@bobknight33 --

I'm interested in what your thoughts on McCain were in 2008, when he was the Republican candidate for president. If I looked back at your comment history from that era, would you have criticized him in the same ways back then? Were you OK with him being the Republican nominee?

Opinions can legitimately shift over time. But, that's usually a gradual process. If your opinions on McCain shifted radically in a short span of time (since, say, 2016 -- a date I've completely randomly selected for no particular reason), you might want to consider that perhaps some external actor is more responsible for that shift than your own internal feelings.

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions. However, it seems possible that this one is not precisely "your own". McCain's willingness to break away from groupthink and be a "maverick" was one of the things that people on both side of the aisle respected the most about him.

@ChaosEngine

i am trying to unpack your comment.

so you AGREE that attacking people you disagree with ideologically is wrong,but only if they are not self-identified nazis?

because 90 years ago these guys kinda cornered the market in nazism? and well..we don't wanna see a repeat of THAT now do we? so let's punch them in the face....

and that somehow punching them in the face will somehow magically halt any further encroachment of those dirty nazis!!!!

because it was so effective in the 1930's?

ok..how about this...

how about we daydream about cockpunching these knuckleheads,because it brings a smile to our faces but NOT actually punch them?

instead...we allow these cunts..who came to this gig LOOKING for a fight..to bluster and foam at the mouth.to spew their vile and vulgar message of racism dressed up as nationalistic pride,so EVERYONE can see.

and i bet you dollars to donuts one of them knuckledragging retards,who came all gussied up for a rumble...is gonna make a mistake...that inbreeder is gonna just HAVE to use his home made mace,or his shiny new gopher poker on someone...

probably one of dem darn "libtards".

and in this age of cell phone vigilantism,this is gonna get caught on video,posted to youtube and KABOOM!

white nationalist racist nazi party is forced back underground.

because you CANNOT fight fascism with a different flavor of fascism.

fascism is fascism yo,just because one flavor may taste better to your buds don't change that very simple truth.

the problem in this setting is you have TWO groups who are addicted to identity politics,and BOTH are convinced of their own righteousness,and BOTH groups suffer from a horrid case of groupthink.

and this ideological stand has them both certain of their righteousness,and this gives them a moral certitude that violence is an acceptable answer.

because they are the righteous.

sound familiar?

you mentioned 100 years ago,
i will match your 100 years and counter with the previous 5,000.

ideology homie..
the cancer of the deluded.
just ask any fundamentalist christian,or muslim,or jew.....

they will be perfectly happy to tell you how RIGHT they are,and how WRONG you are.

and this shit?
^ this psycho shit?
this is just a puss pocket,erupting from the internal corruption feeding on my countries soul.

economic collapse ain't gonna bring my country down.
nope..
it is gonna be the polarized politics that finally takes this country out.

i hate this..i seriously hate this...

I do think you underestimate the resentment that the PC culture has created. Watching "Merry Christmas" turn into "Happy Holidays", safe spaces on college campuses, trigger warnings, cultural appropriation, etc. I almost never hear the left talk out against dumb ideas, it is very much a groupthink exercise at this point. Bill Maher says it well https://videosift.com/video/New-Rule-Stop-Apologizing

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

Do you know who "those people" are? I don't.

There are some people whose ideology is easily identified and most likely well-entrenched: KKK, white supremacists, nazis, take your pick. They are difficult to talk to and even more difficult to persuade.

I happen to live near a popular gathering spot for nazis (real nazis, not just someone you don't like) and have tried many times over the years: it's no bueno.

But that's only the hard core, a fraction of the ~60 million votes for Trump. If you put all of them into the corner of shame and refuse to interact with them, much less try to understand their point of view, you'll never know their reasoning for voting the way they did. You'll only push them away, reinforcing any feeling of being left behind or ignored by the, for a lack of a better word, liberals. That's no bueno either. Want to see how that turns out? Look at the state of Brandenburg in Germany.

You can either try to breach their echo chamber in an attempt to convince them of your perspective or you'll end up with either an even more divided country than before or a second Trump presidency (or Trump 2.0). It's an uncomfortable thing to do, but looking at the emergence of safe spaces, trigger warnings, blatant groupthink and whatnot on certain university campuses, some people seem to have become outright allergic towards differing opinions -- that's highly unhealthy for a society.

