The Culture Wars turn hot

[Krig the Viking]

As far as the tea party, they're usually older and more establish with more to lose so a big part of their demographic is law abiding citizens with a deep sense of res-sentiment that builds as their social status is being made equal to people they consider their inferiors such as different minorities, gays, and other groups. What they really ask for is to take away benefits or oppress other groups they consider morally inferiors or outsiders so they don't have to pay as much taxes or something like that.

Um... yeah, that's pretty blatantly ridiculous. The tea party movement is a single-issue movement focused on calling for smaller government and opposition to the government's recent high spending. They are essentially a coalition of conservative and libertarian factions who are opposed to increases in government power/control over the general populace. Race and sexual orientation are obsessions of the media, not the tea parties.

According to Mitchell's theory, the tea party movement would be a coalition of "republican constitutionalists" and "paleolibertarians", with a few "libertarian individualists" thrown in as well, all united to their opposition to Obama's "democratic progressive" government and George W. Bush's largely "plutocratic nationalist" government. Using the Vosem Chart (which I looked into more closely during my research of Mitchell's theory), the tea parties would be a coalition of Conservatives, Paleoconservatives, and Libertarians, opposed to Obama's largely Liberal government and Bush's fairly Authoritarian government.

[mu4]

Um... yeah, that's pretty blatantly ridiculous. The tea party movement is a single-issue movement focused on calling for smaller government and opposition to the government's recent high spending. They are essentially a coalition of conservative and libertarian factions who are opposed to increases in government power/control over the general populace. Race and sexual orientation are obsessions of the media, not the tea parties.

According to Mitchell's theory, the tea party movement would be a coalition of "republican constitutionalists" and "paleolibertarians", with a few "libertarian individualists" thrown in as well, all united to their opposition to Obama's "democratic progressive" government and George W. Bush's largely "plutocratic nationalist" government. Using the Vosem Chart (which I looked into more closely during my research of Mitchell's theory), the tea parties would be a coalition of Conservatives, Paleoconservatives, and Libertarians, opposed to Obama's largely Liberal government and Bush's fairly Authoritarian government.

You ever here the thing about not believing everything you hear? Well. Don't.

Also the idea that any political group is single issue is naive and stupid. Frankly, it's retarded to even think like that, because ultimately everyone involved in a political movement has their own motivations.

What people say they are and what they are vs what people actually are is usually not the same, and in politics usually a few more degrees apart.

The politicians of the ultra-right, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-evolution and tea party are the same. They would put into place a government that would probably be even more authoritarian then Bush.

Take candidates like Michelle Bachman, or Joe Miller or any number of these self-professed Tea Party candidates and they are quite similar.

As far as Red States, these are also the broke states and especially blue turned red states like California. Also states like Texas are in such a mess, it's laughable. All the tax reduction and benefits has only made a small number of rich people very very rich and a large number of poor people left holding the debt in the form of a budget deficit.

It's ok, keep believing what you hear about people in politics from politicians.

[Krig the Viking]

You ever here the thing about not believing everything you hear? Well. Don't.

Also the idea that any political group is single issue is naive and stupid. Frankly, it's retarded to even think like that, because ultimately everyone involved in a political movement has their own motivations.

What people say they are and what they are vs what people actually are is usually not the same, and in politics usually a few more degrees apart.

Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't realize you could read people's minds and divine people's actual motives! Silly me!

Seriously though, the tea party movement is a union of disparate groups who agree primarily on one thing: smaller government. Or do you think tea party supporting libertarians like Glenn Reynolds are opposed to gay marriage and evolution? According to a survey by the Cato Institute, as many as 50% of tea partiers are Libertarian. Certainly the conservative faction seems dominant right now, but the only thing universally agreed upon by all tea partiers is their desire for smaller government.

For the record, according to Mitchell's theory, at least from what I understand of it currently, I would probably be closest to the "paleolibertarian" position. I would be somewhere on the line between Libertarian and Conservative on the Vosem chart.

[tcaudilllg]

Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't realize you could read people's minds and divine people's actual motives! Silly me!

Seriously though, the tea party movement is a union of disparate groups who agree primarily on one thing: smaller government. Or do you think tea party supporting libertarians like Glenn Reynolds are opposed to gay marriage and evolution? According to a survey by the Cato Institute, as many as 50% of tea partiers are Libertarian. Certainly the conservative faction seems dominant right now, but the only thing universally agreed upon by all tea partiers is their desire for smaller government.

Right. And only libertarians insist on a dollar backed by precious metals. So the individual is question was open to Tea Party rhetoric.

For the record, according to Mitchell's theory, at least from what I understand of it currently, I would probably be closest to the "paleolibertarian" position. I would be somewhere on the line between Libertarian and Conservative on the Vosem chart.

Expat is Paleoconservative. An exemplar, in fact. Do you find yourself aligned with him on most issues?

"The Royals" were basically a Paleoconservative group.

[mu4]

Oh, I'm sorry -- I didn't realize you could read people's minds and divine people's actual motives! Silly me!

Sure, I have a limited perception into the mind and inner motives of people. I have senses and many other forms of analysis which allows me to make hypothesis and test them. Can I actually "read people's minds", well... who knows... Maybe I am right. I see what I see and I can test my hypothesis, and that's about it. When I see assholes, I will call them assholes.

Seriously though, the tea party movement is a union of disparate groups who agree primarily on one thing: smaller government.

Most of their candidates also agree on Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc etc etc. Are you telling me that doesn't matter? Everyone can say they agree on small government, but it's their other agreements that draw them together.

Or do you think tea party supporting libertarians like Glenn Reynolds are opposed to gay marriage and evolution? According to a survey by the Cato Institute, as many as 50% of tea partiers are Libertarian. Certainly the conservative faction seems dominant right now, but the only thing universally agreed upon by all tea partiers is their desire for smaller government.

You're naive, this fundamentally doesn't matter. What they call themselves don't matter. Their voting record is ultra conservative, Republican and even the more moderate Republican are shunned and removed for more extremist ones. I'm sure they all universally agree they need food and water too. Many liberals want smaller government too. If you took a poll asking who wanted smaller government you'll likely get a vast majority. How to go about it and where Government should stop sticking their hand in is the conflict.

[Krig the Viking]

Right. And only libertarians insist on a dollar backed by precious metals. So the individual is question was open to Tea Party rhetoric.

Some Libertarians are Tea Partiers. Others, like Ron Paul, are opposed to the Tea Party because they don't think it goes far enough (i.e., they're too far away from the border between Conservative and Libertarian to support a union between those two groups). They would be more inclined to align themselves with the left-wing libertarians (the Anarcho-syndicalists) than the Conservatives). The impression I got from Loughner's videos was of that more hardcore Libertarian view. That's assuming you can even quantify his beliefs in that way; he was clearly very delusional.

Expat is Paleolibertarian. An exemplar, in fact. Do you find yourself aligned with him on most issues?

"The Royals" were basically a Paleolibertarian group.

