Says a top-rated comment on "The Cult of Selfishness Is Killing America/The right has made irresponsible behavior a key principle" by Paul Krugman (NYT).
Krugman's idea is: "Many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account. This rage is sometimes portrayed as love of freedom. But people who insist on the right to pollute are notably unbothered by, say, federal agents tear-gassing peaceful protesters. What they call 'freedom' is actually absence of responsibility. Rational policy in a pandemic, however, is all about taking responsibility.... Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Republicans are selfish. We’d be doing much better if that were all there were to it. The point, instead, is that they’ve sacralized selfishness...."
I looked up "sacralized" in the OED. It's a good word, based on "sacred," but making it clear that human beings have endowed something with sacred significance. Krugman used "sacralized" as a verb (in the past tense), and that's been around since its introduction — in sociological anthropology — since 1899. "Sacralized" as an adjective has been around since 1979, and the OED gives 2 historical examples, the second of which is a little surprising in its disrespect for minority religions:
1986 P. B. Clarke Black Paradise vi. 81 Rastafarians also present themselves..as a chosen race, along the same lines as the Jews; this, some may argue, is simply a sacralized form of racism.If Republicans have sacralized selfishness, what have Democrats sacralized?
Posts
137 comments:
Paul Krugman? Hahahaha... and one listens to HIM?
Sure we are self reliant... like that is a bad virtue (is it a 'white one'? Like showing up on time, working hard, saving money?
And yea we have guns... thank God.
So Krugman, molon labe.
"federal agents tear-gassing peaceful protesters"
I wonder if a Nobel prize winner is smart enough to see where the disagreement might lie in this statement.
My favorite thing about all of those bullet talking points regarding 'paranoia' is just how many of them turned/are turning out to be true. This reads exactly like someone - very much like that Portland DJ - who hasn't yet been mugged by reality and whereupon being mugged suddenly tweets 'holy shit I need to buy a fucking gun!'
These people talk about the 'well-being' of others when you know and I know and everyone knows they give zero fucks when it actually comes to lending a helping hands directly...but it sure sounds good when they write it down in the comments section.
Remember and don't forget, the person that wrote that comment gives absolutely zero fucks about you and project the very pathologies they listed, but it sure does sound good.
First, Krugman is an idiot.
Second, you know very well what Democrats have sacralized...it has long been their religion (along with secularism...ironic).
Three, the U.S. has trillions of dollars worth of safety nets. You might be on your own in a hell-hole city, but normal people have police who do their jobs when rarely needed. If they don't we have friends and guns.
If Republicans have sacralized selfishness, what have Democrats sacralized?
Hedonism.
...what have Democrats sacralized?
...HYPOCRISY...
Krugman and his ilk assume that the only social safety net is the one provided by the government. First, virtually nobody fully rejects government-provided safety nets, so their premise is false. But more importantly, the right has plenty of safety nets, they are just not provided by the government. That's why you see more altruism--more charitable work--in conservative communities. Because that is their safety net.
The real issue is choice versus force. What Krugman derides as "freedom" (an ugly word in his circles) is just a preference for voluntary associations. The left prefers government force; help through violence.
what have Democrats sacralized?
Envy, rampant upon a field of wrath and sloth.
“If Republicans have sacralized selfishness, what have Democrats sacralized?”
“We’re all in this together” when it could not be further from the truth. The pandemic has shown that some people must continue to work so that either they or society can survive, while some can work from home shielded from the virus, and others - deemed non-essential - can stay home and draw generous unemployment benefits that eventually discourage them from returning to work.
The Republicans are aping the worst aspects of the Democrats during the Oprah/Obama era - and she's pure evil.
what have Democrats sacralized?
Selfishness with other people's money. Duh.
Spellcheck doesn't like "sacralized."
If Krugman thinks defending yourself from being beaten, killed and robbed makes us selfish, I guess I can learn to live with that.
The person that wrote that comment probably:
- Sends their children to a private, not public school.
- Might not own a gun but relies on a doorman for their apt building.
- Talks about paranoia for people with different lifestyles while having zero minority. friends and referring to large sections of the US as 'flyover' country.
- Hasn't ever had to deal with misfortune, and if it should occur, has the financial wherewithal to flee to the Hamptons.