The kinds of fraud he goes through are representative of third world levels of manipulation.

We're in the developed world here, son. We don't need those primitive methods when we have the power of propaganda in our hands.

And no, I'm not talking about a conspiracy here, I'm talking about groupthink and class interests, with climate change being only the most obvious example, followed closely by the obsession with "balanced budgets".

Judging by the topics that the gatekeepers of information deem not to be up for discussion, I'd say the election is pretty rigged in its own way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the referendum is not legally binding, is it?

So what happens if the plebs vote in favor of Brexit?

Brussels dispatches men in finely-tailored suits to London, with goodies in their suitcases. Politicians become supremely motivated to convince the plebs of the wrongness of their views -- or they take their continental brethren as an example and just ignore the plebs altogether.

Jokes aside, it might very well be a vote to leave a sinking ship.

Anyone here really think the EU can survive the groupthink-induced fixation on austerity? Anyone seen the economics data coming from Italy lately? Greece? Spain? France? Anyone think Italy can be in a single currency with Germany under German control? Anyone think the EU can survive the fall of the Euro or the departure of significant member countries?

The way I see it, the EU cannot survive economic orthodoxy. Greece is dying, Italy is bleeding from every orifice. Even as a strong supporter of a unified Europe, including Russia(!), I cannot support the EU in its current form -- it's rotten to the core and dominated by groupthink.

And with all that in mind, the fact still remains that the EU kept the Tories somewhat in check in many regards. What a disheartening situation...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Gee, that's a bit harsh. Look, I completely disagree with what this guy is saying too. But you have to admit he represents the views of a sizeable portion of the American public.

Is it really better to chuck him out and risk becoming a groupthink choir? I know we've done it before, and there is definitely a line that can be crossed - but I'd rather not ban someone out just because he's saying what 60% of the US South thinks too.

@SDGundamX

it is all good mate.
you vote however you wish,for whatever reasons you deem pertinent.

i do not identify so strongly with a video that it somehow represents me,or everything i stand for,and i have no issue if someone disagrees.though i always do respect when someone states WHY they downvoted.

which you did,and mad respect my man.

as i stated earlier i was fairly ignorant to a lot of this new flavor of social justice warrior.gamergate included.in fact,i still do find gamergate really that important in the larger context,though i am sure there are gamers who would disagree with me.

i found this video interesting in that it was addressing how the more radical and extreme elements were attempting to hijack public spaces by controlling language,and therefore dominate the conversation.

since i was not familiar with this particular youtubers stance on gamergate,nor followed his videos,i harbored zero bias on his conclusions.

in my opinion,this mans stance or political leanings in regards to gamergate is not enough of a valid reason to dismiss what he is laying down in this video.

what you are suggesting (and if i am reading your position wrong,please let me know),is that because this youtuber held a certain position on a related subject,devalues and dismisses his position on radical social justice warriors.

a good analogy is me pointing to the sky and stating "the sky is blue" and having my statement dismissed because you may disagree with my politics,religion or philosophy.

but that would not make my statement any less true.

i agree with you that it does not matter of someone is a narcissist or a special snowflake.it is the argument that matters.the IDEAS that should be examined for their veracity and clarity.

and yes,this youtuber makes certain assumptions that are not only irrelevant but extremely biased.

which brings me back to my main point.
freedom of speech and how these radicals attempt to impose their own selective bias by controlling the language we use to express ourselves and those very ideas that you and i find to important.

so while the radical right attempts to legislate morality and impose THEIR own narrow and subjective understandings on all of us.

the radical left is attempting to silence dissent and dialogue by controlling language by using this weird orwellian doublethink.

