Labor laws generally differ from state to state, not at the federal (U.S.) level. For example, I know some people who were laid off in North Carolina that were paid for 6 months by the company. I think that's crazy... one of them didn't even bother looking for a job until 5 months later. On the other hand, in Georgia, you can be fired/laid off for almost no reason, for example "lack of work" (which does make plenty of sense most of the time). It is only an employer's generosity that they pay you ANY money after the day you are let go; the standard is 2 weeks, although the two times I have been laid off I was paid one month's salary.
I read the article and I read the letter. I didn't understand what the problem was. It sounded like Google had a contract with some people, and they terminated the contract under normal pretenses. Sort of like anyone contracted here is contracted for a "6+ month job", where the amount of time is somewhat loose, and eventually terminated. The employees were asking the founders of Google why they were being evil by letting the contract terminate. Is there something extra that Google did that I am not getting? Also, is the reason that the Chinese are so upset and calling them evil is that people don't get fired in China? They want $7 million dollars? They mention that there was no consultation beforehand, is that the evil part? I just don't see how losing a job turns into a hunger strike, instead of finding another job.
Congrats if you didn't fall for the first question but then you are an anonymous internet poster who had the advantage of being tipped off. While in college I got bored asking liberals and leftists such questions since their answers were so predictable. College professors are not encouraging critical thinking when it comes to politically sensitive issues and that is a shame. Students are being taught which opinions are correct and which are not. I'm for open debate but I learned in college that issues like the environment are only open for debate if all questions and answers are politically palatable.
Aww, there's no way to have discussions on the internet if the person you discuss with can be disregarded as an anonymous internet poster. I'm being quite honest with you, I would have answered the same way in person. And I think your personal experiences in college are incorrectly applying broadly to too much. I think it's a safe argument to be made that people who go to college are much more likely to be better at critical thinking, so it's not like these college professors are the cause of mindless thought for leftists. On the flip side there are plenty of right-wing people who went to college who were also subject to the same system. If being right-wing is the ultimate outcome of critical and independent thought, did they not receive the same college education that the leftist got?
On a side note, I'm a little drunk and it's late and I'm not able to get across what I want to get across as well as I should, so forgive this post if I'm not responding as fairly to what you say as I should. I'll have to save it for tomorrow:)
I come from the very hive of liberalism (San Francisco) and spent three decades in high tech and academia
OK that explains things. I'm a "liberal" who lives in Georgia. You're a "conservative" in San Francisco. Whatever your experiences, I can tell you with 99% certainty (I would be logically incorrect to say 100%) that hard working is not a right-wing attribute, and socially responsible is not a left-wing attribute, and family/community-oriented is not a right-wing attribute, and child molestation is not a left-wing attribute. That is not to mean I agree with the attributes I didn't list, but that the attributes I mention stick out as being extremely incorrect.
California is not a third world state. Go see a real third world state for yourself and you wouldn't be able to say that without laughing (but I can see an argument about the government of California being as insolvent as many third world countries' goverments).
I think it's weird that you say "NAMBLA is supported by the left" when what is actually the case is that there's a 100 people on the left that support NAMBLA in a country of 300 million.
Just because 1% rich bosses work longer hours than the 99% workers (there are obviously exceptions), doesn't mean that hard working is a right-wing attribute.
Just because you've never met a conservative who wanted to ruin the environment doesn't make "socially responsible" a right-wing attribute.
Al Gore actually probably does care about what he is talking about in regards to the environment, I don't think he advocates about the environment more for his personal gain rather than his convictions about the subject (at least I presume by a very well educated deduction... as you may have picked up, I caution against asserting such general presumptions).
