Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Sat May 04, 2013 4:58 pm**

[url=http://

]

[/url]

Just a passing observation. No comment whether this is good or bad.

Posted: **Sat May 04, 2013 5:34 pm**

Yes, being a minority is so hot right now. Being a white Christian.... not so much. To everything....turn, turn, turn.

Hopefully the current state of affairs is just an over-correction from the world we've left behind.

Somewhere in the middle where it's ok to be gay or black, but it's also ok to be white and Christian will hopefully emerge.

Posted: **Sat May 04, 2013 8:12 pm**

clacy wrote: Yes, being a minority is so hot right now. Being a white Christian.... not so much. To everything....turn, turn, turn.

Hopefully the current state of affairs is just an over-correction from the world we've left behind.

That would be a nice thing, but look at how we got here: The "putting down" of the basis i.e. values and accomplishments of western civilization and the deconstructing of our culture is pretty far advanced*. "Radicals" took over the college system in the 19060s (before?) and have been churning out lefties ever since. This is (part of) how we got here.

*The American Psychiatric Society which ages ago decided that being gay was not pathologic (a good thing), has recently decided that it is OK if adults are attracted to children (i.e. pedophila) as long as they are only mildly attracted to children.

Posted: **Sat May 04, 2013 9:31 pm**

Simonjester wrote:
Benko wrote: That would be a nice thing, but look at how we got here: The "putting down" of the basis i.e. values and accomplishments of western civilization and the deconstructing of our culture is pretty far advanced*. "Radicals" took over the college system in the 19060s (before?) and have been churning out lefties ever since. This is (part of) how we got here.
an interesting take on when and how it happened that questions the 1960's starting date....

The story begins with the takeover of our university system—not in the 1960s but a full century before that. To make a long story short, in the early 1800s, American colleges were defined by Christianity, and in fact, most were defined denominationally. But America had no graduate schools, and therefore those desiring to move up the academic rung had to travel to Europe to earn a Ph.D.

But Europe’s universities, especially those in Germany which were by far the most prestigious, were already given over to radical Enlightenment thought that defined secular liberalism. To be educated at the highest level—and the highest level was defined by these German universities—meant to be liberal.

When these freshly minted Ph.D.’s came back, they were entirely defined, intellectually, by the assumptions and goals of liberalism. They had imbibed two centuries of European liberalism as the “latest”? thought—Rousseau, Spinoza, Hegel, D. F. Strauss, Marx, Darwin, Spencer, Comte, etc. They became the first radicals at our universities who believed—firmly, deeply, and all too predictably—that “to be educated”? meant “to subscribe to the most radical liberal views.”? And they were ready to launch a top-down revolution of benighted American society.

Again, not in the 1960s but beginning just after the 1860s.

They weren’t taking over existing graduate programs. Rather, they became the first faculty of all of America’s newly constructed graduate programs. They were the intellectual elite. They thereby defined what it meant to be educated with almost no resistance.

The first generation of graduate professors spawned a second generation of graduate professors and a new generation of undergraduate professors. The generations continued, second to third, third to fourth, and so on.

1. The missing piece from what I posted before is that the importance/influence of colleges/universities in society which increased dramatically from e.g. the 1940s/50s onward as the emphasis shifted from thinking for oneself, toward reliance on "experts" (who natch came from these universities). Thus it didn't matter much if university people were marxists before then.

2. "They became the first radicals at our universities who believed—firmly, deeply, and all too predictably—that “to be educated”? meant “to subscribe to the most radical liberal views.”? "

Yes. and as the influence of colleges/universities grew tremendously, so did the mainstreaming of these views.

What the above leaves out is the argumentativeness/bile behind the a lot of these people. Look at e.g. CNBC, occupy wallstreet, etc.

America Lite talks about all of this in more detail.

Posted: **Sat May 04, 2013 9:47 pm**

notsheigetz wrote: [url=http://][/url]

Just a passing observation. No comment whether this is good or bad.

The correct answer to both of these is "who cares."

There are legions of Tebow fans who are only his fans because of his faith, he's not that great a football player. I know nothing about Mr. Collins, but suddenly he also has fans because of his sexuality.

Of the two I give the edge to Tebow. At least he has his philanthropy, most of which is giving his time, to admire. Hopefully there is something more virtuous and substantial to Mr. Collins to pin the accolades on beyond the bravery to admit his homosexuality (there may be, as I said I know nothing about the man). It would be nice to live in a society where people are admired for their deeds and accomplishments rather than for being part of a particular group, be it the Christian group, the Gay group, or the Minority group.

Posted: **Sun May 05, 2013 1:39 pm**

RuralEngineer wrote:The correct answer to both of these is "who cares."

A lot of people care.
The way I see it is that it's relatively easy to be a white Christian. Yes, the PC people are trying to force you to say "Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas, and yes there are issues with prayer in companies and public places. But try as some of them might to paint themselves as beleaguered, they have it pretty good. The last time Christians really suffered, they weren't even white. They were Hebrew.