I haven't read much of Expat's political views that I can remember. He stopped posting here just after I joined (which I was disappointed about, as his posts were the main reason I joined in the first place). I'll go see if I can find some of his political posts.

...

Hmm. Yeah, the three or four posts I read seem generally agreeable. Without knowing the details of his views, I couldn't really say more than that.

[Krig the Viking]

Most of their candidates also agree on Abortion, Gay Marriage, etc etc etc. Are you telling me that doesn't matter? Everyone can say they agree on small government, but it's their other agreements that draw them together.

Like I said, the Conservative element is dominant right now, and the candidates reflect that. Libertarians in the tea party movement have so far felt that the current economic issues outweigh social issues. In return, tea party candidates typically emphasize their fiscal policies over their social policies, in order to court libertarian votes.

Some libertarians like Ron Paul won't budge on social issues, and therefore don't support the tea party movement.

You're naive, this fundamentally doesn't matter. What they call themselves don't matter. Their voting record is ultra conservative, Republican and even the more moderate Republican are shunned and removed for more extremist ones. I'm sure they all universally agree they need food and water too. Many liberals want smaller government too. If you took a poll asking who wanted smaller government you'll likely get a vast majority. How to go about it and where Government should stop sticking their hand in is the conflict.

If you think the tea parties are one big monolithic group that all believes the same way, then you're the naive one, dude. Try studying politics impartially instead of smearing all your enemies with the same broad brush.

[tcaudilllg]

I guess that makes two naive dudes. Oh great provider of sound reasoning (lol!), how many more ignorants can you stand to behold? Oh, fear!: a new wave of ignorants draws near!

In other news, my site's back up.

[mu4]

Like I said, the Conservative element is dominant right now, and the candidates reflect that. Libertarians in the tea party movement have so far felt that the current economic issues outweigh social issues. In return, tea party candidates typically emphasize their fiscal policies over their social policies, in order to court libertarian votes.

Some libertarians like Ron Paul won't budge on social issues, and therefore don't support the tea party movement.

If you think the tea parties are one big monolithic group that all believes the same way, then you're the naive one, dude. Try studying politics impartially instead of smearing all your enemies with the same broad brush.

When have I said that? I think they have many areas of agreement in both social and economic values, especially if they put someone like Michele Bachmann in office. Another thing, just because a group represents people of differing interests, doesn't mean they will fight internally. Just because a group represent people of unified interests, doesn't mean they will not fight. People will enter into conflict for status, control, power and many different reasons, even if their political ideology is identical. It's more important that this group of people, monolithic or not, decided to establish a party platform and policies which are anti-poor, anti-fair taxation(their tax policy would only make the poor pay more), anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-evolution, and various other values which I do not hold. As far as the Libertarians elements in the Tea party, they will be(or already are) excluded or removed from positions of influence soon enough. You are naive to believe that the conservatives currently in control of the Tea Party is going to be friendly to pro-choice/pro-evolution/pro-gay/pro-multi-cultural members. The socially liberal Libertarians are more or less ousted from this group. If you do even a small Google search, you will easily find many links concerning this.

As far as impartiality in politics? Seriously? No such thing to be found. If you think you're impartial, you're already deluded.

[Creepy-male]

The tea party movement is a single-issue movement focused on calling for smaller government and opposition to the government's recent high spending.

Yea ideally, but you're assuming this idealization that every member of an organization shares an exact replication of the other members ideology. An unrealistic idea about a grassroots uprising.

Seriously though, the tea party movement is a union of disparate groups who agree primarily on one thing: smaller government.

Yea lol and what does smaller government really mean.... a smaller government they dislike and a bigger one they like, or literally a smaller government?

The impression I got from Loughner's videos was of that more hardcore Libertarian view. That's assuming you can even quantify his beliefs in that way; he was clearly very delusional.

I'll agree Loughner wasn't partisan or motivated via the tea party, but still I dislike how everyone says the guy is delusional. To me delusional is seeing things that aren't there. His views aren't necessarily like that from his videos. They are more conspiracies about what the government is trying to do to society and thus how it affects him. I think a more accurate description would be paranoid. It's also very gray because you know scandals do exist in the world, so a little healthy dose of skepticism about those in authority isn't bad, but the guy went off the deep end for sure, its actually sad.

[Krig the Viking]

Yea ideally, but you're assuming this idealization that every member of an organization shares an exact replication of the other members ideology. An unrealistic idea about a grassroots uprising.

Obviously individual members have individual beliefs -- that's my whole point. Tea party members disagree on a wide range of issues, but are generally united in their desire for reduced government spending and reduced government in general. They're "single issue" because they're such a diverse group that there is not a strong consensus on other issues.

Yea lol and what does smaller government really mean.... a smaller government they dislike and a bigger one they like, or literally a smaller government?

I don't understand this sentence, sorry -- I'm not really sure what you're referring to. In general tea party members support reducing government spending and minimizing the number of areas of life that the federal government has control over.

I'll agree Loughner wasn't partisan or motivated via the tea party, but still I dislike how everyone says the guy is delusional. To me delusional is seeing things that aren't there. His views aren't necessarily like that from his videos. They are more conspiracies about what the government is trying to do to society and thus how it affects him. I think a more accurate description would be paranoid. It's also very gray because you know scandals do exist in the world, so a little healthy dose of skepticism about those in authority isn't bad, but the guy went off the deep end for sure, its actually sad.

Delusional in the psychological sense is defined as "a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs." I'm no psychiatrist, but from what I've read about him, Loughner easily fits that definition.

[Creepy-male]

I don't understand this sentence, sorry -- I'm not really sure what you're referring to. In general tea party members support reducing government spending and minimizing the number of areas of life that the federal government has control over.

Alright well, it wasn't meant to be an easy straightforward response, let me walk you through it.

What I'm saying is I'm questioning whether tea party members wish to reduce the government because they value personal choice and liberty as an ideology, or they wish to reduce the government because they disagree with the policies.

In other words, lets say hypothetically, in 5 years a conservative administration takes power and they make extremely constraining legislation concerning social issues - abortion, lbgt marriage, religion, patriotism, sedition, ban on intellectual material, etc. But they tax people very little and keep social projects, like healthcare and welfare down to an extreme minimum or completely abolish them.

Then I wonder how many of these tea party members would still hold true to that sacred unifying principle of federal government reduction.

I can't say for sure, but just intuitively, I'd highly doubt they honor that unifying principle and still stand for federal government reduction.

In other words, its likely not about decreasing government size. Its about decreasing the size of a government they don't want (i.e. obamas administration), and increasing the size of a government they do want.

One has to wonder if this was purely a function of libertarian ideology and reducing the federal governments hold over people's daily lives, why the tea party didn't emerge before the obama administration in reaction to big budget bailouts and war spending.

And how there seems to be the strange parallel surge in conservative leaning grassroots movements such birthers.

To me while the official mission statement of the tea party may be "to reduce federal government size", I actually tend to conceptualize the movement as another grassroots reactionary conservative movement, and I have good reasons for this that I can further elaborate on with increasing precision if you still are confused.