And yes, stereotypes DO come from somewhere, but it seems like ultra-liberal San Francisco has unfairly skewed your views about what "left" actually means. I know you and I in real life would actually have a lot in common. One thing from the list that really gets me is the fact that you think family/community is a right-wing attribute. That, to me, more than anything, is the worst demeaning stereotype (some people may think "childmolester" would be worse, but I think we all know that "child molestation" isn't the first thing that comes to mind with most people with leftists, so I disregard it). By thinking this, you are unawarely putting rightists, in a very deep human way, as "better" than leftists as being, well, human. It's like when rightists speak of "family values" which doesn't extend to a gay person's family. I know you probably don't intend to do so, but unconsciously by stating that rightists are "more family and community oriented", leftists care less of humanity and their fellow man that rightists. That's not fair, and that's not true. A person's value for their community and family obviously varies from person to person, but has nothing to do with left or right leaning values.
I like you:) I strongly disagree that "leftism" is conformity, regardless of the fact that the college liberals you interacted with were conformists... to me, "rightism" in this country is quite mainstream an conformist, and right-leaning people are much more likely to listen to authority and not be "different". But I'd still buy you a beer and talk about it!
Ugh, this is my point. "Leftist" does not mean "conformity", and I don't think that your limited experience in college gives you enough data to come to the conclusion that you state. That is not mean to be an insult, it's just a counter argument. What you are describing, to me, seems to be a lack of critical thinking, what some would call a deficiency in higher intelligence (which sounds very insulting, but anyways). The point that I'm trying to drive home is that the lack of critical thinking, the mindlessness, the use of reason vs. faith, all of this is NOT a right-vs-left thing. It's just not accurate to attribute these things to leftism.
Ah... this is another great point. If you are leftist, then you are not an independent thinker? I've never once insinuated that being a rightist implies one isn't an independent thinker. This whole thread got started because someone said lefties are brainwashed.
Anyways, you're right, it's getting late... I'm gonna play some World of Warcraft then head to bed. Thanks for the great discussion!
You make a few good points... but some weak accusations as well. First of all, you just equated Stephen Hawking, a brilliant motherfucker, who came to the conclusion that a unified theory doesn't exist with another study that says intelligent people "defy common sense". Please, let's not mix "common sense" with Stephen Hawking.
Secondly, it's a stretch that an American university which is non-military pushes political correctness, environmentalism and Marxism. You may be correct that such "dashes" exist, but if you consider those elements then you cannot ignore other elements such as non-political correctness, non-environmentalism, and capitalism. All of these things in the casserole exist in most major American universities. And then some!
The original question of this thread was, "Why would you think the leftist would be more likely to be brainwashed/mindlessly follow than the rightist?"
Your comment is very revealing into what I was asking about: perspectives. First of all, I will admit that I was wrong to overgeneralize that right-wing people claim to be victims more than left-wing people. It's just that I see it, and I think about it and it strikes me as wrong. It probably just doesn't stick with me when a leftist does it.
As to your comment... look at the list you described, and think about the connotations: Right-wing: Hard working, socially responsible, religious, patriotic, military, family/community-oriented Left-wing: Entertainers, lawyers, criminals, child molesters, unions, welfare recipients, opponents of capitalists
Think about this list. I put forth my hypothesis that you have been "brainwashed" into thinking these generic terms fit where they do. Hard working is a right-wing attribute? WTF? The whole idea of the "working man" vs. the "greedy boss" who earns his money by "investing" is quite the opposite. In that, the "working man" is the hard worker and the "greedy capitalist" is the lazy one. Obviously, there is the opposite: the lazy union worker, who doesn't want to work but wants to be paid. My point is that it is a perspective, not an actual attribute.
Socially responsible? Are you kidding me? Environment? That's like a SUPER left thing. Did you mean not being gay? Being right-wing won't make you straight. (Oh, I'm having some fun here... I don't mean to attack you) Family/community oriented? If one really thinks that that's a rightist attribute, one obviously haven't left their neck of the woods then. Family and community are not a right-wing value, they are human values.
There's much more to talk about... I really want to continue a civilized debate, so I'm not going to go into how you said "left wingers are child molesters". In any case, if this were an essay I were writing, I would not have put "right wingers tend to think about themselves as victims". But I hope that you really think about the characterization you have put forth about left-wing vs. right-wing, and think about how your own stereotypes have made you generate the attribute list you did. If you knew more leftist people, I'm sure there is no way you would have written that list the way it is.
