[Patrickov]

Or you could just pay attention to the real world..

I think it is offensive to brand others as "having lost the touch of reality" when they probably only perceive the very same reality differently. At least I won't give that "alternative reality" shit.

[late]

I think it is offensive to brand others as "having lost the touch of reality" when they probably only perceive the very same reality differently. At least I won't give that "alternative reality" shit.

You are always making excuses.

It gets tiresome.

[SolarCross]

I think it is offensive to brand others as "having lost the touch of reality" when they probably only perceive the very same reality differently. At least I won't give that "alternative reality" shit.

You might not have many prigs where you are as it seems to be an unfortunate side effect of Puritanism.

^ This may help you understand their psychology. The yanks sadly were infected with a fair amount of English puritanism given their history so it translates pretty well over there too.

---------

Bloomberg is an yank prig, see here:

[late]

You might not have many prigs where you are as it seems to be an unfortunate side effect of Puritanism.

Where do you think most of the Puritans came from?

It has a lot to do with the Enlightenment.

[SolarCross]

Where do you think most of the Puritans came from?

It has a lot to do with the Enlightenment.

We are speaking here of psychological origins rather than theological or even political origins. What we have is a kind of middle child syndrome played out in class. As the population expands from technological developments especially in agriculture the stratification grows too. No longer do we have just eldest child nobility who have responsibility and privilege followed by youngest child commoners who have a carefree existence with rather fewer privileges. Increasingly we have more people in the middle who want to distinguish themselves from the commoners while being achingly envious of the nobility.

Middle child psychology:

The middle child feels pangs of jealousy and inadequacy, has low self-esteem and becomes an introvert

These people latch upon any ideological narrative going that they spin for making themselves feel superior. In Shakespeare's day that was Puritianism in our day it is socialism and environmentalism. There is no direct theological connection between the two, but the psychology is the same.

----

All this may be rather relevant to @Sivad's Mingy Beast thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=177838

[late]

We are speaking here of psychological origins rather than theological or even political origins. What we have is a kind of middle child syndrome played out in class. As the population expands from technological developments especially in agriculture the stratification grows too. No longer do we have just eldest child nobility who have responsibility and privilege followed by youngest child commoners who have a carefree existence with rather fewer privileges. Increasingly we have more people in the middle who want to distinguish themselves from the commoners while being achingly envious of the nobility.

Middle child psychology:

These people latch upon any ideological narrative going that they spin for making themselves feel superior. In Shakespeare's day that was Puritianism in our day it is socialism and environmentalism. There is no direct theological connection between the two, but the psychology is the same.

Love the psychobabble.

There are cultural differences that have extensive roots. Another one we share with England is Tories and Roundheads.

What we have in this country is a culture clash that goes back to the founding of the Republic.

On one side you have the values of the Deep South, that has it's roots in slavery. On the other, you have the values of the Enlightenment; which has broad principles of freedom and the ideals of democracy.

That gave us the idea of "A more perfect Union" which evolved into the pragmatic notion that problems have solutions.

But keep the comedy coming, we can use the entertainment.

[SolarCross]

Love the psychobabble.

There are cultural differences that have extensive roots. Another one we share with England is Tories and Roundheads.

What we have in this country is a culture clash that goes back to the founding of the Republic.

On one side you have the values of the Deep South, that has it's roots in slavery. On the other, you have the values of the Enlightenment; which has broad principles of freedom and the ideals of democracy.

That gave us the idea of "A more perfect Union" which evolved into the pragmatic notion that problems have solutions.

But keep the comedy coming, we can use the entertainment.

The subtext here is that you actually identify with the Puritans. You know I am right, but you are not honest enough to admit it.

[late]

The subtext here is that you actually identify with the Puritans.

The subtext is you troll when you invariably lose.

Helps if you know what you're talking about.

Every American should read this:

https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/B0067LZX80/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OHFQZ5N52JRD&keywords=11+nations+of+north+america&qid=1585493428&sprefix=11+nations%2Caps%2C151&sr=8-1

[SolarCross]

The subtext is you troll.

Also helps if you know what you're talking about.

So in your opinion, you are superior to me, both intellectually and morally?

[late]

So in your opinion, you are superior to me, both intellectually and morally?

First Rule of Holes... when you're in one, stop digging.

[SolarCross]

First Rule of Holes... when you're in one, stop digging.

Fair enough, but you will have some climbing to do all the same.

[Truth To Power]

Would that be Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Tiger Woods, The Beatles, etc?

They all had advantages, but they all got rich primarily from privilege.

Would that be Donald Trump, Hillary and Bill Clinton, CEO of BC/BS, etc?

I don't know what BC/BS is, but Trump and the Clintons, although they have obvious advantages, have certainly got rich by privilege.

Do you realize you are forming a hypothesis based on a tiny minority of the population?

Wrong. Almost all of us benefit from one privilege or another, one way or another. But we are almost all net losers from the system of privilege, which only favors the most privileged.

Most people are working from week to week to put food on the table.

Most households own their residences, which usually means some portion of land. Therefore they are privileged.

The people that twist the system in their favor are the so-called 0.01%.

That's just the ones who are best at it. Millions of Americans have obtained the bulk of their wealth through privileges, especially land titles.

We could get rid of them tomorrow and the hierarchy of talent among humans would be exactly the same.

But the hierarchy of wealth, income and condition would be very, very different.

I have no problem in taking the money away from the Clintons or 45 as they did no invent or create anything.

The Clintons seem to have been lawyers, so presumably they provided services of some sort. I don't know who 45 is.

Hopefully, you would allow the Henry Fords of the world to thrive.

Yes, and they would thrive even better if they didn't have to serve the privileged. FYI, Henry Ford himself was a Georgist.

Slavery was universal!

No, it was only widespread. In Europe, feudalism showed that as long as the good land was all privately owned, slavery was unnecessary: landowners could treat the landless like slaves without all the bother of actually owning them.

It has nothing to do with privilege, but with a group of people conquering another group during the not so distant barbaric era.

Garbage. It has everything to do with privilege: the legal entitlement to own other people's rights to liberty, the same privilege the landowner enjoys. The only difference is that the slave owner owns all of one person's rights to liberty, the landowner owns one of all people's rights to liberty.

[Truth To Power]

For the no-privilege scenario, there will still be people who can accumulate wealth better than others. My point is that inequality will always exist.

Unlike those on the left, I have no objection to inequality that is caused by justice. My objection is to inequality that is caused by INjustice, which separates me from those on the right. See the difference?

[Truth To Power]

With people's perception of their situation involved, I suspect sometimes it is hard to draw a line between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunities.

It isn't hard at all. When all people own the fruits of their labor, that is inequality of outcome. When some people own other people's rights to liberty, that is inequality of opportunity.