Delusional in the psychological sense is defined as "a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs." I'm no psychiatrist, but from what I've read about him, Loughner easily fits that definition.

Lol well I don't find that too compelling, because there are a lot of delusional people then, such as religious people who believe in gods and divine intervention. Especially the divine intervention part.

I honestly feel its hard to make that evaluation because its hard to determine what indisputable evidence is. I'm sure the pope thought galileo was delusion when he claimed the sun to be the center of the universe. What I'm saying is that there is no reliable evidence for what is indisputable evidence, so in practice what delusion usually means is "outside of the popular consensus".

That's pretty much the quick and dirty practical version of that definition. And don't get me wrong it works great when its a question like "is there a man standing next to me in an orange suit". Sure then consensus is pretty accurate, and likely someone is delusion if they end up seeing that man in an orange suit when no one else does.

But political beliefs... is not a very good place to looking for indisputable evidence of delusion. Facebook classifies political beliefs right next to religion. Pretty much when it comes to politics and religion, its hard to form a consistent standard on what is sane or normal, war have been fought throughout history over such standards and personal bias' have leaked into the cracks were truth should have been.

So to me, I don't like the "delusional" label, I much rather prefer paranoid, its obvious he is paranoid.

here is a definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia

Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission

Notice also there is some overlap, the dictionary mentions delusions as being part of it, which is more or less true, but the delusions are from projecting personal conflicts. I think its a better label because its more precise and because it avoids un-necessary implications such as "his political beliefs are completely wrong and have been disproven by indisputable evidence".

[Krig the Viking]

Alright well, it wasn't meant to be an easy straightforward response, let me walk you through it.

What I'm saying is I'm questioning whether tea party members wish to reduce the government because they value personal choice and liberty as an ideology, or they wish to reduce the government because they disagree with the policies.

In other words, lets say hypothetically, in 5 years a conservative administration takes power and they make extremely constraining legislation concerning social issues - abortion, lbgt marriage, religion, patriotism, sedition, ban on intellectual material, etc. But they tax people very little and keep social projects, like healthcare and welfare down to an extreme minimum or completely abolish them.

Then I wonder how many of these tea party members would still hold true to that sacred unifying principle of federal government reduction.

I can't say for sure, but just intuitively, I'd highly doubt they honor that unifying principle and still stand for federal government reduction.

In other words, its likely not about decreasing government size. Its about decreasing the size of a government they don't want (i.e. obamas administration), and increasing the size of a government they do want.

Oh, I see what you're saying now. When I said "minimizing the number of areas of life that the federal government has control over," I primarily had in mind fiscal policy. The tea parties are united in terms of fiscal policy (advocating lower taxes and spending, less government interference in the economy), but divided in terms of social policy. My general impression from what I've seen is that the tea party is 50% traditional conservatives who support a right-wing social policy, and 50% "classical liberals" who don't care much about social policy other than wanting it left up to the individual states to decide. Left-leaning Libertarians who actively support left-wing social policies often find themselves agreeing with the tea party movement's fiscal policies, but are too uncomfortable with the traditional conservative branch's right-wing social policies to actually consider themselves supporters of the movement.

So yes, some members of the tea party would be perfectly fine with a government with strongly right-wing social policies, while others would be decidedly uncomfortable with that. Electing an administration that focused strongly on enacting right-wing social policies would likely split the tea party movement in half.

One has to wonder if this was purely a function of libertarian ideology and reducing the federal governments hold over people's daily lives, why the tea party didn't emerge before the obama administration in reaction to big budget bailouts and war spending.

And how there seems to be the strange parallel surge in conservative leaning grassroots movements such birthers.

To me while the official mission statement of the tea party may be "to reduce federal government size", I actually tend to conceptualize the movement as another grassroots reactionary conservative movement, and I have good reasons for this that I can further elaborate on with increasing precision if you still are confused.

Bush's poll numbers towards the end of his term were so low, not because the whole country thought he was an evil monster, but because many of his traditional conservative supporters became unhappy with his high-spending fiscal policy. When Obama came into office and ramped up this spending even more with the bailouts and stimulus bill, that unhappiness boiled over into a protest movement.

The tea party, contrary to what some believe, is not primarily an anti-Democrat movement, but an anti-neocon movement.

Lol well I don't find that too compelling, because there are a lot of delusional people then, such as religious people who believe in gods and divine intervention. Especially the divine intervention part.

I honestly feel its hard to make that evaluation because its hard to determine what indisputable evidence is. I'm sure the pope thought galileo was delusion when he claimed the sun to be the center of the universe. What I'm saying is that there is no reliable evidence for what is indisputable evidence, so in practice what delusion usually means is "outside of the popular consensus".

That's pretty much the quick and dirty practical version of that definition. And don't get me wrong it works great when its a question like "is there a man standing next to me in an orange suit". Sure then consensus is pretty accurate, and likely someone is delusion if they end up seeing that man in an orange suit when no one else does.

But political beliefs... is not a very good place to looking for indisputable evidence of delusion. Facebook classifies political beliefs right next to religion. Pretty much when it comes to politics and religion, its hard to form a consistent standard on what is sane or normal, war have been fought throughout history over such standards and personal bias' have leaked into the cracks were truth should have been.

It's true that there is a tendency to consider people with whom you strongly disagree to be delusional. The meaning of the word gets kind of fuzzy at the edges. But there really isn't much question in this case. Loughner believed the government was brainwashing the world by "controlling grammar". If you read his writings, he displays all the classic signs of someone who is very much literally delusional in the psychiatric sense.

So to me, I don't like the "delusional" label, I much rather prefer paranoid, its obvious he is paranoid.

here is a definition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoia

Psychiatry . a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission

Notice also there is some overlap, the dictionary mentions delusions as being part of it, which is more or less true, but the delusions are from projecting personal conflicts. I think its a better label because its more precise and because it avoids un-necessary implications such as "his political beliefs are completely wrong and have been disproven by indisputable evidence".

Yes. Loughner's delusions are paranoid in nature. Again, it seems like we don't disagree as much as you think we do. In fact, our only real difference is that you seem to have been using the word "delusional" in an overly broad sense, while I intended the term to have a much narrower meaning.

[Creepy-male]

Oh, I see what you're saying now. When I said "minimizing the number of areas of life that the federal government has control over," I primarily had in mind fiscal policy. The tea parties are united in terms of fiscal policy (advocating lower taxes and spending, less government interference in the economy), but divided in terms of social policy. My general impression from what I've seen is that the tea party is 50% traditional conservatives who support a right-wing social policy, and 50% "classical liberals" who don't care much about social policy other than wanting it left up to the individual states to decide. Left-leaning Libertarians who actively support left-wing social policies often find themselves agreeing with the tea party movement's fiscal policies, but are too uncomfortable with the traditional conservative branch's right-wing social policies to actually consider themselves supporters of the movement.

So yes, some members of the tea party would be perfectly fine with a government with strongly right-wing social policies, while others would be decidedly uncomfortable with that. Electing an administration that focused strongly on enacting right-wing social policies would likely split the tea party movement in half.