That is a great point. DDoSing for political reasons makes it a more important crime, but I still maintain that the fact that the internet was slower so someone might have gotten a worse grade is not worth the extra prison time.
Should we consider returning the rates to what they were in 1900?
OK I think I got this one. I'm pretty sure that the income tax didn't exist in 1900... before income tax, there was excise tax, but they started an income tax and there was a big bruhaha but the Supreme Court upheld it. I also know that income taxes were historically HUGE, 70+%. I don't know what the leftist answer to this is, honestly, but no, it would certainly not be a good idea to return income tax levels to 70% or more.
If a city in the US were to ban handguns, would there be a drop in a homicides compared to other cities? (D.C. already did this in 1978 and there was no drop).
Well, dammit, you answered it already, but I totally got this one too. I am a devout proponent of the legalization of marijuanna and some other drugs too. The problem with legalizing it in one city is that it would attract more problems than it would solve. When they dropped the drinking age to 18 from 21 in the 70s, states were allowed to do it on their own, so different states had different legal limits. What happened was that there were increased deaths along state borders with different limits because people would drive to another state to get alcohol, and inevitably drink on their way back. My point being, for regulated "dangerous" things, you cannot just remove the regulation in one small place, you would need to remove the regulation in the entire population (the entire U.S.). So, if a city in the US were to ban handguns, it would most likely have NO effect on homicides because the city's ban would not actually stop the amount of handguns in the city anyways.
Now, if you ask what would happen if the entire U.S. were to ban handguns, well... that's where the leftists and the rightists REALLY get their blood boiling. My answer is that I don't know, but I would presume that after 100 years, there would be less homicides. That is an educated guess based on the fact that developed Western countries where handguns are banned have lower homicide rates than the U.S. does.
Hmm... what you are saying is a very broad generalization, based on an extremely tiny set of data. A metaphor would be if someone flew threw Denver and ate at the airport and didn't like the food, and said that food in Denver sucks. You saw some of your leftist classmates sleeping in macroeconomics? Even if you saw a hundred people, I don't see how you could really know who these 100 people were and how they thought (and how, later in life, they think), so I respectfully disagree that this is good enough to make the statement that (more) leftists are brainwashed than the right.
Also, I wasn't asking about the answer to "cut taxes and everything will be better". I was wondering why you think leftists tend to be more "brainwashed/herd followers" than rightists.
You mention elitist arrogance. I will freely admit, and would love to hear your take on this, that I think of myself as top 10% (which stems from school, which is where I always was) and tend to have an intolerance for stupidity making decisions for me. (i.e. I don't think the people who write my laws and my tax codes should be people I would like to have a beer with, I think they should be really really smart people who know what they are talking about) This is one reason why I had such a problem with so many people following Sharron Angle and she couldn't explain why she was proposing what she did, other than through general talking points.
How? (I went to a major tech school for Computer Science... there really isn't any political "brainwashing" going on)
And also, you are saying that the fact that many universities have leftist people there is a cause of people who go to universities tending towards leftism. Isn't it possible that the fact that universities have leftist people is an effect of universities having smart people? (I don't mean this as offensive if you're taking it that way)
No, you fucking idiot, my posts on slashdot are being modded down by young assholes who don't like it when I point out the holes in their arguments and statements and ask for proof of what they say. They are probably not at my local university. Maybe you should learn to read, or is it that you are trying to twist my words?
I don't know you. You have no good reason to communicate like that. Imagine you were another person reading what you just wrote, and describe to yourself what they would think about you. (Google neurotic if you're having trouble picking out your self deficiencies) I'm obviously not a fucking idiot, and I am not twisting your words:
I live next to a major university and am a part of slashdot. I see plenty of young people who believe they have the right, if not duty, to silence right wing arguments. I am a victim of them, just read my sig.
You just said you were a victim of them modding down your comments on Slashdot, and you defined them as young people (implicitly liberal) from the university you live near. Apparently, I can read.