- Relies heavily on the 'zero-sum' game that is Wall Street investing in stocks, bonds, and other highly leveraged financial derivatives.
- Is 'paranoid'...nay petrified of their social media presence, social status, and otherwise 'looking good' and virtue signaling at every opportunity to A) feel better about themselves and B) keep from being singled out for all the above.
Allow me to be the first to say that person can go fuck themselves. That person will help neither me nor any of you and you know it.
Krugman: "Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Republicans are selfish. We’d be doing much better if that were all there were to it. The point, instead, is that they’ve sacralized selfishness...."
If he's not "saying that Republicans are selfish", then who is "they"? Clear as mud.
Actually it is clear. "I’m not saying that Republicans are selfish." is a lie.
The man is insane. The concept of self-reliance has been sacrilized; when misfortune strikes one should not be a burden to others. The networking of those affected for a social response is natural, and the necessity for isolation in the current crisis runs counter.
Democrats have sacralized hipness. Sacroiliac awareness.
Paul Krugman projects like an Imax. Out in 'Red' America, when disaster strikes, ordinary folks (disproportionately churchgoers) take up collections, put together caravans to send in food, clothing, and water, and show up to help rebuild. In 'enlightened,' 'compassionate' New York, elite people like Krugman flee to the Hamptons.
Krugman uses too many misleading words. Let's fix that:
"Black Lives Matter ...Paranoia is the central thread of the pathology."
Krugman’s Nobel Prize proves beyond all reasonable doubt that all these prize agencies are rigged. The guy thinks in pure cliches hatched in a toxic hatchery. He’s worse than Thomas Friedman. He’s probably not talked to an actual midland conservative in forty years.
Isn't Krugman a synonym for wrong-again?
Nate Silver, to his everlasting credit, metaphorically pissed on Krugman’s desk when he left The Times.
Paul Krugman is mostly intelligent.
Decades of reading essays by law students prepared Althouse to read whack jobs like Krugman without feeling unduly stressed by total bullshit.
"Many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account.
The rioters in Portland were not to be reached for comment.
I guess nobody here can spell 'abortion.'
what have Democrats sacralized?
Racism.
what have Democrats sacralized?
The NY Times and Krugman. Sad!
"In other words we've become acculturated to a weak and stigmatized social safety net.
I would enjoy a deep dive into this single sentence.
"social safety net" is a given. But why? This gets down to the difference between conservatives and leftist. Leftist look to the govt for a solution to even the most mundane aspects of life. Who goes to which bathroom? That is a solution the govt as no tools to settle, only make worse.
So before you weigh in on what Krugman is trying to push. Tell us all the proper role of government. If you use squishy terms like 'provide for the common good', that's a non answer. Also, does the delegation of powers held by the people, to the government, deny those powers to the people?
Defending yourself, family, property, and community, are powers held by the people. We have delegated huge swaths of that to agencies created by the people. Does that mean we no longer have the right to exercise those powers? What about when the agency we created, no longer attempts to carryout their mandate?
Education? Local, and state, Yes, Federal, No.
In short, do you look to the govt for solutions, or seek those solutions first personally, then church, neighborhood, community, state, or federal?
Shorter Krugman (and the Left):
Individual bad, collective good.
Revenge.
Every study ever done on the subject confirms that the Right is more charitable than the Left in both time and resources. The Left expects the government to take care of things.
Paul Krugman is a sheltered idiot.
Of COURSE we are on our own. Society and Civilization is just a thin veneer over what life is really like. We are not guaranteed safety or 100% protection.
You need to be aware. Be prepared. Be vigilant. Self reliant. Nothing pathological about recognizing reality.
Yes. Community and safety is a great goal. Often times we can reach that goal. However, the rioting and chaos that is occurring now is just an illustration of how thin that veneer of society and safety is.
If Krugman wants to hide his head in the sand....well....all that does is make your ass a better target.
Crack is an example of the damage a "safety net" run amok will do. The Great Society, in trying to reduce poverty, destroyed the black family. Black women began to see the federal government as the head of the family. Now that they have been infantilized, they want "Reparations" as if that will help.
