Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

What I've Learned From This Election


  • Please log in to reply
227 replies to this topic

#196 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,318 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:17 PM

That's, like, really deep... man.

I just got back from colorado so my mind is open. :)

#197 Panthers128

Panthers128

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,283 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:34 PM

Okay, I will play.

When a party cannot inspire the electorate through future opportunities or the chance at greatness, they have to demonize the opponents. They do this by telling many groups how bad they currently have it and how it will only get worse if their opponents are elected. Hence, the war on women. Women had no clue how bad they had it until Obamas team started telling them how put upon they actually were and Romney would take them back to horse and buggy days.

Now, you have to wonder how much patronization the modern woman can take. Pretty much if voting patterns are any indication. Same with blacks. They have been a poor underacheiving group for the last 60 years and Dems have been and will continue to be the beneficiaries of their low position. All they have to do in each election cycle is to tell the black community that their woes are due to the conservatives and they fall right back in line. It does not matter that generations have never made any progress under Dems, they are victims of the right and the Dems are their only saving grace.

It happens all the time. And the Dems just keep creating more victims and more constituents. Why then, would the Dems ever want any group to "rise above"?


I concur. In 2016, Democrats will have held the Presidency for 16 of the past 24 years. I can guarantee you at that time they will still be using the same 'victim' arguments. Meanwhile blacks will still have high rates of single parent homes, poor results in education, the highest unemployment rates, and will account for a disproportionate number of violent criminals.

Everyone in the country is taught to have pride in their race except for white people and that has shown this election. Blacks have black history month, then there's efforts to promote Latino heritage and Asian heritage. Then there is the sex factor. Women and gays are taught to pat themselves on the back as well. If you're a white, heterosexual, Christian man, well, you clearly have so much privilege that you should just stay on the sidelines and show some humility... White people are told that having pride is shameful. As a result you see Latinos, blacks, Jews and Asians vote 70-93% for the DNC which caters to them constantly. Meanwhile the GOP receives only 59% of the divided white vote.

Many of the white liberals believe race doesn't matter. It's an admirable view, but it's something out of a fairy tale. Many white liberals are young, they'll reap what they sow. In South Africa there are laws that openly prevent white people from owning stock in certain companies and many companies set policies that prevent hiring white people. In Zimbabwe they continuously repossess land from whites - all for the goal of equality. In America white people are already negatively impacted by affirmative action, hiring quotas, and racial agendas (like hate crime laws which are rarely enforced against anyone but white men) set forth by the government. There's already a precedent for it. Do you think when a majority of our leaders are non-whites that they'll scale back on these racist policies? Unlikely.

Once you validate the status of being a victim it never ends. Ask Germany, to this day they're still paying Jews for their time spent in the Holocaust. I've read articles about Jewish babies during WW2 who can't even remember being affected by the Holocaust who are now receiving reparations from Germany.

#198 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,865 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:52 PM

it's true.

i would be interested in seeing someone put together some sort of visual chart to illustrate this, but i believe there's sort of an epistemological mindfug that occurs when certain sociological elements are in place.

say you're born into a family with zealous beliefs in mindset X, and you are socialized to believe the values and philosophy of Mindset X. rather than having a methodology of data intake that encourages unbiased evaluation, the methodology of Mindset X encourages filtering of new data through the preexisting philosophy of Mindset X, throwing out that which does not fit the current belief system and accepting that which does.

what you get is lazy classification as a methodology. anything that opposes Mindset X becomes Y by default, and those who oppose Mindset X ideologically are a bunch of Y-ers. And someone with Mindset X cannot possibly engage in rational discourse with a Y-er because the Y-view is discredited as intrinsically flawed based simply on its opposition to the ideology of Mindset X. everything ideologically is lumped into Y if it does not fit X.

and then discourse dies, and you pass Mindset X onto your offspring, heavily socializing them with it, and mindset is passed on with no methodology of critical independent thought passed on as well.



statements like "liberalism is a mental disorder" are a prime example of this.