Also, and this may be a stark realization for you, but you can't actually know who mods down your posts. (When you Google neurotic, be sure to follow up on phobias) Did it ever occur to you that the reason your posts tend to be modded down might be that you call people fucking idiots, whereas people would rather have smart, reasonable conversations?
It is a right-wing talking point that smart liberals think the government doesn't take enough in taxes. What smart liberals want are good services, and some services like defense and health care are best served by paying non-profit taxes rather than private entities providing services by trying to make profit.
For the rest who don't feel that way, we'll keep it to the minimum.
I don't doubt that you want your cake and you want to eat it to. I didn't enjoy paying all that money to invade Iraq, but I did. (Oh wait, nevermind, I didn't pay for it... they just borrowed it from my kids) What do you think of Sharon Angle being interviewed on Fox News, asking about how she would pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich? She was asked SEVEN TIMES how it would be paid for, and she couldn't answer. She must want these smart liberals to pay for her tax cuts.
I totally disagree with you. I am happy to pay for my police service, my fire service, and many other services. I would gladly pay more money for public education to be improved, even though I don't have any kids in public schools at the moment. I would also gladly pay more money for public health care, even though I have health insurance, because it would increase the GDP and my overall wealth by decreasing the cost of health care. (I know I shouldn't have included the health care bit, but I couldn't resist).
BTW, no, I'm NOT being sarcastic. I am happy to pay for services to live in a good society.
I would (seriously) like to know why you think young leftist people are brainwashed. You are also implying that more leftist people are brainwashed than rightist people are.
To me, I find that the standard "cut taxes and everything will be better" argument is very easy to be followed mindlessly (i.e. brainwashed) without the serious explanation of how it would really work and what it would require. For example, did you see the Sharon Angle interview on Fox News where she was asked SEVEN times how she would pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? She couldn't answer it. That's mindlessness, and it's dangerous.
Okay, I'll bite. Can you give some examples of how young liberals believe they have the right, if not duty, to silence right wing arguments? Remember, I'm not talking about people who argue amongst each other and disagree with each other. The OP was talking about fundamental rights being taken away, and that liberals were generally brainwashed (and therefore didn't come to their conclusions by reason).
I often find right wing people claim that they are victims, such as how you think your comments being modded down on Slashdot is because you are a victim of young liberal people from the major university you live near. I am not saying I somehow know that you aren't... I'm just skeptical and I'd like to hear your side of it.
First of all, I think you a letting way too much of your bias (obviously to the right) to make a clear argument here. Two points:
I really don't know any other 23 year liberals who think they have the *audacity* to silence right wing arguments, except for this case. I usually see liberals making arguments, whining, yelling, etc. against right wing thought, but it is only in your imagination that the "most 23-year-old liberal" people in this country wish and try to "silence" the opposition. It is also in your imagination that a liberal must be brainwashed, and not have come to their viewpoints through thought and reason.
Second, a DDoS is not the removal of fundamental freedoms. If a website was down for a week, for that theoretical week that person would still have the valid and extant fundamental right of freedom of the press. Their website would be down, that's all.
Although it may be true that people on Slashdot would be considering this case much differently if it were about WikiLeaks, do you really think most of the people here (as opposed to a few) who think a student getting 2 and a half years of his life stuck in prison is too much would change their minds if it were against WikiLeaks? I think the punishment is too severe, and I maintain that equally against both conservative websites and WikiLeaks. I cannot speak for anyone else.
Your post is unfairly modded as Flamebait. However, I disagree with you that he put so much risk to others that it deserves 2 and a half years of prison time and probably has ruined or seriously debilitated the rest of his life. He did not INTEND to cost anyone their grade or opportunities. Imagine if someone ran into a wire and cut the school system's network, causing the equivalent amount of damage and time off-line. Do you think that deserves 2 and a half years?
I am not excusing the student's actions, I am saying that the accidental collateral damage should not make a person spend 2 and a half years in prison.