Yes I do agree with that, and I don't doubt that you probably already knew this but merely didn't feel the need to say it.

I'm just saying it because, I personally find it hypocritical how all these tea party people claim to be the grass roots movement for "freedom" when many of them want to control society socially, and I can see the potential of many naive people getting pulled into this.

I personally think its not that simple, the debate between security and freedom is as old as the founding of america as a nation. I personally feel like some of these propoganda spewing GOP tea partiers should shut their mouths once in a while and go to a library and study the federalist papers or some government and take time to understand the complexity that is inherent to this issue. There seriously are some beautifully written material by enlightenment age intellectuals on the debate between security and freedom, that I feel like gets drowned out by the fox news/cnn/msnbc quick and dirty propoganda and protesting. I mean I was watching a video the other day and it was just a bunch of people saying "yes/no" back and forth.... I feel like I'm living in an intellectual wasteland. The kind of protesting ghandi or martin luther king did was inspiring and beautiful, but this is just stupid herd mentality bullshit imo.

I have little respect for the tea party personally because they pretend to be advocates and champions for freedom, but its shallow and reaks of a short of "mcdonalds" "fast food" quality to it, here eat this quick, it will make your hunger for freedom go away (but tomorrow you'll wake up with food poisoning).

The tea party, contrary to what some believe, is not primarily an anti-Democrat movement, but an anti-neocon movement.

hmm I'm not sure I agree with this I think I liked it just being against a large government fiscal policy, that seemed fairly concise and direct to me.

It's true that there is a tendency to consider people with whom you strongly disagree to be delusional. The meaning of the word gets kind of fuzzy at the edges. But there really isn't much question in this case. Loughner believed the government was brainwashing the world by "controlling grammar". If you read his writings, he displays all the classic signs of someone who is very much literally delusional in the psychiatric sense.

Actually that idea by itself, once you remove the irrational fear, is actually rather brilliant imo. There is a whole branch of study on the philosophy of languages which seeks to understand the connection between the cultural ethos and the language.

I can't find the clip online, but take the movie "Amistad 1997 by Steven Spielberg", there is this one scene where they try to translate the word "try" into the slaves language (which I think was mostly for dramatic purposes), but the translator (morgan freeman), can't translate it because there is only a word for do in their language. The implication was that the slaves were people of their word and their culture didn't have a word for not committing. (good movie btw imo).

But anyways that scene is very indicative of the connection between words in a language and ethos of a culture. And its not completely insane to think that conceivable language could be used as a form of control. For example, an aethist regime could take power and remove the word "god" from the language, and many non-thinking people would have trouble articulating this concept given the framework of a language, of course it would take a few generations of cultural conditioning to make it actually stick though.

So even that isn't completely ridiculous, what makes it ridiculous is that he believes our government is actually doing that with strong conviction, but with extremely weak evidence. Its a convienent belief for someone looking to reinforce an irrational fear of being under mind control.

concerning the idea of changing dates see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechris...nch_Revolution

The Gregorian calendar, an instrument decreed by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, was replaced by the French Republican Calendar which abolished the sabbath, Saints' days and any references to the Church.

Lol changing calendars have been used as a form of cultural control before, once again what made him paranoid was his believe in it actually happening... a disparity between strong convictions and little material evidence.

Yes. Loughner's delusions are paranoid in nature. Again, it seems like we don't disagree as much as you think we do. In fact, our only real difference is that you seem to have been using the word "delusional" in an overly broad sense, while I intended the term to have a much narrower meaning.

lol I never thought we necessarily disagreed, the only reason I mentioned it is I dislike the label delusional.

People tend to conceptualize delusional schizophrenia very much like "a beautiful mind", seeing people that aren't there, vivid characters, imaginery friends, some evil, and some friendly, vivid inner worlds than spill over into reality with the victim being unable to comprehend the difference.

I think that's an incorrect characterization that laymen may make about the guy. He was grounded in that sense and didn't see or hear things that weren't there. His problem was this irrational fear he had of authority. He had this shaking feeling that the authority was out to get him. It was more a feeling or mood that was a projection of inner turmoil than any physical delusion.

Honestly a little dose of paranoia is only human, and a little skepticism about those in authority is more wisdom than folly, but where the guy went wrong in my opinion, was he went off the deep end.

What I'm afraid of is the media classifying the guy as "just another looney" and that spilling over to hysteria against those that express skepticism of authority, so that any slight expression of distrust of established authority becomes taboo and associated with mental illness.

Further compound all the psychiatrists in the media saying "If only someone got him the help"... and potentially people could face mandatory committal to mental institutions for simply questioning authority as a result of hysteria that this guy and the media ignited.

That's why I'm being so precise, I want to get to the heart of the issue, avoid potential hysteria, and understand how these types of things can be prevented from occurring in myself and in the people around me. And for that surgical precision is required.

[Krig the Viking]

Yes I do agree with that, and I don't doubt that you probably already knew this but merely didn't feel the need to say it.

I'm just saying it because, I personally find it hypocritical how all these tea party people claim to be the grass roots movement for "freedom" when many of them want to control society socially, and I can see the potential of many naive people getting pulled into this.

To a traditional conservative, it's not hypocritical at all, because they see those social rules as being the foundation that allows freedom to exist (whether due to creating a stable social order, or due to the blessings of God). In fact, they look at left-wingers (both the big-government progressives and the small government left-libertarians) as undermining freedom due to what they see as attacking the foundations that freedom is built upon.

Different political groups use the word freedom to mean different things. If your classification of yourself in the other thread as a Liberal is accurate, it means you value social freedom but devalue economic freedom -- to you, freedom means primarily freedom from social control. To a traditional conservative, this seems just as naive and hypocritical as you perceive their views to be. Since traditional conservatives value economic freedom and devaluing social freedom, to them freedom means primarily freedom from economic control.

I personally think its not that simple, the debate between security and freedom is as old as the founding of america as a nation. I personally feel like some of these propoganda spewing GOP tea partiers should shut their mouths once in a while and go to a library and study the federalist papers or some government and take time to understand the complexity that is inherent to this issue. There seriously are some beautifully written material by enlightenment age intellectuals on the debate between security and freedom, that I feel like gets drowned out by the fox news/cnn/msnbc quick and dirty propoganda and protesting. I mean I was watching a video the other day and it was just a bunch of people saying "yes/no" back and forth.... I feel like I'm living in an intellectual wasteland. The kind of protesting ghandi or martin luther king did was inspiring and beautiful, but this is just stupid herd mentality bullshit imo.

I think you're setting up an unfair false dichotomy here. You're comparing the intellectual thinkers of the left with the ignorant types of the right. But in reality, Sturgeon's Law applies equally to both sides: "Ninety percent of everything is crap." Most on the left are just as ignorant and superficial as most on the right. On both sides, there are only a small handful who have a deeper understanding of the issues at hand. This has always been the case with politics, and it always will be.

Actually that idea by itself, once you remove the irrational fear, is actually rather brilliant imo. There is a whole branch of study on the philosophy of languages which seeks to understand the connection between the cultural ethos and the language.