"But people who insist on the right to pollute are notably unbothered by, say, federal agents tear-gassing peaceful protesters. What they call 'freedom' is actually absence of responsibility."
Damn. How much irony can you pack into two sentences. No wonder he won the Nobel prize!
After I read the quote above I realized that my brain didn't even register the "peaceful" adjective, automatically dismissing the lie as so absurd that it required zero cognition. Now, admittedly, I'm biased, but I wonder how common this is in the rest of America. The Left is so confident in the prevalence of it's mouthpieces that it no longer bothers to make it's propaganda even slightly plausible.
What they call 'freedom' is actually absence of responsibility
It's actually the exact opposite of that. Most people on the right are far more willing to take responsibility for their own actions rather than look for or expect help from an omnipotent state when they make a mistake. That's the whole crux of the argument for individualism versus collectivism.
As usual, Krugman interprets things completely incorrectly. He imputes carelessness, irresponsibility, and nefariousness to individuals and unending benevolence and perfect competence to the state. His stupidity is actually impressive in its magnitude.
Leave to the Dems to conflate "selfishness" with "responsibility." In my very Republican neighborhood, there lives a well-liked man whose wife was diagnosed with cancer last year. They have 2 young children. Nobody said, "Oh, he's on his own, not my problem." Neighbors dropped off casseroles, cookies, and pots of chili. They mowed his lawn and watched his kids when he took his wife to the hospital. Yes, the poor man (whose wife died in December) is ultimately responsible for caring for his family, but others did what they could to help and comfort him.
It's documented that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do. Depending on the government to care for people exempts individuals from having to do anything. Socialism is selfishness and greed masquerading as compassion and altruism. It feeds into the worst instincts of human beings while pretending to appeal to the highest. Look at the hate-filled faces of those smashing and destroying property in Seattle and Portland and Chicago and there you see the true face of the Left.
we have to protect our property values and our children from incursions of undesirables, and we have to hoard our advantages to meet yet-unimagined contingencies.
What the hell does this even mean? What are "incursions of undesirables"? How does one "Hoard advantages"? Its all so vague and badly written. Is this some sort of "Progressive Code Speak" known to the NYT readership and no one else?
Democrats have sacralized envy and greed.
Reading this character, makes you realize the Nobel prize didn't just lower the bar for Literature and the Peace Prize, they've done it for Economics too. OR maybe economists just aren't that smart.
From the previous post:
Blogger Jersey Fled said...
"I have a theory that all progressive initiatives start with a lie."
"In other words we've become acculturated to a weak and stigmatized social safety net. Every situation becomes a zero-sum event. In those circumstances, we have to be wary of every new face, we have to arm ourselves to defend against crimes that we know the police can't prevent, we have to have AR-15s to be ready for the rebellion of the poor and nihilists we see looming just behind the Black Lives Matter protests, we have to protect our property values and our children from incursions of undesirables, and we have to hoard our advantages to meet yet-unimagined contingencies"
Criticizing others for recognizing reality? Are you arguing for or against them?
On the whole it seems clear that our country can't find the courage to put up a united front to fight the virus, some of which is the fault of out leadership, and some the fault of my liberty over your safety. As a result we suffer and continue to decline in the eyes of the rest of the world.
"Paranoia."
Meanwhile, cities burn while officials lie about it, and speaking your mind has become fraught with violent physical peril.
But yeah, "paranoia."
Typical prog mentality. Basically the mindset that believes that is what is yours is ours but what is mine is mine. He will never grasp that there is no charity in compulsion and no compulsion in charity.
Unf'n believable, that is ripe for a line by line fisking pointing out the hypocrisy and projection.
Notwithstanding the new word of the day, how is this not just another swipe at Trump (and all Republicans) before election? It's almost like an AI program spits these pieces out and someone from the NYT signs their name to it.
The Dems today have gone GlobalIst and now sacralize super wealthy men that use a legally Immune power to lawlessly buy Young children for their personal sexual fetishes. And if Popes, Cardinals and Bishops can do such Sin, why can’t The Secular Powerful rulers Of the Globe do it too. Eliminate Religions and laws and nothing is left to restrain their evil.
Krugman’s Nobel Prize proves beyond all reasonable doubt that all these prize agencies are rigged.