"zero tolerance for the intolerant" almost every college campus has something similar to this all over campus.

now THAT phrase is a brilliant example of orwellian doublethink.
definition of doublethink:The power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

so my main point is in regards to freedom of speech and how the radical end of these social justice warriors are threatening that most basic and vital right.

did i get my point across?
well,the jury is still out,but i hope that at least i got a few people thinking and giving this situation a bit more scrutiny.

i am also attempting to address this phenom of binary thinking.
that because i post a video that criticizes the more radical elements of social justice warriors.this automatically translates to me being "anti-social justice warriors".

my recent posts on this matter have confused and troubled some sifters.because they had a certain mental image of who i was and because they may identify as a social justice warrior,my posts were offensive to them,and confusing.

now thankfully @Jinx spoke up and inquired about my reasons,because it appeared to him that i was behaving out of character.

but i am not.
i am,and always have been,about freedom,equality,fairness and justice.i apply that metric as evenly as i humanly can ( i make mistakes,of course).

bad ideas MUST be challenged and how this new batch of social justice warriors are behaving in order to further their agenda is a bad fucking idea.

does this mean trash ALL people who are socially conscious and wish to create a better world by fighting injustice,racism and bigotry?

of COURSE not!
but i do blame those well-intentioned people for not standing up this new form of bully groupthink.just because someone identifies as a social justice warrior does not mean that they get a free pass just for being part of a group.

so just like i blame the "good" cops who stand by and allow the "bad" cops to break the law,abuse their authority and behave like fascists with impunity.they are just as responsible as those cops who cross the line.

so while the intentions may be good,the execution is a horrible lovecraftian nightmare,with far reaching implications that affect us all and can be easily abused.

freedom of speech is good.
disagreement is healthy.
we cannot be so allergic to conflict that we shut down the conversation,and all reside in our own little echo chambers where everybody is agreeing and nobody is questioning.

as a society there is grave danger in that practice.

and that is really what i am talking about.
thanks for commenting my man.
as you may have figured out.this is a fairly important subject to me.
stay awesome!

Most police officers are good, therefore bad cops aren't a problem = BULLSHIT

Even if most officers are good, it doesn't excuse the behavior of rogues. If someone acted like an inexcusable and physically abusive dick around me and I were his peer, I would go help out the person whose property was mishandled. Why is that not the case in the law enforcement industry?

That's straight up BS on the part of every authoritarian and authoritarian sympathizer out there. This type of groupthink should NOT occur. It wasn't even the one cop, it was the whole bunch at this scene who witnessed the crime occur and failed to bring it under control.

It's pathetic alpha male surrounded by acquiescing beta males. That's the main problem right there. It's a systemic problem, not a single bad apple here and there type of social issue.

There is no doubt that these people are disgusting, but thankfully they are also rare. Every society has their fringe crazies - the US has Westboro Baptist Church, for instance - and they generally get way more attention than they deserve by being controversial.

This isn't to say that there isn't a problem with Israeli society's attitude toward the Palestinians, it's just to say that I think it is a problem that is far more subtle and widespread. Focusing so much attention on a small percentage of religious fanatics can be important because it does represent a movement and ideology that is problematic, but it has very little direct relevance to the current conflict.

The real problem, in my opinion, is a unique mixture of nationalism and a lopsided insulation from the reality of the conflict that is very common in Israeli society.

Israeli society is uniquely coherent in a particular way that stems from the relatively homogenous cultural identity facilitated by Judaism, and this coherence is also strengthened by the fact that Israeli society was built in the face of and as a direct result of considerable adversity. I think that this does allow for a sort of groupthink that inhibits Israel's ability to treat the Palestinians in a humane manner, but the effect manifests itself through society as a sort of cultural blindness and it manifests through the political process as hawkish policy.

(Also, whether or not you think they had the right to build that society in the first place is beside the point right now, I'm only talking about the existence of the unifying influence of adversity, and the effect it has on policy and the national psyche)

The other component of it is the simple fact that Israelis are extremely insulated from the realities of the Palestinian sufferings.

Even in the heat of a conflict like this, Israelis can pretty much go about their lives unimpeded. It is true that the rocket attacks are disruptive and that there is on a whole an unacceptably high level of danger from external attacks, but Israelis have leveraged a security apparatus that minimizes these realities in day to day life to an astounding degree, all things considered, and this fact is a double edge sword that creates a perfect breeding ground for indifference.

