You would think people would want to hear another side of the story and how even Teddy Roosevelt called Lincoln a "genuine democrat". But, no. The comment was redirected to a black hole. No one else can see it. I can still see the comment on my own browser, but if I look at the page with any other browser, my comment isn't there. It's rather sneaky because anyone who posts an opposing viewpoint feels like their voice is getting heard, but in reality, they aren't.

Fox is meticulously censoring comments so that their readers are only being exposed to their side of the story.

Interestingly, I discovered that Roosevelt was even quite fond of calling himself a "democrat":

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"I am a democrat of democrats. I will do anything for the laboring man except what is wrong" — Theodore Roosevelt

Source: Theodore Roosevelt and His Time Shown in His Own Letters, Volume 2 By Joseph Bucklin Bishop

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"...even a democrat like myself must admit this." — Theodore Roosevelt

Source: Theodore Roosevelt and His Time Shown in His Own Letters, Volume 2 By Joseph Bucklin Bishop

This is pure American history. Fox News isn't interested in its audience learning the truth. They are mostly just interested in their audience hating liberals — which accomplishes nothing.

Wow, Gumby.  That sounds really underhanded.  Is it possible that your comment got downmodded by other readers, and that's what's causing it to not display?  Maybe more a result of groupthink than something sinister?

Could it just be the comment moderation system? A lot of softwares out there will show you your own comment while it's still in the moderation queue or something.

Still, if it's the way you're describing, that's pretty bad. Then again, I find that the comments section of pretty much any major news website is just a wasteland. Every once in a while I read some of the comments on a HuffPo article and feel like I've lost some brain cells.

Xan wrote:Is it possible that your comment got downmodded by other readers, and that's what's causing it to not display?  Maybe more a result of groupthink than something sinister?

Pointedstick wrote: Could it just be the comment moderation system? A lot of softwares out there will show you your own comment while it's still in the moderation queue or something.

Nope. Neither of those appear to be the case as best as I can tell. It's been more than a few hours (I posted it at 11:30am EST) and plenty of other comments have appeared since mine. Additionally, there are only "Like" buttons and no way to vote down a comment. Again, I can still see my post, but only from my browser where I am logged in — I can't see it if I go to the article with another browser.

Anyway, you can keep looking for it, if you like. But, I doubt it will show up.

I would even encourage others to copy and post the quote to see if they can get it to show up...

Gumby wrote:Even Theodore Roosevelt — a Republican — once wrote that Lincoln was a "genuine democrat":

"Lincoln — who, as you finely put it, conscientiously carried out the Hamilton tradition, was superior to Hamilton just because he was a politician and was a GENUINE DEMOCRAT, and therefore suited to lead a genuine democracy." — Theodore Roosevelt

Source: Scribner's Magazine, Volume 67, January—June 1920

http://bit.ly/17nEpDa

It was just a part of the lexicon at the time. Saying someone was a "democrat" (small "d") meant far more than the interchangeable party names back then.

I suspect if anyone posts that or something similar, they'll experience the same censorship. The comment will appear for you, but will be unviewable by other browsers — at least once the mods see it.

Gumby wrote:

smurff wrote:

Benko wrote: Keep in mind that we live in a society where universities, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC/CNBC, PBS all tout the party line and condition people to view things as they do and do exactly what happened in this thread whenever something happens which disagrees with their view of reality. 

You forgot to include FOX News in this list. 

I would add that because FOX News staff have to do a lot of thought-stopping in order to manufacture their version of reality, they lose touch with the concept of fact-checking.  As a result FOX can't do credible research, leading to frequent, often laughable errors of the type that lay waste to whatever legitimate point they are trying to make.  FOX  cannot be believed about the basic facts in even "simple" news reports.  Since they have no credibility with facts, they rely on drawing audiences based purely on emotional appeals and unnecessary politicization of trivia and ordinary affairs.

The saddest thing is that people who watch FOX (and other "news" and opinion outlets of the thought-stopping ilk) for knowledge about the world sometimes fall under its influence.  When that happens they tend to suspend judgement and common sense, like they're under a cult.  (They even develop a cult language, a FOXNewsspeak, that stands out from common conversation and writing.) They then become despondent when someone outside the FOX universe does a bit of research and fact checking and publicly demonstrates that there are other credible views on any politicized issue.

Case in point... I just posted the Theodore Roosevelt quote on Fox News's article about the Lincoln tablet. You would think people would want to hear another side of the story and how even Teddy Roosevelt called Lincoln a "genuine democrat". But, no. The comment was redirected to a black hole. No one else can see it. I can still see the comment on my own browser, but if I look at the page with any other browser, my comment isn't there. It's rather sneaky because anyone who posts an opposing viewpoint feels like their voice is getting heard, but in reality, they aren't.

Fox is meticulously censoring comments so that their readers are only being exposed to their side of the story.

Interestingly, I discovered that Roosevelt was even quite fond of calling himself a "democrat":

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"I am a democrat of democrats. I will do anything for the laboring man except what is wrong" — Theodore Roosevelt

Source: Theodore Roosevelt and His Time Shown in His Own Letters, Volume 2 By Joseph Bucklin Bishop

Theodore Roosevelt wrote:"...even a democrat like myself must admit this." — Theodore Roosevelt

Source: Theodore Roosevelt and His Time Shown in His Own Letters, Volume 2 By Joseph Bucklin Bishop

This is pure American history. Fox News isn't interested in its audience learning the truth. They are mostly just interested in their audience hating liberals — which accomplishes nothing.

It accomplishes a frothing, motivated fan base. So in essence it accomplishes everything.

moda0306 wrote: If anyone had a rightful claim to rise up and claim anything, it would have been the slaves to rise up, kill their masters and overseers, as well as to destroy/upend the political establishment that enforced their status as property, and take the farm lands they worked as property (the last being an arbirary add-on).

Anyone who stood in their way would be a direct enemy to their own sovereignty.

You don't get to enslave an entire mass of population, by force of your local/state governments, and then get to claim that either your status as a property-owner or the states status as a soveriegn entity is legitimate.  You lost before the fight even started.

If this stirs the pot in the wrong direction then I leave it to the moderators to end the conversation.....

I was surprised by this post. Moda, why would slaves have the right to kill their masters and take their masters property? Why is slavery illegitimate if it can be enforced with violence? Does the ability to enforce not make it legitmate? If not, why in your opinion?

I know you might be exhausted with this topic, but you've made statements here that I have never heard from you and I find it interesting. You might have voiced them in the past but I've never seen them.