I can't find the clip online, but take the movie "Amistad 1997 by Steven Spielberg", there is this one scene where they try to translate the word "try" into the slaves language (which I think was mostly for dramatic purposes), but the translator (morgan freeman), can't translate it because there is only a word for do in their language. The implication was that the slaves were people of their word and their culture didn't have a word for not committing. (good movie btw imo).

But anyways that scene is very indicative of the connection between words in a language and ethos of a culture. And its not completely insane to think that conceivable language could be used as a form of control. For example, an aethist regime could take power and remove the word "god" from the language, and many non-thinking people would have trouble articulating this concept given the framework of a language, of course it would take a few generations of cultural conditioning to make it actually stick though.

So even that isn't completely ridiculous, what makes it ridiculous is that he believes our government is actually doing that with strong conviction, but with extremely weak evidence. Its a convienent belief for someone looking to reinforce an irrational fear of being under mind control.

I agree that manipulating language is a powerful thing. That's the whole point of the "Political Correctness" movement -- to change language so that certain ideas are no longer capable of being expressed. Obviously, the people who promote it see themselves as working for a good cause, but that is in fact what they're doing.

Loughner's beliefs were delusional because in order for the government to exert enough control over the populace to change their language, it would need to be multiple orders of magnitude more powerful than it actually is. Loughner, like other hard-core conspiracy theorists, was delusional not because he was ignorant of the government's actual level of power, but because he believed he knew the government's actual level of power, without evidence.

lol I never thought we necessarily disagreed, the only reason I mentioned it is I dislike the label delusional.

People tend to conceptualize delusional schizophrenia very much like "a beautiful mind", seeing people that aren't there, vivid characters, imaginery friends, some evil, and some friendly, vivid inner worlds than spill over into reality with the victim being unable to comprehend the difference.

I think that's an incorrect characterization that laymen may make about the guy. He was grounded in that sense and didn't see or hear things that weren't there. His problem was this irrational fear he had of authority. He had this shaking feeling that the authority was out to get him. It was more a feeling or mood that was a projection of inner turmoil than any physical delusion.

Again, my only disagreement is that you're using the term "delusion" incorrectly. The term for seeing things that aren't there is "hallucination", which is only one of many forms of delusion. Personally, I haven't met anyone else who uses the term the way you are.

Honestly a little dose of paranoia is only human, and a little skepticism about those in authority is more wisdom than folly, but where the guy went wrong in my opinion, was he went off the deep end.

What I'm afraid of is the media classifying the guy as "just another looney" and that spilling over to hysteria against those that express skepticism of authority, so that any slight expression of distrust of established authority becomes taboo and associated with mental illness.

Further compound all the psychiatrists in the media saying "If only someone got him the help"... and potentially people could face mandatory committal to mental institutions for simply questioning authority as a result of hysteria that this guy and the media ignited.

That's why I'm being so precise, I want to get to the heart of the issue, avoid potential hysteria, and understand how these types of things can be prevented from occurring in myself and in the people around me. And for that surgical precision is required.

Frankly, I think that's pretty unrealistic. Most people are able to understand the difference between paranoid delusions and legitimate skepticism. Except apparently you?

[Creepy-male]

To a traditional conservative, it's not hypocritical at all....

First lets get some context here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

All I am saying is that I think its hypocrisy for conservatives to try to win support by essentially lying to other people that they support "freedom", when they support only economic freedom and not social freedom.

because they see those social rules as being the foundation that allows freedom to exist (whether due to creating a stable social order, or due to the blessings of God).

Are you serious, rules and enforcement of rules are the furthest thing from freedom. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rules, its not freedom, because the rules make certain actions forbidden. The enforcement of rules is even less free, throwing a person in a little cell they can't leave without permission, and imposing a permanent routine to their live (aka prison), is not freedom.

A society with rules is only free for those people that already would free willingly follow those rules. What this view implies is only a free nation for "them" and not "us" and its a selfish and narrow view of what true freedom is.

And it only makes it worse they try to convince people to vote for them on the basis of "liberty and freedom" and then take that away if you don't agree with there social viewpoints.

In fact, they look at left-wingers (both the big-government progressives and the small government left-libertarians) as undermining freedom due to what they see as attacking the foundations that freedom is built upon.

Of course and I think its rather universal what I said above about hypocrisy and freedom.

It's hypocrisy for a free eco, controlled social conservative to call themselves advocates of freedom

It's hypocrisy for a free social, controlled eco liberal to call themselves advocates of freedom

Different political groups use the word freedom to mean different things.

Lol yea, but that's kind of sad, if someone tells you while your drowning in a pool "Hey I'll be right back, I'm going to find help"... and they never return and later you learn they went home instead to go eat a sandwhich and sit on there ass and forgot about you, and then you ask them.... "why didn't you find help".... and they tell you "I'm sorry help to different people means different things".

Freedom to me is a basic human need people have, that's what the word means to me. As far as politics are concerned, different parties have different views on how to allow that human need to be satisfied in society. What I personally think though, is that true freedom can only exist in nature and not from any government policy.

If your classification of yourself in the other thread as a Liberal is accurate, it means you value social freedom but devalue economic freedom --

It's not accurate, I wrote the closest thing that characterized me within the confines of the test, which was a pretty simplistic test.... no model is perfectly accurate, my real values are much more complex.

to you, freedom means primarily freedom from social control.

Actually I don't need you to tell me what freedom means to me, nor do I need a test, I can speak for myself thank you.

I think you're setting up an unfair false dichotomy here. You're comparing the intellectual thinkers of the left with the ignorant types of the right.

No I am not saying that, all I said is some of the GOP leaning tea party members, I think, should shut their mouth, and education themselves. To be fair, I felt like some left leaning people should shut their mouths and educate themselves in past issues. In general my views of people shutting their mouths and educating themselves, is not partisan related... its related to my view that American society is vapid and an intellectual wasteland.

This has always been the case with politics, and it always will be.

Actually, I do agree that is the case with politics, but I disagree in the fact it will always be. I think its more rational to claim, its unknown what the future will be like, but what I would hope, is that people would become more intelligent as time progresses forward and society better for it.

Loughner's beliefs were delusional because in order for the government to exert enough control over the populace to change their language, it would need to be multiple orders of magnitude more powerful than it actually is. Loughner, like other hard-core conspiracy theorists, was delusional not because he was ignorant of the government's actual level of power, but because he believed he knew the government's actual level of power, without evidence.

Yea that's what I said, its not the idea but the disparity between his convictions and the amount of evidence he has. He strongly believed the government was involved in this, but had little to no evidence of this.

Again, my only disagreement is that you're using the term "delusion" incorrectly. The term for seeing things that aren't there is "hallucination", which is only one of many forms of delusion. Personally, I haven't met anyone else who uses the term the way you are.