One side of the sword is that these measures are extremely effective at improving the lives of Israelis in the short term. However the other side of the sword is that it obviously makes these measures popular and politically successful. Furthermore, with all the calm and prosperity, it is very easy to forget about the abysmal conditions being imposed on 1.8 million people just thirty kilometers or so from your doorstep. The only time they really have to deal with the issue is when there is an inevitable flareup of violence at which point, naturally, people tend to be less empathetic. The rest of the time, during the lulls, the prospect of empathy is just placed on the back burner.

These are the tendencies that need to be addressed.

However calling Israel the 4th Reich and placing so much focus on youtube videos that give Israel's religious fanatics undue prominence is just as useless and destructive as all the Israelis and Israel sympathizers who insist on viewing Palestinian society as an unchanging, violent monolith that is accurately represented by its extremist elements.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant movements within Israeli society that are in fact attempting to change these trends. The same is true of Palestinian society, however it is more difficult for those movements because of the repressions imposed by Hamas, culture and environment.

If there is to be any hope in this situation, Israel's role as the dominant, occupying force means that they have the first move. They will have to shift from focusing on isolation and self-preservation to one of empathy to the average Palestinian, an empathy that is so strong that they must be willing to take considerable personal risks and let up their stranglehold on Palestinian society and allow them to prosper.

Because only then will the environment be in any way conducive for Palestinians to take considerable personal risks and defy the status quo en masse. Only then will the false succor of violent religious extremism loose its appeal.

Until that happens, we'll the cycle seems to return to square one every two or three years and I expect to have this discussion again sometime around 2017.

Unfortunately, it is going to be a hard and unlikely road because it takes a lot of empathy and effort to rise up and take huge risks during the times of quiet when prosperity and security easily distract from the continuing plight of the Palestinians. These aren't common traits. Humans are a very tribal species and we're not good at this kind of stuff when it concerns someone different who you don't have to interact with. This challenge is hardly unique to the Jews.

The Basel 3 accords are essentially doing this. Basel and its previous incarnations are essentially non-binding guidelines established by an international agency for banks that domestic regulatory agencies in countries then enact. Even if they don't, banks follow these anyway because it's effectively an international standard.

Basel 2 (which we had prior to the GFC), had 2 tiers of capital that could be held. The actual shareholder stock capital that is rock solid (tier 1) and various loose definitions (including at the time AAA rated mortage backed securities) - tier 2. The last I heard, that 2nd tier has essentially been done away with and the overall capital requirements (%) required to be held, has been raised.

The problems though are:

1 - Unless you raise capital to stupendous levels (like seriously inhibiting bank lending), you wouldn't have anywhere near the buffer to prevent another 2008. The problem then was not insufficient capital. It's that the industry as a whole made a large judgement error in valuing mortgage backed securities.

2 - This also highlights the problem that breaking up the banks wouldn't solve the issue of groupthink because availability of credit and economic conditions are a universal thing. An analogy is the oil price. Even though the US is a major oil producer in it's own right, events like Iraq recently still heavily impact prices in the US because global prices don't change in a vacuum.

3 - As far Glass Steigel, even if investment and traditional banks were separate, operating in the same field, if credit dries up (say because a investment bank made a bad decision), that will still affect the traditional merchant banks.

All banks work through fractional lending. You take a deposit, keep a buffer for capital. You lend out the rest. Some returns back as a deposit, again you keep a buffer and lend out the rest. In bad economic conditions, regardless of whether caused by them or other players in the finance industry, some of their lenders default and there is potential for their entire capital buffer to collapse and the bank to default if the crisis is bad enough. Even if it's purely a merchant bank.

-

What splitting the banks probably would do is increase competition, and lower banking costs as well as salaries, which is generally a good thing and I would agree here that this is something that banks have lobbied heavily against (as well as things like the Consumer Protection Agency, for the same reason, margins). Having said that, there are a lot much more monopolistic companies with lower risk and much more stable margins (e.g. Wallmart).

I've done no such thing. I've repeatedly solicited the responses to the science of the NGIPCC articles (which I posted above). Sadly, this "community" for "discussion" has not responded to these solicitations, but has instead engaged in little more than name-calling and groupthink.

EDIT: And for your convenience and for @dannym3141's edification, I'll repost them:

here, here, and here

What is it that you know that these experts don't? What are the scientific errors with which you disagree? How and where are they inaccurate?