Actually the work that earned him the Nobel prize was worthy. The problem is that Krugman is an idiot savant.
It is a sacred right of the Leftist Collectivists that they should make decisions about and for me regarding how I live.
Like the 120,000,000+ who were murdered in the name of Leftist Collectivism in the last century, they would prefer I make their omelette.
Shooting lead is an alternative to tear gassing peaceful, or mostly peaceful, protesters, and not-unruly arsonists. Is that what Krugman wants? If so, I’m fully onboard.
"when misfortune strikes, you are on your own."
. . . with your Medicaid and CHIP and SSI/SSDI and food stamps and housing subsidies and school lunches and EITC and >100K human services charities spending >$220B.
what have Democrats sacralized?
Credentials.
I know lots of conservatives. They're much less selfish than the liberals I know. Kinder too.
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength." - and Krugman is a genius.
>>Ann Althouse said...
and the OED gives 2 historical examples, the second of which is a little surprising in its disrespect for minority religions:
1986 P. B. Clarke Black Paradise vi. 81 Rastafarians also present themselves..as a chosen race, along the same lines as the Jews; this, some may argue, is simply a sacralized form of racism.<<
"In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews, via descent from the ancient Israelites, are the chosen people, i.e. chosen to be in a covenant with God.
According to the Israel Democracy Institute, approximately two thirds of Israeli Jews believe that Jews are the "chosen people".
Practitioners of Rastafari identify themselves with the ancient Israelites—God's chosen people in the Old Testament—and believe that black Africans broadly or Rastas more specifically are either the descendants or the reincarnations of this ancient people...Rastas typically believe that black Africans are God's chosen people,. Many Rastas endorse black supremacy, believing in the existence of a distinctly black African race that is superior to other racial groups."
There are some pertinent facts. Please explain how the quoted OED passage constitutes disrespect for either religion.
Speaking of pathologies, how about characterizing recognition that the government can't meet all of your needs as "sacralizing selfishness?" When I need medical care, the last place I'm going to look for it is the government. When I'm unemployed, government unemployment benefits won't cover my mortgage; if they really want to help, they can reduce corporate taxes from being second-highest in the world. When masked, armed rioters trespass on my private property, I reserve the right to defend my property, up to and including use of lethal force. That Krugman calls this "paranoia" tells us all we need to know about his desired relationship with power: mobs who are on his side politically are to be granted it uncritically, while law-abiding citizens who disagree with him politically are to sacrifice it.
Not just "no." Hell no.
Some call it paranoia. Some quote Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings," and call it a sincere recognition of reality. Some just call it "bad luck."
Having seen in person the outpouring of mutual assistance from one and all in several life emergencies, from roadside vehicle help to hurricane recovery, I for one expect that the outlook is not so bleak as suggested. Some call that "good luck" while others name it religious love of neighbor, social cohesion, human empathy, and so on.
Some call it paranoia. Some quote Kipling's "The Gods of the Copybook Headings," and call it a sincere recognition of reality. Some just call it "bad luck."
Having seen in person the outpouring of mutual assistance from one and all in several life emergencies, from roadside vehicle help to hurricane recovery, I for one expect that the outlook is not so bleak as suggested. Some call that "good luck" while others name it religious love of neighbor, social cohesion, human empathy, and so on.
What have Democrats sacralized?
VICTIMHOOD.
I stopped to reconcile/understand their contradictory policy positions once I understood that elevating the biggest perceived victim trumps everything else.
So they defend feminism/women unless womens' grievances/interests conflict with transgender grievances/interests. They used to defend Jews, but now Palestinians/Muslims are the biggest victims. Everything's a clash of identity groups, and the only way to sort it out is to identify the group that's perceived to have the least power or privilege.
The Democrats have sacralized professional victimhood.
"Like the 120,000,000+ who were murdered in the name of Leftist Collectivism in the last century"
Hey, the social safety net can't save everybody.
The commenter apparently has no family, neighbors, church, or even friends to rely upon in hard times.
Krugman is projecting. It's the right that wants our public spaces to be safely accessible to all, and not the exclusive preserve of a violent few.
M Jordan said...Nate Silver, to his everlasting credit, metaphorically pissed on Krugman’s desk when he left The Times.