Slashdot Mirror
Labor laws generally differ from state to state, not at the federal (U.S.) level. For example, I know some people who were laid off in North Carolina that were paid for 6 months by the company. I think that's crazy... one of them didn't even bother looking for a job until 5 months later. On the other hand, in Georgia, you can be fired/laid off for almost no reason, for example "lack of work" (which does make plenty of sense most of the time). It is only an employer's generosity that they pay you ANY money after the day you are let go; the standard is 2 weeks, although the two times I have been laid off I was paid one month's salary.
I read the article and I read the letter. I didn't understand what the problem was. It sounded like Google had a contract with some people, and they terminated the contract under normal pretenses. Sort of like anyone contracted here is contracted for a "6+ month job", where the amount of time is somewhat loose, and eventually terminated. The employees were asking the founders of Google why they were being evil by letting the contract terminate. Is there something extra that Google did that I am not getting? Also, is the reason that the Chinese are so upset and calling them evil is that people don't get fired in China? They want $7 million dollars? They mention that there was no consultation beforehand, is that the evil part? I just don't see how losing a job turns into a hunger strike, instead of finding another job.
After about 5 hours on Slashdot, there are 8 comments. Yippee.
I believe that this comment is, in fact, directed to the previous comment which was not posted by me.
Congrats if you didn't fall for the first question but then you are an anonymous internet poster who had the advantage of being tipped off. While in college I got bored asking liberals and leftists such questions since their answers were so predictable. College professors are not encouraging critical thinking when it comes to politically sensitive issues and that is a shame. Students are being taught which opinions are correct and which are not. I'm for open debate but I learned in college that issues like the environment are only open for debate if all questions and answers are politically palatable.
Aww, there's no way to have discussions on the internet if the person you discuss with can be disregarded as an anonymous internet poster. I'm being quite honest with you, I would have answered the same way in person. And I think your personal experiences in college are incorrectly applying broadly to too much. I think it's a safe argument to be made that people who go to college are much more likely to be better at critical thinking, so it's not like these college professors are the cause of mindless thought for leftists. On the flip side there are plenty of right-wing people who went to college who were also subject to the same system. If being right-wing is the ultimate outcome of critical and independent thought, did they not receive the same college education that the leftist got?
:)
On a side note, I'm a little drunk and it's late and I'm not able to get across what I want to get across as well as I should, so forgive this post if I'm not responding as fairly to what you say as I should. I'll have to save it for tomorrow
I come from the very hive of liberalism (San Francisco) and spent three decades in high tech and academia
OK that explains things. I'm a "liberal" who lives in Georgia. You're a "conservative" in San Francisco. Whatever your experiences, I can tell you with 99% certainty (I would be logically incorrect to say 100%) that hard working is not a right-wing attribute, and socially responsible is not a left-wing attribute, and family/community-oriented is not a right-wing attribute, and child molestation is not a left-wing attribute. That is not to mean I agree with the attributes I didn't list, but that the attributes I mention stick out as being extremely incorrect.
California is not a third world state. Go see a real third world state for yourself and you wouldn't be able to say that without laughing (but I can see an argument about the government of California being as insolvent as many third world countries' goverments).
I think it's weird that you say "NAMBLA is supported by the left" when what is actually the case is that there's a 100 people on the left that support NAMBLA in a country of 300 million.
Just because 1% rich bosses work longer hours than the 99% workers (there are obviously exceptions), doesn't mean that hard working is a right-wing attribute.
Just because you've never met a conservative who wanted to ruin the environment doesn't make "socially responsible" a right-wing attribute.
Al Gore actually probably does care about what he is talking about in regards to the environment, I don't think he advocates about the environment more for his personal gain rather than his convictions about the subject (at least I presume by a very well educated deduction... as you may have picked up, I caution against asserting such general presumptions).