Since when is Suey Park a conservative? She's the one who started it, which is what cracks me up. I love it when these progressives play it too clever by half and get beat up by other progressives. Progressives are the ones who want to control everyone's speech. A black conservative, for instance, is no longer a black person. They are an 'uncle tom'. Progressives will shut you down faster than the Department of Groupthink.

George Orwell, call your office.

I have an apology to make
I'm afraid I've made a big mistake
I turned my face away from you, Lord

I was too blind to see the light
I was too meek to feel Your might
I closed my eyes; I couldn't see the truth, Lord

But then like Saul on the Damascus road,
You sent a messenger to me, and so
Now I've have had the truth revealed to me
Please forgive me all those things I said
I'll no longer betray you, Lord
I will pray to you instead

And I will say thank you, thank you
Thank you, God
Thank you, thank you
Thank you, God...

Thank you, God, for fixing the cataracts of Sam's mum
I had no idea, but it's suddenly so clear now
I feel such a cynic, how could I have been so dumb?
Thank you for displaying how praying works:
A particular prayer in a particular church
Thank you Sam for the chance to acknowledge this
Omnipotent ophthalmologist

Thank you, God, for fixing the cataracts of Sam's mum
I didn't realize that it was so simple
But you've shown a great example of just how it can be done
You only need to pray in a particular spot
To a particular version of a particular god,
And if you pull that off without a hitch,
He will fix one eye of one middle-class white bitch

I know in the past my outlook has been limited
I couldn't see examples of where life had been definitive
But I can admit it when the evidence is clear,
As clear as Sam's mum's new cornea
(And that's extremely clear! )

Thank you, God, for fixing the cataracts of Sam's mum
I have to admit that in the past I have been skeptical
But Sam described this miracle and I am overcome!
How fitting that the sighting of a sight-based intervention
Should open my eyes to this exciting new dimension
It's like someone put an eye chart up in front of me
And the top five letters say: I C, G O D

Thank you, Sam, for showing how my point of view has been so flawed
I assumed there was no God at all but now I see that's cynical
It's simply that his interests aren't particularly broad
He's largely undiverted by the starving masses,
Or the inequality between the various classes
He gives you strictly limited passes,
Redeemable for surgery or two-for-one glasses

I feel so shocking for historically mocking
Your interests are clearly confined to the ocular
I bet given the chance, you'd eschew the divine
And start a little business selling contacts online

Fuck me Sam, what are the odds
That of history's endless parade of gods
That the God you just happened to be taught to believe in
Is the actual one and he digs on healing,
But not the AIDS-ridden African nations
Nor the victims of the plague, nor the flood-addled Asians,
But healthy, privately-insured Australians
With common and curable corneal degeneration

This story of Sam's has but a single explanation:
A surgical God who digs on magic operations
No, it couldn't be mistaken attribution of causation
Born of a coincidental temporal correlation
Exacerbated by a general lack of education
Vis-a-vis physics in Sam's parish congregation
And it couldn't be that all these pious people are liars
It couldn't be an artefact of confirmation bias
A product of groupthink,
A mass delusion,
An Emperor's New Clothes-style fear of exclusion

No, it's more likely to be an all-powerful magician
Than the misdiagnosis of the initial condition,
Or one of many cases of spontaneous remission,
Or a record-keeping glitch by the local physician

No, the only explanation for Sam's mum's seeing:
They prayed to an all-knowing superbeing,
To the omnipresent master of the universe,
And he quite liked the sound of their muttered verse.

So for a bit of a change from his usual stunt
Of being a sexist, racist, murderous cunt
He popped down to Dandenong and just like that
Used his powers to heal the cataracts of Sam's mum
Of Sam's mum

Thank you God for fixing the cataracts of Sam's mum!
I didn't realize that it was such a simple thing
I feel such a dingaling, what ignorant scum!

Now I understand how prayer can work:
A particular prayer in a particular church
In a particular style with a particular stuff
And for particular problems that aren't particularly tough,
And for particular people, preferably white
And for particular senses, preferably sight
A particular prayer in a particular spot
To a particular version of a particular god

And if you get that right, he just might
Take a break from giving babies malaria
And pop down to your local area
To fix the cataracts of your mum!