I'd be interested in a link. It's probably a good read. The only in-house criticism I'm aware of is Daniel Okrent who as public editor accused of Krugman of cherry picking facts and lying about his opponent's arguments to make his own sound better. Both of which are obviously true.
What conservatives reject is substituting the appearance of selflessness for the reality of it. There's no virtue in saying that others should be compelled to contribute to your idea of sharing.
roesch:
"On the whole it seems clear that our country can't find the courage to put up a united front to fight the virus, some of which is the fault of out leadership, and some the fault of my liberty over your safety. "
Tell me, which part of those covers virtually every Democrat everywhere - not just the leadership - not just permitting but celebrating the Floyd protests and all but declaring that taking measures against COVID does not even rate as a concern and cannot be allowed to even get in the way of public left wing agitation and protests?
Meanwhile, according to the same people, BBQ's, going to church and protests against lockdowns were the height of evil and proved they want everyone to die.
Is that the "united front to fight the virus" you seem to believe your side has been successfully working toward?
Krugman's idea is: "Many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account.
No, it's not about "their actions". It's the leaned experience that when people commandeer the government for that putative purpose it basically enriches the governing class while diminishing the dependent class.
If Republicans have sacralized selfishness, what have Democrats sacralized?
Submission.
Would somebody in Krugman's line of sight please moon him for me?
Thanks.
Democrats have sacralized plunder (to use Bastiat's terminology) and statism. (Hence the term "Cult of the State.") Someone like Krugman looks at other people as sources of loot. He dislikes the idea of people having guns to protect their property; he loves the idea of his beloved State having all the guns and using them to tyrranize and despoil the sheeple.
As far as I can tell, here's a few ideas seem to be sacralize by most modern Democrats
- A person's identity is almost entirely based upon their race and sexual orientation/identity.
- Victims are the highest and most noble order of people. Achieving the status of "victim" is perhaps the greatest achievement one could attain.
- Certain objects can be inherently evil, guns being the primary example. These evil objects exhude a powerful influence on people compelling them to commit evil acts.
- Human life doesn't matter unless it is in furtherance of political goals. Black lives only matter when they are ended by white police officers.
- The Orange Man is Bad. Everything he says, everything he advocates for, and everything he does is by definition pure evil. Therefore everything he opposes must be good. If, for example, he opposes China, China must therefore be good. Any cognitive dissonances that may result from this line of thinking should be ignored at all costs.
- The Rule of Law does not apply to powerful members of the progressive movement, especially with regards to any action taken to oppose the Orange Man who is Bad. The Orange Man is so Bad that any rule or law may be broken in furtherance of his removal.
Serious Question
when was the last time, that Paul Krugman wrote something that wasn't claptrap?
I think, as usual, that Krugman has it wrong.
What should a good citizen be in a democratic representative republic? For many of us, such a nation should be full of people who think for themselves, look at the evidence with a critical eye, are open to reasoned arguments but accept little solely on the authority of "experts" (who are often the least disinterested people on the scene), and expect that they will be required to live with the consequences of their decisions. The GOP in general represents that type of citizen, although it often fails badly. The Democrats appear to want a citizenry dependent on the whims of government officials.
This whole COVID-19 experience has demonstrated that the government in general has been peddling prevention theater--masks don't work, masks do work, you are ordered to wear masks and are at risk if you don't follow orders. If you visit Wisconsin for more than 24 hours and return to Chicago, you must self-quarantine for 14 days. You can go the the grocery store and the marijuana dispensary, but not the garden center or a clothing store.
One of the problems that Krugman has is that the government has been so arbitrary and inane that he wants to change the subject. It is those darn small government GOPers that are the problem, he says. Hmmm...no, Paul, it is government officials ordering us to do stupid and counter-productive things.
Now, personally, I put on a mask whenever I go to an enclosed public space with other people, but I don't when I am out in the fresh air. I am pleased to dine alfresco. I don't anticipate going to an enclosed venue for an event until we have herd immunity or an effective vaccine. I am taking a trip to Colorado at the end of the week, and I am ambivalent about getting on the airplane.
"Sacralize" sounds to me like a fancy word for "twerk".