That is an interesting theory. The only problem I see about it is that you have created your own Mindset X with this theory and now you believe everyone is of the Mindset Y (your hypothesis) and are not capable of independent thought because of their own sociological environment.

Therefore, you own Mindset X allows you dismiss all points of views because it is just a Y-er who is predisposed to their own mindfug because of their upbringing and social surroundings. Therefore, it creates a feeling of superiority because all the people who are of your new Mindset Y are too misguided to understand that they are blinded by ideals of their surrounding environment and therefore are prisoners of their own reality and blind to the real truth.

The end result is that you become a know it all asshole who thinks the rest of the world just doesn't get it because they are preconditioned to believe what they believe because they are blinded by their upbringing or sociological factors and you are clear headed and above that kind of mindfug.

The problem I have with your theory is it doesn't account for contrarians. For example, there is a large number of people who if they grew up in family with zealous beliefs in mindset X, and you are socialized to believe the values and philosophy of Mindset X, they will actually become of Mindset Y just to be different.

And lastly, this idea of yours is not new. As a matter of fact, it is a theory in "The Republic" by the Greek philosopher Plato around 380 BC and is known as "Plato's Cave" or "Allegory of the Cave". Instead of explaining it i will use Wikipedia to give the synopsis because I don't want to type it all out.

Inside the cave

In Plato's fictional dialogue, Socrates begins by describing a scenario in which what people take to be real would in fact be an illusion. He asks Glaucon to imagine a cave inhabited by prisoners who have been chained and held immobile since childhood: not only are their legs (but not arms) held in place, but their necks are also fixed, so they are compelled to gaze at a wall in front of them. Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which people walk carrying things on their heads "including figures of men and animals made of wood, stone and other materials". The prisoners cannot see the raised walkway or the people walking, but they watch the shadows cast by the men, not knowing they are shadows. There are also echoes off the wall from the noise produced from the walkway.
Socrates suggests the prisoners would take the shadows to be real things and the echoes to be real sounds created by the shadows, not just reflections of reality, since they are all they had ever seen or heard. They would praise as clever, whoever could best guess which shadow would come next, as someone who understood the nature of the world, and the whole of their society would depend on the shadows on the wall.

Release from the cave

Socrates then supposes that a prisoner is freed and permitted to stand up. If someone were to show him the things that had cast the shadows, he would not recognize them for what they were and could not name them; he would believe the shadows on the wall to be more real than what he sees.
"Suppose further," Socrates says, "that the man was compelled to look at the fire: wouldn't he be struck blind and try to turn his gaze back toward the shadows, as toward what he can see clearly and hold to be real? What if someone forcibly dragged such a man upward, out of the cave: wouldn't the man be angry at the one doing this to him? And if dragged all the way out into the sunlight, wouldn't he be distressed and unable to see "even one of the things now said to be true" because he was blinded by the light?
After some time on the surface, however, the freed prisoner would acclimate. He would see more and more things around him, until he could look upon the Sun. He would understand that the Sun is the "source of the seasons and the years, and is the steward of all things in the visible place, and is in a certain way the cause of all those things he and his companions had been seeing" (516b–c). (See also Plato's metaphor of the Sun, which occurs near the end of The Republic, Book VI)[3]

Return to the cave

Socrates next asks Glaucon to consider the condition of this man. "Wouldn't he remember his first home, what passed for wisdom there, and his fellow prisoners, and consider himself happy and them pitiable? And wouldn't he disdain whatever honors, praises, and prizes were awarded there to the ones who guessed best which shadows followed which? Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? Wouldn't it be said of him that he went up and came back with his eyes corrupted, and that it's not even worth trying to go up? And if they were somehow able to get their hands on and kill the man who attempts to release and lead them up, wouldn't they kill him?" (517a) The prisoners, ignorant of the world behind them, would see the freed man with his corrupted eyes and be afraid of anything but what they already know. Philosophers analyzing the allegory argue that the prisoners would ironically find the freed man stupid due to the current state of his eyes and temporarily not being able to see the shadows which are the world to the prisoners.