That's not using it incorrectly, hallucinations are a subset of delusions, in the same way that paranoid delusions are a subset of delusion. I'm using it correctly, delusions encompass a general category. My point in referring to hallucinations is that, simply saying delusions doesn't distinguish between hallucinations and delusion which are not hallucinations. I said I think some people may mischaracterize the nature of the man's delusions given such ambiguity. Most people don't study psychology, they get there information from news shows and movies which sensationalize things typically.

Frankly, I think that's pretty unrealistic. Most people are able to understand the difference between paranoid delusions and legitimate skepticism.

I don't like this explanation, because its not founded in a logical explanation, its founded in "most people"... you're relying on social consensus to make your evaluation on what's delusional and non-delusional... and social consensus is not accurate because social consensus is able to suffer from hysteria. The salem witch trials are a prime example of how delusions can infect even the social consensus.... merely using the social consensus as your measuring stick does not protect you from becoming delusional.

The only thing it does, is makes sure that if you are delusional, so is everyone else.

Except apparently you?

Dick move, ftr its comments like this, personal attacks, even if only suggestive, that spark dramatic responses. I love it how typically when people say stuff like this... and someone gets angry how they seem to be confused at why it happened.

Well since I value education more than arguments, I'm letting you know, its because of comments like these, dick moves.

[Krig the Viking]

First lets get some context here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

All I am saying is that I think its hypocrisy for conservatives to try to win support by essentially lying to other people that they support "freedom", when they support only economic freedom and not social freedom.

To lie is to say something that you know is not true. My entire point is that traditional conservatives really do believe what they're saying, therefore they're not lying or being hypocrites. But if you're unable or unwilling to try to understand how the people you disagree with think, then there's really no point in us having this discussion.

Are you serious, rules and enforcement of rules are the furthest thing from freedom. It doesn't matter if you agree with the rules, its not freedom, because the rules make certain actions forbidden. The enforcement of rules is even less free, throwing a person in a little cell they can't leave without permission, and imposing a permanent routine to their live (aka prison), is not freedom.

A society with rules is only free for those people that already would free willingly follow those rules. What this view implies is only a free nation for "them" and not "us" and its a selfish and narrow view of what true freedom is.

And it only makes it worse they try to convince people to vote for them on the basis of "liberty and freedom" and then take that away if you don't agree with there social viewpoints.

Traditional conservative reasoning is this: Unstable societies fall apart and descend into chaos, resulting in survival of the fittest and the rule of the strong, and a loss of freedom for the weak. Therefore, in order to ensure a maximum amount of freedom, we must sacrifice a few freedoms to ensure a stable society. Obviously, you disagree with this premise, and that's fine. But the leap from "these people want to enforce a few rules" to "these people are lying when they say they support liberty and freedom" is a non-sequitur.

Of course and I think its rather universal what I said above about hypocrisy and freedom.

It's hypocrisy for a free eco, controlled social conservative to call themselves advocates of freedom

It's hypocrisy for a free social, controlled eco liberal to call themselves advocates of freedom

That's... silly. If I'm an advocate of Windows and not Apple, that somehow makes me a hypocrite for claiming to be an advocate of computers?

You're basically saying "If you're not an advocate of 100% of all forms of freedom, then you're a hypocrite for saying you support freedom."

Lol yea, but that's kind of sad, if someone tells you while your drowning in a pool "Hey I'll be right back, I'm going to find help"... and they never return and later you learn they went home instead to go eat a sandwhich and sit on there ass and forgot about you, and then you ask them.... "why didn't you find help".... and they tell you "I'm sorry help to different people means different things".

Your analogy is not relevent, because eating a sandwich is not a form of help. A more relevent analogy would be if the guy ran out and called 9-11 instead of jumping in and saving you.

Economic freedom and social freedom are both forms of freedom.

Freedom to me is a basic human need people have, that's what the word means to me. As far as politics are concerned, different parties have different views on how to allow that human need to be satisfied in society. What I personally think though, is that true freedom can only exist in nature and not from any government policy.

That doesn't even make sense. Freedom is a state of not being restricted or limited. Since there are many forms of restriction and limitation, there are many forms of freedom. Government policies which remove certain restrictions increase freedom in those areas.

It's not accurate, I wrote the closest thing that characterized me within the confines of the test, which was a pretty simplistic test.... no model is perfectly accurate, my real values are much more complex.

Fair enough.

No I am not saying that, all I said is some of the GOP leaning tea party members, I think, should shut their mouth, and education themselves. To be fair, I felt like some left leaning people should shut their mouths and educate themselves in past issues. In general my views of people shutting their mouths and educating themselves, is not partisan related... its related to my view that American society is vapid and an intellectual wasteland.

Then we agree on that.

Actually, I do agree that is the case with politics, but I disagree in the fact it will always be. I think its more rational to claim, its unknown what the future will be like, but what I would hope, is that people would become more intelligent as time progresses forward and society better for it.

Well, then you're much more optimistic than I am.

Yea that's what I said, its not the idea but the disparity between his convictions and the amount of evidence he has. He strongly believed the government was involved in this, but had little to no evidence of this.

Agreed.

That's not using it incorrectly, hallucinations are a subset of delusions, in the same way that paranoid delusions are a subset of delusion. I'm using it correctly, delusions encompass a general category. My point in referring to hallucinations is that, simply saying delusions doesn't distinguish between hallucinations and delusion which are not hallucinations. I said I think some people may mischaracterize the nature of the man's delusions given such ambiguity. Most people don't study psychology, they get there information from news shows and movies which sensationalize things typically.

So I shouldn't refer to "computers" because some people might get the wrong idea and think I was referring to an Apple instead of a Windows machine? That's just silly.

I don't like this explanation, because its not founded in a logical explanation, its founded in "most people"... you're relying on social consensus to make your evaluation on what's delusional and non-delusional... and social consensus is not accurate because social consensus is able to suffer from hysteria. The salem witch trials are a prime example of how delusions can infect even the social consensus.... merely using the social consensus as your measuring stick does not protect you from becoming delusional.

The only thing it does, is makes sure that if you are delusional, so is everyone else.

I'm not relying on social consensus, I'm relying on individual people's ability to determine whether the person they're talking to is mentally ill or not. Sometimes it's not obvious, granted. In Loughner's case, it seems to have been quite obvious. We're specifically talking about crazy people here, not mass hysteria like what happened in Salem.

Dick move, ftr its comments like this, personal attacks, even if only suggestive, that spark dramatic responses. I love it how typically when people say stuff like this... and someone gets angry how they seem to be confused at why it happened.

Well since I value education more than arguments, I'm letting you know, its because of comments like these, dick moves.

I was trying to be light-hearted and silly, to ease some of the tension of a debate like this (hence the and emoticons), but I guess it didn't translate well via text. Sorry.

[tcaudilllg]

I think a strong case can be made for Palin's guilt. Particularly, she sought to portray the acts of the Democrats as illegal. Consider, the health bill is being challenged in courts by her allies, an expression of their belief (or asserted belief) that the bill is illegal.

Although Loughner probably wanted to go on a rampage for quite some time, he nonetheless felt obligated to follow the law until the occurrence of a specific event, the like of which is unknown to us, which he felt liberated him from the social more against shooting people you disagree with. So to say, something persuaded him that the law no longer applied, that it was OK to take matters into his own hands.