Paul Snively said: they can reduce corporate taxes from being second-highest in the worl
33d highest since 2018
"Actually the work that earned him [Krugman] the Nobel prize was worthy."
So that raises a question that I had back when Krugman got the prize. Namely what was it for?
Now this is kind of poor line of argument because it is based on my lack of knowledge of what it is that he did. But it isn't just me that doesn't know, it is clearly practically everyone.
For example, just now I did a search on "trade theory" on YouTube in the hope I would find a decent, and short, explanation. And despite the fact that this is many years later and the work was singled out as being worth a Nobel prize I'm finding close to nothing: neither short nor long. Now I'm probably looking in the wrong place. And I'm probably using the wrong search term.
But I did find this:
Paul Krugman: How I revolutionized Trade Theory
which features Paul Krugman explaining what he did.
And I listened to it and I still don't know. Yes, I understand the issue he addressed. I agree it's important question. And I must have missed the answer to the question.
" . . with your Medicaid and CHIP and SSI/SSDI and food stamps and housing subsidies and school lunches and EITC and >100K human services charities spending >$220B."
Haha very good. Yes they always speak as if it's 1927 and nothing has been done for the poor, when there is so much for them now. Though a healthy single black guy might not see much of it.
Oh. I see the problem..someone cut them a check.
To that commenter on Krugman I say, "Well Bunky, the Seattle Police Department has told the kulaks that they are on their own. The Police Department can no longer defend you."
So what are the Kulaks to do? Some of them have decided to self insure with Smith & Wesson. That includes the Seattle radio host who can't go back to his apartment with his pet cat, since there may be a bomb in the burned out Starbucks below his apartment.
Every now and then you just have to suck it up and take care of yourself and your family--even if the family is only a pet cat.
Actually, the government will not allow you to be on your own. To be on your own means having some degree of power. Instead, the government reduces you to helplessness, taking away any power to do what you deem best.
If only government would leave people alone.
Nobody is killing anything in the grand scheme of things. People are just reacting to clickbait noise. The signal of the United States is just fine. Focusing on the thin tail minutiae is a feminist trait that you Republicans who claimed to be male seem to glom onto.
The comments section is filled with nutters wearing sandwich boards with "The End is Nigh" in big bold font.
Krugman should devote his column to discussing trade theory. That is what got him his prize.
It doesn't help that on TV Paul looks like an escapee from the small mammal exhibit at Lincon Park Zoo: same beady eyes, same round, furry cheeks, same furtive manner. I keep expecting him to begin scratching out a burrow in the table in front of him.
"peaceful protesters'
Like found here?
Paul loses the argument as soon as he inserts a lie. So Maddow of him.
"Many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account. This rage is sometimes portrayed as love of freedom. “
If a tiny little cloth mask during a pandemic is a bridge too far, you have to think that the blind squirrel may have found a nut.
chickelit said
Paul Krugman projects like an Imax. Out in 'Red' America, when disaster strikes, ordinary folks (disproportionately churchgoers) take up collections, put together caravans to send in food, clothing, and water, and show up to help rebuild. In 'enlightened,' 'compassionate' New York, elite people like Krugman flee to the Hamptons.
That should be the #1 comment.
and up on twitter.
"Many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account.”
Progressive projection? CHECK
Lack of supporting evidence? CHECK
Obscure obvious Leftist rage? CHECK
No need to proceed further into krugman territory.
What have Democrats sacralized? Sneering moral superiority. You can't be a leftie without assuming a monopoly on virtue.
- Krumhorn
Ann Althouse said...If Republicans have sacralized selfishness, what have Democrats sacralized?
Dependence.
"Envy, rampant upon a field of wrath and sloth."
Thread winner, if only for the heraldic reference.
There's a tired saying that the contrast between the European, specifically Irish, and American outlooks regarding those better off than oneself is "Someday, I'm gonna get that guy," versus "Someday, I'm gonna be that guy." It's sad to see us rapidly losing that optimism. Indeed, it seems on purpose led by our higher institutions.
Blogger roesch/voltaire said..."On the whole it seems clear that our country can't find the courage to put up a united front to fight the virus, …"
Please elaborate. What does the roesch/voltaire united front plan look like? I genuinely want to know. Because I don't, in general, know what to do.