And yes, stereotypes DO come from somewhere, but it seems like ultra-liberal San Francisco has unfairly skewed your views about what "left" actually means. I know you and I in real life would actually have a lot in common. One thing from the list that really gets me is the fact that you think family/community is a right-wing attribute. That, to me, more than anything, is the worst demeaning stereotype (some people may think "childmolester" would be worse, but I think we all know that "child molestation" isn't the first thing that comes to mind with most people with leftists, so I disregard it). By thinking this, you are unawarely putting rightists, in a very deep human way, as "better" than leftists as being, well, human. It's like when rightists speak of "family values" which doesn't extend to a gay person's family. I know you probably don't intend to do so, but unconsciously by stating that rightists are "more family and community oriented", leftists care less of humanity and their fellow man that rightists. That's not fair, and that's not true. A person's value for their community and family obviously varies from person to person, but has nothing to do with left or right leaning values.
I like you :) I strongly disagree that "leftism" is conformity, regardless of the fact that the college liberals you interacted with were conformists... to me, "rightism" in this country is quite mainstream an conformist, and right-leaning people are much more likely to listen to authority and not be "different". But I'd still buy you a beer and talk about it!
Ugh, this is my point. "Leftist" does not mean "conformity", and I don't think that your limited experience in college gives you enough data to come to the conclusion that you state. That is not mean to be an insult, it's just a counter argument. What you are describing, to me, seems to be a lack of critical thinking, what some would call a deficiency in higher intelligence (which sounds very insulting, but anyways). The point that I'm trying to drive home is that the lack of critical thinking, the mindlessness, the use of reason vs. faith, all of this is NOT a right-vs-left thing. It's just not accurate to attribute these things to leftism.
Ah... this is another great point. If you are leftist, then you are not an independent thinker? I've never once insinuated that being a rightist implies one isn't an independent thinker. This whole thread got started because someone said lefties are brainwashed.
Anyways, you're right, it's getting late... I'm gonna play some World of Warcraft then head to bed. Thanks for the great discussion!
You make a few good points... but some weak accusations as well. First of all, you just equated Stephen Hawking, a brilliant motherfucker, who came to the conclusion that a unified theory doesn't exist with another study that says intelligent people "defy common sense". Please, let's not mix "common sense" with Stephen Hawking.
Secondly, it's a stretch that an American university which is non-military pushes political correctness, environmentalism and Marxism. You may be correct that such "dashes" exist, but if you consider those elements then you cannot ignore other elements such as non-political correctness, non-environmentalism, and capitalism. All of these things in the casserole exist in most major American universities. And then some!
The original question of this thread was, "Why would you think the leftist would be more likely to be brainwashed/mindlessly follow than the rightist?"
Your comment is very revealing into what I was asking about: perspectives. First of all, I will admit that I was wrong to overgeneralize that right-wing people claim to be victims more than left-wing people. It's just that I see it, and I think about it and it strikes me as wrong. It probably just doesn't stick with me when a leftist does it.
As to your comment... look at the list you described, and think about the connotations:
Right-wing: Hard working, socially responsible, religious, patriotic, military, family/community-oriented
Left-wing: Entertainers, lawyers, criminals, child molesters, unions, welfare recipients, opponents of capitalists
Think about this list. I put forth my hypothesis that you have been "brainwashed" into thinking these generic terms fit where they do. Hard working is a right-wing attribute? WTF? The whole idea of the "working man" vs. the "greedy boss" who earns his money by "investing" is quite the opposite. In that, the "working man" is the hard worker and the "greedy capitalist" is the lazy one. Obviously, there is the opposite: the lazy union worker, who doesn't want to work but wants to be paid. My point is that it is a perspective, not an actual attribute.
Socially responsible? Are you kidding me? Environment? That's like a SUPER left thing. Did you mean not being gay? Being right-wing won't make you straight. (Oh, I'm having some fun here... I don't mean to attack you) Family/community oriented? If one really thinks that that's a rightist attribute, one obviously haven't left their neck of the woods then. Family and community are not a right-wing value, they are human values.
There's much more to talk about... I really want to continue a civilized debate, so I'm not going to go into how you said "left wingers are child molesters". In any case, if this were an essay I were writing, I would not have put "right wingers tend to think about themselves as victims". But I hope that you really think about the characterization you have put forth about left-wing vs. right-wing, and think about how your own stereotypes have made you generate the attribute list you did. If you knew more leftist people, I'm sure there is no way you would have written that list the way it is.