Contemporary exceptions (also non-white): there are some places, like Egypt, where they truly are beleaguered. I personally know an Indonesian Christian who came to the States because his hometown church was razed to the ground. Does not apply to Tim Tebow. I think he can hold his own against the likes of Michael Newdow just fine.

It's hard to be gay. It's hard to be black. It's really hard to be gay and black. And, I know this is debatable, but the black community has a reputation for being quite hostile to its own gay sub-community. Not just in Jamaica, where it's exceptionally bad, but in the U.S. as well.

On the extreme edge of the spectrum, there are fundamentalist Christians who try to prevent gay marriage. They also murder doctors who perform abortions.

What do extremist gays do? Plant lilies in your yard without permission?

So, anytime a show like 'Will & Grace' makes it to network tv, anytime a sports figure is brave enough to come out, I think my gay friends are breathing a sigh of relief knowing that things are steadily getting better.

Side note: Jason Collins really screwed over that girl that he had an eight-year relationship with. If you want to come out that's great, but don't string the poor woman along for eight years! Girl wants to have a baby. Not cool.

Posted: **Sun May 05, 2013 8:26 pm**

I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 7:38 am**

rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.

Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 10:02 am**

MachineGhost wrote:
rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.
Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.

Uh... try adding "President, Local Atheist Society" on your resume and then sending it out to companies. Or try calling your local town hall to see if you can reserve a community room for an atheist group meeting. Or the next time someone asks you what church you attend, tell them "I don't go to church, I'm an atheist" and watch their reaction. In some areas of the country, being openly atheist can get you physically assaulted or your property vandalized. Which speaks volumes about what religion does to people's minds.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 10:06 am**

rocketdog wrote:
MachineGhost wrote:
rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.
Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.
Uh... try adding "President, Local Atheist Society" on your resume and then sending it out to companies.

Would you expect someone who listed participation in non-charitible religious organizations to fare any better? Both would seem sort of out of place on a business resume, no?

But I think it's very heavily location-dependent. Liberal cities tend to be far more tolerant of atheism… matched by their intolerance toward religion Christianity.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 10:22 am**

rocketdog wrote: I'm longing for the day that atheism becomes a non-issue.

Which is funny because progressives/athesists are the ones removing all visible vestiges of christianity from e.g. public spaces and schools, while at the same time forcing school children to learn moslem traditions e.g.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Texas Public School Teacher Dresses Students In Muslim Burqas ..."

"Tennessee parents are fuming after learning that school textbooks justify Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel."

Public Schools Teach the ABCs of Islam - US - CBN News ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes, atheism has a stigma, though many atheists are militant and angry and not live and let live kinda people.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 10:57 am**

Benko wrote:
clacy wrote: Yes, being a minority is so hot right now. Being a white Christian.... not so much. To everything....turn, turn, turn.

Hopefully the current state of affairs is just an over-correction from the world we've left behind.
That would be a nice thing, but look at how we got here: The "putting down" of the basis i.e. values and accomplishments of western civilization and the deconstructing of our culture is pretty far advanced*. "Radicals" took over the college system in the 19060s (before?) and have been churning out lefties ever since. This is (part of) how we got here.

*The American Psychiatric Society which ages ago decided that being gay was not pathologic (a good thing), has recently decided that it is OK if adults are attracted to children (i.e. pedophila) as long as they are only mildly attracted to children.

Can't we see that left needs right....radical needs conservative...just like up needs down and short needs tall? How do these issues look through non-dualistic lenses? After-all, nothing can be self referential in the universe. In other words, the right depends on the left for their very survival. Without them, they cease to exist.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 11:25 am**

doodle wrote: Can't we see that left needs right....radical needs conservative...just like up needs down and short needs tall? How do these issues look through non-dualistic lenses? After-all, nothing can be self referential in the universe. In other words, the right depends on the left for their very survival. Without them, they cease to exist.

I actually agree with you on this. And you might find this interesting: http://neuropolitics.org/defaultfeb09.asp

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 11:54 am**

"The last time Christians really suffered, they weren't even white. They were Hebrew. "

I can understand why you might think this to be true. However, it displays a profound lack of knowledge about the history Christian martyrdom.

A few episodes I will mention which are well past the era of the 1st century...
-Armenian genocide
-Constantinople
-French revolution
-Mexican civil war
-Basically anywhere Muslims live in proximity to Christians and become a majority
-Russian revolution
-Ongoing persecution of Chen Guangcheng and Chinese Christians
-Egypt (including in past month)
-East Timor (in past decade or so)
-Eastern Europe under marxist communism

For a very recent reminder, so news of upcoming canonization...check out the photographic evidence.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... ric-siege/

Examples of persecution by totalitarian gov'ts.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/20 ... t-regimes/

An organization which works on this issue is http://www.mindszenty.org/2013.aspx  where they have free reports.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 12:25 pm**

I actually listed some of your own examples before you did, but fair enough: you list more, including some Caucasian ones which I did not.
I admit my statement was pretty bombastic.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 12:46 pm**

On a bit of a tangent...Im reading a bit of Nietzsche..."On the geneology of morals"..who thinks that Christianity basically amounts to a 2000 year mistake from the standpoint of the human species. From what I can understand, he seems to be making the argument that Christianity is a religion in which the weak have one upped the strong and virtuous by placing a version of God above them that looks unfavorably down upon their behavior. In addition, he argues that Christianity is actually a doctrine of hate towards the strong and powerful which is couched and disguised as universal love. He quotes St. Tomas Aquinas to support this idea by drawing attention to a statement he made in one of his writings that one of the most enjoyable gifts of heaven will be that the saved will be able to look down upon and witness the sufferings of those eternally damned.