Nobody is killing anything in the grand scheme of things. People are just reacting to clickbait noise. The signal of the United States is just fine.
So now explain Leftwing hysteria for the last four years.
So when is Paul Krugman giving away all of his stuff and moving into a tent city in LA with nothing but the cloth on his back? It is only fair, right? Otherwise isn't he being paranoia?
Dems have sacralized Sloth, meanest stupidity, dependency and BLM. Sorry for the redundancy.
As a result we suffer and continue to decline in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Key phrase: in the eyes of the rest of the world. Well, I would ask: Who is right here? As Mom might have said: What do you care what other people think?
"What have Democrats sacralized?"
Failure.
"Key phrase: in the eyes of the rest of the world. Well, I would ask: Who is right here? As Mom might have said: What do you care what other people think?"
That's meant to shame you, MM. Do you feel shamed?
Shared/shifted responsibility. No family, no community, no faith (i.e. trust). #HateLovesAbortion
..what have Democrats sacralized?
Tyranny.
federal agents tear-gassing peaceful protesters
I wonder whether he'd consider them "peaceful" if they were outside his NYC townhouse. Actually, I don't wonder.
"What have Democrats sacralized?"
Diversity dogma (i.e. class-based taxonomic system, processes, and beliefs). Twilight faith (i.e. conflation of logical domains). Liberal (i.e. divergent, generational) ideology. Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion. Redistributive and retributive change. Human sacrificial... reproductive rites. Planned Parenthood, Planned Parent, clinical cannibalism. Progressivism (i.e. monotonic ideology). Political congruence. Social justice. Public, persistent smoothing functions. Affirmative discrimination. Catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform. Social justice adventurism. Shared/shifted responsibility.
""It's my theory that American society exhibits many pathologies resulting from generations being perfectly aware that, when misfortune strikes, you are on your own.""
------------===============
... generations being perfectly aware that, when misfortune strikes, you are on your own.""
- this is pretty much true all over the world.
the main problem being this would not be a problem in the USA if self-reliance and free enterprise capitalism is allowed and the generations are not hamstrung into not providing their own defensive preparations - by the 'intelligentsia and ruling class - with their own pathologies of collectivist thinking' - which causes society to develop own pathologies under the tax system deployed by the rulers
If a tiny little cloth mask during a pandemic is a bridge too far
A collector, a concentrator, a false sense of security, a conflation of circumstances. Mitigation steps that flattened the curve, delayed the spread (e.g. spikes), and prolonged the pandemic without clinical evidence that it reduces excess infections, disease progression, let alone excess deaths. It should be more than a little cloth, don't forget the goggles, and the latest guidance from Wuhan is 3 m.
The comments section is filled with nutters wearing sandwich boards with "The End is Nigh" in big bold font.
Howard is very brave in his all white suburb.
Black women began to see the federal government as the head of the family. Now that they have been infantilized, they want "Reparations" as if that will help.
This
Government works every waking moment to replace the family unit. Universal Day Care, K-12 education, Public funded colleges. WIC, food stamps, heat assistance, free Obama phones etc. The Government is incapable at any level to replace a family.
But people who insist on the right to pollute are notably unbothered by, say, federal agents tear-gassing peaceful protesters.
The "say" is the tell - it is Krugman acknowledging, at least subconsciously, that he is aware of no incidents where the Right was not bothered by federal agents tear-gassing peaceful protesters (and probably is also not aware of any incidents involving the tear-gassing of protesters who were actually acting peacefully at the time the tear-gassing occurred, without regard to any reaction from the Right).
Krugman enron consultant says what
NYT editorial staff: "oh, yeah, watch what I write!"
"What have Democrats sacralized?" Their sacraments are abortion, sexual activity and orientation, gender identity, race and environmentalism. Their priesthood is composed of those who can, reasonably or not, claim victim status but only victimization in the service of their 7 sacraments.
When misfortune strikes you are on your own because depending on the nature and breadth of the misfortune, your friends, family, neighbors, and government are likely to be unable to fully help you through the misfortune. This is why some of us were taught, and coach others, to prepare for unknown but possible future misfortune rather than expect that someone else will take care of your problem for you.