That is a great point. DDoSing for political reasons makes it a more important crime, but I still maintain that the fact that the internet was slower so someone might have gotten a worse grade is not worth the extra prison time.
Should we consider returning the rates to what they were in 1900?
OK I think I got this one. I'm pretty sure that the income tax didn't exist in 1900... before income tax, there was excise tax, but they started an income tax and there was a big bruhaha but the Supreme Court upheld it. I also know that income taxes were historically HUGE, 70+%. I don't know what the leftist answer to this is, honestly, but no, it would certainly not be a good idea to return income tax levels to 70% or more.
If a city in the US were to ban handguns, would there be a drop in a homicides compared to other cities? (D.C. already did this in 1978 and there was no drop).
Well, dammit, you answered it already, but I totally got this one too. I am a devout proponent of the legalization of marijuanna and some other drugs too. The problem with legalizing it in one city is that it would attract more problems than it would solve. When they dropped the drinking age to 18 from 21 in the 70s, states were allowed to do it on their own, so different states had different legal limits. What happened was that there were increased deaths along state borders with different limits because people would drive to another state to get alcohol, and inevitably drink on their way back. My point being, for regulated "dangerous" things, you cannot just remove the regulation in one small place, you would need to remove the regulation in the entire population (the entire U.S.). So, if a city in the US were to ban handguns, it would most likely have NO effect on homicides because the city's ban would not actually stop the amount of handguns in the city anyways.
Now, if you ask what would happen if the entire U.S. were to ban handguns, well... that's where the leftists and the rightists REALLY get their blood boiling. My answer is that I don't know, but I would presume that after 100 years, there would be less homicides. That is an educated guess based on the fact that developed Western countries where handguns are banned have lower homicide rates than the U.S. does.
Hmm... what you are saying is a very broad generalization, based on an extremely tiny set of data. A metaphor would be if someone flew threw Denver and ate at the airport and didn't like the food, and said that food in Denver sucks. You saw some of your leftist classmates sleeping in macroeconomics? Even if you saw a hundred people, I don't see how you could really know who these 100 people were and how they thought (and how, later in life, they think), so I respectfully disagree that this is good enough to make the statement that (more) leftists are brainwashed than the right.
Also, I wasn't asking about the answer to "cut taxes and everything will be better". I was wondering why you think leftists tend to be more "brainwashed/herd followers" than rightists.
You mention elitist arrogance. I will freely admit, and would love to hear your take on this, that I think of myself as top 10% (which stems from school, which is where I always was) and tend to have an intolerance for stupidity making decisions for me. (i.e. I don't think the people who write my laws and my tax codes should be people I would like to have a beer with, I think they should be really really smart people who know what they are talking about) This is one reason why I had such a problem with so many people following Sharron Angle and she couldn't explain why she was proposing what she did, other than through general talking points.
How? (I went to a major tech school for Computer Science... there really isn't any political "brainwashing" going on)
And also, you are saying that the fact that many universities have leftist people there is a cause of people who go to universities tending towards leftism. Isn't it possible that the fact that universities have leftist people is an effect of universities having smart people? (I don't mean this as offensive if you're taking it that way)
No, you fucking idiot, my posts on slashdot are being modded down by young assholes who don't like it when I point out the holes in their arguments and statements and ask for proof of what they say. They are probably not at my local university. Maybe you should learn to read, or is it that you are trying to twist my words?
I don't know you. You have no good reason to communicate like that. Imagine you were another person reading what you just wrote, and describe to yourself what they would think about you. (Google neurotic if you're having trouble picking out your self deficiencies) I'm obviously not a fucking idiot, and I am not twisting your words:
I live next to a major university and am a part of slashdot. I see plenty of young people who believe they have the right, if not duty, to silence right wing arguments. I am a victim of them, just read my sig.
You just said you were a victim of them modding down your comments on Slashdot, and you defined them as young people (implicitly liberal) from the university you live near. Apparently, I can read.