So the question is, are you the prisoner who thinks the man who has seen reality is the stupid one or are you the man who was released and has seen reality and believe the prisoners are misinformed? And how do you know?
http://en.wikipedia....ory_of_the_Cave

#199 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:52 PM

you are quick to point out the snarkiness and statement-dodging of those who you disagree with, and yet you've flippantly dismissed my thoughtful explanation of my position.



I didn't dismiss anything, Tyrannothesaurus Rex.

#200 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:54 PM

That's, like, really deep... man.


Deeper!

How's that feel, baby?


Deeper!

(in James Earl Jones voice) How's that feel, baby?

#201 beach

beach

    |~~~~|

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,695 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:55 PM

Deeper!

How's that feel, baby?


Deeper!

(in James Earl Jones voice) How's that feel, baby?


ok that was funny haha

#202 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,740 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:42 AM

That is an interesting theory. The only problem I see about it is that you have created your own Mindset X with this theory and now you believe everyone is of the Mindset Y (your hypothesis) and are not capable of independent thought because of their own sociological environment.

Therefore, you own Mindset X allows you dismiss all points of views because it is just a Y-er who is predisposed to their own mindfug because of their upbringing and social surroundings. Therefore, it creates a feeling of superiority because all the people who are of your new Mindset Y are too misguided to understand that they are blinded by ideals of their surrounding environment and therefore are prisoners of their own reality and blind to the real truth.

The end result is that you become a know it all asshole who thinks the rest of the world just doesn't get it because they are preconditioned to believe what they believe because they are blinded by their upbringing or sociological factors and you are clear headed and above that kind of mindfug.

The problem I have with your theory is it doesn't account for contrarians. For example, there is a large number of people who if they grew up in family with zealous beliefs in mindset X, and you are socialized to believe the values and philosophy of Mindset X, they will actually become of Mindset Y just to be different.

And lastly, this idea of yours is not new. As a matter of fact, it is a theory in "The Republic" by the Greek philosopher Plato around 380 BC and is known as "Plato's Cave" or "Allegory of the Cave". Instead of explaining it i will use Wikipedia to give the synopsis because I don't want to type it all out.



So the question is, are you the prisoner who thinks the man who has seen reality is the stupid one or are you the man who was released and has seen reality and believe the prisoners are misinformed? And how do you know?
http://en.wikipedia....ory_of_the_Cave


holy damn you may be my new favorite poster

excellent breakdown of my theory... which is full of holes because it wasn't so much a theory as a casual attempt to explain the dynamic i was attempting to reference (lazy ideological stratification that gets socialized and diffused accordingly.) i agree it is far from sound, and if taken as an overall theory of social mechanics would fail completely; but it was meant as a case example in a vacuum.

i also think you switched mindset X and Y... mindset X was intended to represent those who things into "them liberals" whereas the Y is not an actual mindset, but a subset of the stratification projected by mindset X. "Z is not X therefore it must be Y."

contrarians do pose a problem, but only in a world concretely described by the above (which again was not my goal.) but counterpoint anyway: is contrarian behavior in any way affected by socialization? the process of socialization can include many instances of data processing that alters the way one views the world; moreover, contrarianism is relative to the culture context, which may or may not match the original context in which the individual was socialized. there's a shitload of shades of grey.


plato's cave is awesome and epistemology is a total mindfug and the best antidote for sleep in my experience.

#203 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,740 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:50 AM

I didn't dismiss anything, Tyrannothesaurus Rex.


you engaged by quoting it and responded with LOL and then promptly disengaged by refusing to discuss it, Velieciraptor

#204 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:57 AM

you engaged by quoting it and responded with LOL and then promptly disengaged by refusing to discuss it, Velieciraptor



Well played, Dr. Grant. Well played, sir.

#205 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,740 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:00 AM

Well played, Dr. Grant. Well played, sir.


if you knew how fuging long and hard i worked to come up with a dinosaur wordplay you would respond to my OP out of sheer awe and respect

#206 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:04 AM

if you knew how fuging long and hard i worked to come up with a dinosaur wordplay you would respond to my OP out of sheer awe and respect


I'll give it a triceratops.