Doubtless Palin didn't mean to facilitate this guy's rampage -- she's as surprised as anybody else that her's and her allies' words had that effect. But they did nonetheless have such an effect as that.

The question is, which argument was it that freed him from responsibility?

It's also worth noting that the guy's age (22) places him squarely in the "rage" phase of individuation. People can be very violent and mean in that phase of their life as they release all their pent-up anger that they had previously kept hidden. Getting in touch with this "dark side" is normally healthy, but something about the hateful rhetoric, and the trains of thought surrounding it, apparently drove him to take out his rage on people who had nothing to do with it. (not to mention his rage appears to be unjustifiable)

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm not a Republican for pretty much one major reason. I actually have a soul. (Just kidding)

I'm not a republican because while I don't think there is anything wrong with making money, I do think there's something wrong with being an asshole. And when you can be an asshole and make a lot of money- that is sort of good for you, but shitty for the rest of us.

An asshole without money is no big deal. An asshole with money (because with money comes power, influence etc) hurts people that I happen to care about. They hurt people on a wide-scale, and they can get away with it too. And yes, you can be a good person with money and influence to combat the bad people that have money and influence. But then again, people who are naturally good tend to understand that being rich isn't everything - so money is not their primary motivation for doing a lot of things.

Assholes without money are inevitably self-destructive. Prison and the system can deal with them, and they do. Assholes with a lot of money are truly evil, because they can hide behind society's veil all while doing the most horrendous, fucked up things to people. Many assholes try to get a lot of money (money = security) for this reason.

Like it or not, the government is the only balance for the asshole + money combination. Republicans like to think us Democrats are people who think there is something wrong with making a living or supporting yourself. That is just a red herring though.

I agree our government social systems fail, only because the lefties are in essence trying to be 'too good' and making too many people happy at once. And when you do that, nobody is happy. But everybody being miserable is to me, way better than a few people being happy at everybody else's expense.

*shrug*

I'm a socialist fag. Deal with it!

[tcaudilllg]

God is a being with no negatives. The concept probably evolved from conservative discordant interpretations of diety... YHWH developed, apparently, as a means of cultural warfare against non-Jewish peoples who believed in many gods. The idea of something -- or someone -- "in control" of the universe is a natural cultural development. There are 2,048 mental modules as suggested by IM/EM function pairing and the belief subfunctions hypothesis, while the English language only has some tens of thousands of commonly used words. A lot of words are created to explain ideas naturally generated by people of specific traits... as population levels increase, the probability that these ideas will gain a cultural footing increases also.

[Creepy-male]

To lie is to say something that you know is not true. My entire point is that traditional conservatives really do believe what they're saying, therefore they're not lying or being hypocrites. But if you're unable or unwilling to try to understand how the people you disagree with think, then there's really no point in us having this discussion.

Actually I do think conservatives are lying. I think its a rather unconscious form of lying but lying none the less.

They'd rather sell their message to people as some glorious notion of "freedom" imbued with nostalgia to our founding fathers, because it grabs people in emotionally and wins people over. I think though its deceitful because their agenda is much more practical and grounded than such a lofty notion.

The best analogy I can think of is kind of like when you go to McDonalds and you see this perfect looking work of art hamburger on the menu, and you order it but then what you get is some processed stuff that looks way less impressive than the menu.

It's not a complete lie, but I feel like the tea party is gold plating their message, and the reason for it is because it sells better when it sparkles with idealism. Now I said I don't think its a conscious form of lying, and partly I think that's because this kind of gold plating is common practice in politics and likely most tea party members feel as though they aren't being dishonest but just playing by the rules of the game.

See I am willing to understand the people that I disagree with, I just look at it differently than you, so perhaps now perhaps you should try to understand the people you disagree with (me).

Traditional conservative reasoning is this: Unstable societies fall apart and descend into chaos, resulting in survival of the fittest and the rule of the strong, and a loss of freedom for the weak. Therefore, in order to ensure a maximum amount of freedom, we must sacrifice a few freedoms to ensure a stable society. Obviously, you disagree with this premise, and that's fine. But the leap from "these people want to enforce a few rules" to "these people are lying when they say they support liberty and freedom" is a non-sequitur.

Lol, wrong, I don't disagree with this premise... once again you're making assumptions about me and I can speak for myself.

My point was merely the conservative agenda isn't one that is truest to the ideal of freedom, they believe in sacrifice of a few freedoms.

All I'm saying is I think conservatives should be upright and admit to this philosophy, that they believe in a sacrifice of a few freedoms. Most conservatives wish to dodge this as much as possible to win support. In a sense that "sacrifice of a few freedoms" is the dark side of the conservative party, and in playing politics, they seek to disguise this as much as possible... because displaying your weakness can potentially hurt your chances of winning support.

Also the leap I made is not a non-sequitur... it is obvious that the connection doesn't follow naturally for you as for me, so now the conservation has divulged into connecting those dots so that it does follow and connect together logically. Perhaps you could establish exactly how your claim for non-sequitur is justified by showing that the premises have zero correlation to the results.

That's... silly. If I'm an advocate of Windows and not Apple, that somehow makes me a hypocrite for claiming to be an advocate of computers?

You're basically saying "If you're not an advocate of 100% of all forms of freedom, then you're a hypocrite for saying you support freedom."

Well it makes you a hypocrite because Apple is a type of computer, which you are not an advocate of, so therefore you are not an advocate of all computers.... you are an advocate of some computers.

Also yes I am saying that, but there is one minor detail.... I'd correct what you said to "If your political party is not an advocate of 100% of all forms of freedom, then you're a hypocrite for saying your political party supports freedom".

There is a difference between a political party which seeks to gain power through the democratic process and carry out an agenda through policy, and a person's sentiments and values. A person can value freedom, but that doesn't mean they support an agenda for freedom. They may for example believe that certain freedoms come at too great a cost and may be confused at how to practically achieve absolute freedom in society without making sacrifices on other values, and instead rely on an immediate practical compromise to a least satisfy part of that need without sacrificing too much of their other values.

Your analogy is not relevent, because eating a sandwich is not a form of help. A more relevent analogy would be if the guy ran out and called 9-11 instead of jumping in and saving you.

Economic freedom and social freedom are both forms of freedom.

Well here is the thing you must understand, all analogies have a certain limit to their practical applications... if analogies matched perfectly, then you'd basically be saying exactly what you mean, and not using a metaphor. The goal of an analogy is to highlight a particular principle.

In this case, its that words have meaning. And that its important for people to agree upon those meanings because if they don't it can lead to miscommunication which can cause problems.

In my analogy this is illustrated by the word help, and how people depend on that word to mean something, and its not a word you want to misunderstand.

In the same sense, people depend on the word "freedom" to mean something in the realm of politics, and its also not a word you want to misunderstand.

I was merely drawing attention to the fact I think its sad that people in the realm of politics can't seem to agree on what the word "freedom" means. To me it seems to be an important word that means something, and if its not agreed upon, then it simply becomes a buzzword... which is just sad to me.