Also, and this may be a stark realization for you, but you can't actually know who mods down your posts. (When you Google neurotic, be sure to follow up on phobias) Did it ever occur to you that the reason your posts tend to be modded down might be that you call people fucking idiots, whereas people would rather have smart, reasonable conversations?
For the rest who don't feel that way, we'll keep it to the minimum.
I don't doubt that you want your cake and you want to eat it to. I didn't enjoy paying all that money to invade Iraq, but I did. (Oh wait, nevermind, I didn't pay for it... they just borrowed it from my kids) What do you think of Sharon Angle being interviewed on Fox News, asking about how she would pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich? She was asked SEVEN TIMES how it would be paid for, and she couldn't answer. She must want these smart liberals to pay for her tax cuts.
I totally disagree with you. I am happy to pay for my police service, my fire service, and many other services. I would gladly pay more money for public education to be improved, even though I don't have any kids in public schools at the moment. I would also gladly pay more money for public health care, even though I have health insurance, because it would increase the GDP and my overall wealth by decreasing the cost of health care. (I know I shouldn't have included the health care bit, but I couldn't resist).
BTW, no, I'm NOT being sarcastic. I am happy to pay for services to live in a good society.
Thats effectively a 14.697% tax rate. Is that more than you currently pay in taxes? Does that cost you more than the current system?
I made $101.7K last year, and only paid 15% in taxes. I bet if I made $150K, I would have paid far less percentage-wise.
I would (seriously) like to know why you think young leftist people are brainwashed. You are also implying that more leftist people are brainwashed than rightist people are.
To me, I find that the standard "cut taxes and everything will be better" argument is very easy to be followed mindlessly (i.e. brainwashed) without the serious explanation of how it would really work and what it would require. For example, did you see the Sharon Angle interview on Fox News where she was asked SEVEN times how she would pay for extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? She couldn't answer it. That's mindlessness, and it's dangerous.
I do not think someone who DDoSed WikiLeaks should get 2 and a half years in prison, and I am not lying.
Okay, I'll bite. Can you give some examples of how young liberals believe they have the right, if not duty, to silence right wing arguments? Remember, I'm not talking about people who argue amongst each other and disagree with each other. The OP was talking about fundamental rights being taken away, and that liberals were generally brainwashed (and therefore didn't come to their conclusions by reason).
I often find right wing people claim that they are victims, such as how you think your comments being modded down on Slashdot is because you are a victim of young liberal people from the major university you live near. I am not saying I somehow know that you aren't... I'm just skeptical and I'd like to hear your side of it.
First of all, I think you a letting way too much of your bias (obviously to the right) to make a clear argument here. Two points:
I really don't know any other 23 year liberals who think they have the *audacity* to silence right wing arguments, except for this case. I usually see liberals making arguments, whining, yelling, etc. against right wing thought, but it is only in your imagination that the "most 23-year-old liberal" people in this country wish and try to "silence" the opposition. It is also in your imagination that a liberal must be brainwashed, and not have come to their viewpoints through thought and reason.
Second, a DDoS is not the removal of fundamental freedoms. If a website was down for a week, for that theoretical week that person would still have the valid and extant fundamental right of freedom of the press. Their website would be down, that's all.
Although it may be true that people on Slashdot would be considering this case much differently if it were about WikiLeaks, do you really think most of the people here (as opposed to a few) who think a student getting 2 and a half years of his life stuck in prison is too much would change their minds if it were against WikiLeaks? I think the punishment is too severe, and I maintain that equally against both conservative websites and WikiLeaks. I cannot speak for anyone else.
Your post is unfairly modded as Flamebait. However, I disagree with you that he put so much risk to others that it deserves 2 and a half years of prison time and probably has ruined or seriously debilitated the rest of his life. He did not INTEND to cost anyone their grade or opportunities. Imagine if someone ran into a wire and cut the school system's network, causing the equivalent amount of damage and time off-line. Do you think that deserves 2 and a half years?
I am not excusing the student's actions, I am saying that the accidental collateral damage should not make a person spend 2 and a half years in prison.