All of this is probably why Nietzsche isnt too revered in Christian circles....

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 1:58 pm**

I'm including another example of a Christian martyr because it is relevant to the specifics of this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stachowicz

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 2:22 pm**

doodle wrote: On a bit of a tangent...Im reading a bit of Nietzsche..."On the geneology of morals"..who thinks that Christianity basically amounts to a 2000 year mistake from the standpoint of the human species. From what I can understand, he seems to be making the argument that Christianity is a religion in which the weak have one upped the strong and virtuous by placing a version of God above them that looks unfavorably down upon their behavior. In addition, he argues that Christianity is actually a doctrine of hate towards the strong and powerful which is couched and disguised as universal love. He quotes St. Tomas Aquinas to support this idea by drawing attention to a statement he made in one of his writings that one of the most enjoyable gifts of heaven will be that the saved will be able to look down upon and witness the sufferings of those eternally damned.

All of this is probably why Nietzsche isnt too revered in Christian circles....

The Crusades weren't "strong and powerful" enough for Nietzsche? How many army bases does the US have? It seems Christians have no problem with being "strong and powerful".

So how does this relate to the teachings of Jesus...I'm not sure, haha. I guess that's dualism for you!

I have been reading GK Chesterton, who seems to do a good job of defending Christianity against Nietzsche. Basically he accuses the critics of being unable to decide on what they dislike so much about Christianity. Are Christians a bunch of old ladies or blood thirsty war mongers? Or are the critics simply projecting what they don't like in the world onto Christianity (ie. a tall man would accuse it of being too short, a short man would accuse it of being too tall, etc).

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 3:36 pm**

murphy_p_t wrote: I'm including another example of a Christian martyr because it is relevant to the specifics of this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stachowicz

Looks like she harassed the wrong gay guy. Still, I find it hard to believe that anyone would call this a hate crime.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 3:57 pm**

I find the whole idea of a "hate crime" to be stupid. Isn't every crime an act of hate?

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 4:24 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
rocketdog wrote:
MachineGhost wrote: Its an issue? To whom? I don't see much written or filmed about it.
Uh... try adding "President, Local Atheist Society" on your resume and then sending it out to companies.
Would you expect someone who listed participation in non-charitible religious organizations to fare any better? Both would seem sort of out of place on a business resume, no?

Absolutely! There are managers at my company who blatantly post religious artifacts and biblical sayings conspicuously around their office, so that interviewees can't help but notice them. Since it's illegal to ask an applicant their religion, this is an end-run around that restriction, because if the applicant brings up the subject then it's not illegal to discuss. This way managers can screen applicants based on religion without anyone being able to prove it.

Being elected president of any organization is an honor and something most people would want to show on their resume. Unless, that is, it's an atheist organization. Hell, you can't even buy shoes labeled "atheist" in America without the USPS f**king with your order:

http://www.atheistberlin.com/study

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 4:29 pm**

Like I said, I think it's geographical. Here in Silicon Valley, it's the Christians (I'm not one of them, for the record) who are practically a persecuted minority, often in a similar manner to what you describe.

What seems more important to me is that we learn to respect each other equally regardless of who believes what, not that we swing the pendulum too far in the other direction and provoke a well-deserved backlash against the initial backlash.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 5:01 pm**

A bigger point here (at least to me) is that I have absolutely no memory of having started this thread.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 5:37 pm**

TennPaGa wrote: Each of these athletes have their fans, and their detractors. It will always be such.
My recollection was that Tebow got plenty of positive press when he was winning football games.

I like Tebow because he's from Florida and because he was born in the Philippines and used his money from football stardom to start an organization dedicated to building hospitals over there. I think he may have overdone the religious proselytizing a bit and I prefer football to be about football but I was young and excited about my religion once and did similar things. No need to crucify him for it.

And also do you football fans know that he had the highest passer rating EVER in the SEC, above two fellows named Manning? Now I hear that he can't pass.

Posted: **Mon May 06, 2013 5:48 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: I find the whole idea of a "hate crime" to be stupid. Isn't every crime an act of hate?

Amen Bro. "Hate crime" means it was perpetrated against a currently in favor and politically protected group of people by a currently out of favor and politically incorrect person.

How do you survive out there in S.F. with ideas like this?

You are a great free thinker.

Gyroscopic Investing

Sign of the times

Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times

Re: Sign of the times