That doesn't even make sense. Freedom is a state of not being restricted or limited. Since there are many forms of restriction and limitation, there are many forms of freedom. Government policies which remove certain restrictions increase freedom in those areas.

Yes, I wouldn't disagree that tea party members want to "increase" freedom in certain areas. But what I'm drawing attention to is the dark side of their message that goes unspoken, that they may potentially wish to "decrease" freedom in other areas.

How does one weigh the cost of economic freedom versus social freedom... an issue they'd rather ignore than address.

Well, then you're much more optimistic than I am.

Lol it doesn't cost anything to envision a better future, it only cost something to make it happen.

So I shouldn't refer to "computers" because some people might get the wrong idea and think I was referring to an Apple instead of a Windows machine? That's just silly.

Well the computers analogy looses its usefulness in this case, because the reason why I think its so important to clarify here is because of the potential this issue has for hysteria.

No one is going to experience hysteria over computers, so the analogy has to be abandoned or developed further.

The core idea is no one likes these shootings and they threaten our sense of security. After columbine, school teachers were much more on guard about students and violence. After 9/11 people were much more on guard about terrorism. It's natural in the wake of these disasters for people to be a little hyper-vigilant.

I can see the potential for people enforcing stricter laws on mental health care, like authority figures having the right to admit people to mental health care without there consent. Now that may not happen, and hopefully won't, but it could happen given enough media exposure.

If you don't understand why committing people to mental health care without consent could be bad, just watch some movies or read some books like "one flew over the cuckoo's nest" or "clockwork orange" and watch them straight through without any bias, and then try to make sense of the issue after you've watched them.

Also I'm not saying this is how things will go, but its a definite possibility that I would not like to see happen, and I think it could be prevented if people educated themselves on the issue of mental health care, instead of being quick to judge the issue.

I'm not relying on social consensus, I'm relying on individual people's ability to determine whether the person they're talking to is mentally ill or not. Sometimes it's not obvious, granted. In Loughner's case, it seems to have been quite obvious. We're specifically talking about crazy people here, not mass hysteria like what happened in Salem.

Alright fair enough when you say the individual's ability to determine whether the person is mentally ill.... just as long as the individual's opinion only carries an effective jurisdiction over that individual and no one else. Or else it becomes a social issue and the effect of hysteria must be taken into account.

I was trying to be light-hearted and silly, to ease some of the tension of a debate like this (hence the and emoticons), but I guess it didn't translate well via text. Sorry.

Np, I can see that, but really, calling someone delusion in a discussion about a shooter that was delusional..... isn't really going to be taken light-heartedly, I don't want to be associated to this guy in any way. I feel bad for the guy, that his life went off the deep end, but just the idea that there could be an element of that inside me, isn't really funny, its actually kind of disturbing.

Also I took the emoticons to be a little bit snide, like how women will do that stuff where they say mean snide comments and then smile at you nicely (kiss of death, kill them with kindness, mean girls, etc). lol maybe its just your Fe-DS or something. But whatever, its all good. I just want to discuss this issue, so far its progressed forward without breaking out into some flame war, which is good.

[Creepy-male]

I agree our government social systems fail, only because the lefties are in essence trying to be 'too good' and making too many people happy at once. And when you do that, nobody is happy. But everybody being miserable is to me, way better than a few people being happy at everybody else's expense.

Life's a shit sandwhich and everyone must take a bite.

Lefties want everyone to take a small bite (like shit on ritz crackers) and then go on with their day.

Righties want to give their portions to the poor minorities, so they end up chomping down a giant party sub shit sandwhich (that's what they get for being lazy).


Just paraphrasing this quote, not necessarily agreeing... I just found it interesting.

[krieger]

"When you see what I sometimes receive by mail, in terms of threats and the like, it won't exactly make you feel happy. The dutch government - and this I find a 'bloody shame' - helps create a climate of demonization of my person. Now IF something happens to me later, then they are partially responsible. And then they can not take their hands off and say 'I did not commit that murder'; they have created the climate for it. It has to stop."

- Pim Fortuyn, 1948-2002; political assasinee

No less relevant to issues like these when the roles of left and right are reversed.

[mu4]

To lie is to say something that you know is not true. My entire point is that traditional conservatives really do believe what they're saying, therefore they're not lying or being hypocrites. But if you're unable or unwilling to try to understand how the people you disagree with think, then there's really no point in us having this discussion.

The conservatives are lying just like everyone else. And if the average conservative voter really believe their leaders are looking out of them, then they're just lying to themselves.

Sarah Palin - She quit being a Governor to so she could make more money off of capitalizing on her fame. Irresponsible as well as a fraud.

Tom Delay - Just got convicted.

Christine O'Donnell - Payed rent with her campaign funds.

Newt Gingrich - Cheated on both his wives, once with a 23 year old.

Rush Limbaugh - Oxycodone addict.

The list goes on.

"Obama wasn't born in the US." Liars
"Obama is Muslim." Liars
"The US is a Christian country." Liars
"Trickle Down Economics." Liars (Wealth Disparity is the worst it has been in 80 years.)

Volumes of words have been said by the conservatives which are just lies.

If you repeat a lie that someone told you but believe in it, then you're still repeating a lie.

So if the conservatives believe some of the things they've been told, they're idiots. If they know the truth, they're liars. I don't know which is worse.

The history of literature is full of liars just like the ones who mobilizes the tea party conservatives today.

Tartuffe by Moliere
Don Quixote
Hunchback of Notre Dame

What do these conservatives really believe and want to indulge in beyond the scope of their proclamations.

Sex, Money, Power.

Hasn't really changed.

[Creepy-male]

The conservatives are lying just like everyone else. And if the average conservative voter really believe their leaders are looking out of them, then they're just lying to themselves.

Sarah Palin - She quit being a Governor to so she could make more money off of capitalizing on her fame. Irresponsible as well as a fraud.

Tom Delay - Just got convicted.

Christine O'Donnell - Payed rent with her campaign funds.

Newt Gingrich - Cheated on both his wives, once with a 23 year old.

Rush Limbaugh - Oxycodone addict.

The list goes on.

"Obama wasn't born in the US." Liars
"Obama is Muslim." Liars
"The US is a Christian country." Liars
"Trickle Down Economics." Liars (Wealth Disparity is the worst it has been in 80 years.)

Volumes of words have been said by the conservatives which are just lies.

If you repeat a lie that someone told you but believe in it, then you're still repeating a lie.

So if the conservatives believe some of the things they've been told, they're idiots. If they know the truth, they're liars. I don't know which is worse.

The history of literature is full of liars just like the ones who mobilizes the tea party conservatives today.

Tartuffe by Moliere
Don Quixote
Hunchback of Notre Dame

What do these conservatives really believe and want to indulge in beyond the scope of their proclamations.

Sex, Money, Power.

Hasn't really changed.

agreed, more or less I am coherent with this viewpoint, although it carries your own idiosyncracies which aren't expected to be exactly coherent to mine.