#207 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,865 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:15 AM

holy damn you may be my new favorite poster

excellent breakdown of my theory... which is full of holes because it wasn't so much a theory as a casual attempt to explain the dynamic i was attempting to reference (lazy ideological stratification that gets socialized and diffused accordingly.) i agree it is far from sound, and if taken as an overall theory of social mechanics would fail completely; but it was meant as a case example in a vacuum.

i also think you switched mindset X and Y... mindset X was intended to represent those who things into "them liberals" whereas the Y is not an actual mindset, but a subset of the stratification projected by mindset X. "Z is not X therefore it must be Y."

contrarians do pose a problem, but only in a world concretely described by the above (which again was not my goal.) but counterpoint anyway: is contrarian behavior in any way affected by socialization? the process of socialization can include many instances of data processing that alters the way one views the world; moreover, contrarianism is relative to the culture context, which may or may not match the original context in which the individual was socialized. there's a shitload of shades of grey.


plato's cave is awesome and epistemology is a total mindfug and the best antidote for sleep in my experience.


The funny thing is, after I typed the paragraph "The end result is that you become a know it all asshole who thinks the rest of the world just doesn't get it because they are preconditioned to believe what they believe because they are blinded by their upbringing or sociological factors and you are clear headed and above that kind of mindfug." (BTW I wasn't talking about you specifically, just in general you always meet that person who thinks they have it all figured out and everyone else is blind or stupid)

Well after I typed it and re-read it I realized, "You know what, I am that asshole". If you look at my posts I brag about being unaffiliated politically as if that gives me superiority over the blind little mice who believe everything their respective party tells them even if it is ridiculous.

Then I thought to myself, "am I the prisoner or the man who was freed?" I didn't have that answer so I decided I will just keep being the know it all asshole that thinks he is superior because I don't belong to any political party. It is more fun and self gratifying that way.

BTW I tend to agree with your original post but being a contrarian myself I decided to see if I could poke holes in it just for fun.

#208 PhillyB

PhillyB

    hug it chug it football

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,740 posts
  • LocationGreensboro

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:21 AM

yeah i'm unaffiliated and i love wielding it over ignorant little partisan minions who should be doing my bidding and will one day. until then they can suck on my free-thinking independent enlightened johnson.

#209 FurdTurgason

FurdTurgason

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 954 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:34 AM

Get a room. My God.

#210 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,002 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:45 AM

I concur. In 2016, Democrats will have held the Presidency for 16 of the past 24 years. I can guarantee you at that time they will still be using the same 'victim' arguments. Meanwhile blacks will still have high rates of single parent homes, poor results in education, the highest unemployment rates, and will account for a disproportionate number of violent criminals.

Everyone in the country is taught to have pride in their race except for white people and that has shown this election. Blacks have black history month, then there's efforts to promote Latino heritage and Asian heritage. Then there is the sex factor. Women and gays are taught to pat themselves on the back as well. If you're a white, heterosexual, Christian man, well, you clearly have so much privilege that you should just stay on the sidelines and show some humility... White people are told that having pride is shameful. As a result you see Latinos, blacks, Jews and Asians vote 70-93% for the DNC which caters to them constantly. Meanwhile the GOP receives only 59% of the divided white vote.

Many of the white liberals believe race doesn't matter. It's an admirable view, but it's something out of a fairy tale. Many white liberals are young, they'll reap what they sow. In South Africa there are laws that openly prevent white people from owning stock in certain companies and many companies set policies that prevent hiring white people. In Zimbabwe they continuously repossess land from whites - all for the goal of equality. In America white people are already negatively impacted by affirmative action, hiring quotas, and racial agendas (like hate crime laws which are rarely enforced against anyone but white men) set forth by the government. There's already a precedent for it. Do you think when a majority of our leaders are non-whites that they'll scale back on these racist policies? Unlikely.

Once you validate the status of being a victim it never ends. Ask Germany, to this day they're still paying Jews for their time spent in the Holocaust. I've read articles about Jewish babies during WW2 who can't even remember being affected by the Holocaust who are now receiving reparations from Germany.


Posted Image


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.