I don't call that being selfish. I call it being a responsible adult.
...you are on your own".
Except for 80+ federal welfare programs:
https://singlemotherguide.com/federal-welfare-programs/
Leaving aside the many state welfare programs:
https://www.welfareinfo.org/state/
And let's not forget Section 8 housing...
Or Social Security...
Or Workman's Compensation..
Or Medicaid...
Or free medical care for illegals and poor people unable to pay...
Or the many private charities, mostly funded by conservatives, and many run by Evangelicals.
Or GoFundMe, which Americans contributed a huge amount of money to for that retired AA guy who started a bar with his life's savings, only to have it burned down by Antifa/BLM
Yeah....in Amerikkka, when misfortune strikes, you are on your own.
SNORT!
R/V: ' some the fault of my liberty over your safety" It says right there in the Declaration of Independence that the purpose of Government is to protect our inalienable rights (sounds like liberty to me), so it seems you are using the wrong tool to provide for your safety. That's the first problem.
Krugman: "Many on the right are enraged at any suggestion that their actions should take other people’s welfare into account". I think he's missing the point. I think most on the right dispute his authority and ability to recognize what will actually promote other peoples welfare. And we (including myself as one 'on the right') certainly dispute the idea that he should be allowed to force his idea of how to promote other people's welfare onto the rest of us.
""It's my theory that American society exhibits many pathologies resulting from generations being perfectly aware that, when misfortune strikes, you are on your own.""
Of course the last of the "generations" of Americans who lacked a social safety net reached adulthood 56 years ago and are in their mid-seventies, so this "theory" of Krugmans explains absolutely nothing about present day America, particularly rioting by people not old enough to remember the Y2K scare.
Demanding everybody else act in accordance with your specific wishes isn't selfish, right Krugman?
Nope. It's those damn right-wingers who take responsibility for themselves. Them's the selfish ones.
Never forget - before the bodies were cold - Krugman was blaming the TEA Party for a Bush-hating Atheist shooting up the Gabby Giffords event. He's a piece of shit.
I read Roger Scruton's "How to be a Conservative" this spring. According to him, one big difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives consider those who came before them, those who will come after, and those currently living when they make decisions. Progressives tend only to look at those currently living.
While Republican isn't exactly equal to conservative, it's a good proxy here. The Democrats here can't stomach considering anyone except those right here, right now, while the Republicans are trying to see how a decision fits into the framework of the Constitution and what the implications might be for those who come later. It's almost funny that in considering all the parties they are labeled selfish.
I read It's my theory then stopped.
Imagine how much wealthier and more powerful Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, the Cuomos, and the NYT editorial board would have been if they had only given into the temptation to be selfish.
How did I manage to sacralize selfishness and end up with a retirement plan centered upon early euthanasia?
Amadeus 48 said...
Krugman should devote his column to discussing trade theory. That is what got him his prize.
It doesn't help that on TV Paul looks like an escapee from the small mammal exhibit at Lincon Park Zoo: same beady eyes, same round, furry cheeks, same furtive manner. I keep expecting him to begin scratching out a burrow in the table in front of him.
Obvious coprophile/coprophage. Just look at him.
I fail to see how taking my money by force is compassion.
Michael K: "Howard is very brave in his all white suburb."
Howard's actual combat experience and civilian "protest"/"combat" experience remains at an even....ZERO.
Fun note: Donald J Trump has just as much combat time under his belt as Howard.
"Funner" note: Howard has gone from claiming his righteously angry "protest" heroes, who are just like those who stormed the beaches at Normandy, are actually victims of horrible and deplorable boogaloo-ers who forced his "heroic" protest heroes to do things they wouldn't have done otherwise!
LOL
The biggest flip of the switch 180 degree narrative "reverseroo" since Inga posted last!
Again, can't wait to see what tomorrow brings for our lefty/LLR-lefties narratives. Should be lit.
Taking Krugman seriously, would anyone be all that bothered if he had simply said sacralized "self-reliance" as opposed to selfishness. The choice of a word with negative connotations is of course propaganda, but as a value system there is a degree of merit to the view that conservatives publicly preach self-reliance while practicing a good deal of social reliance (as noted, with a strong voluntary association component, but conservatives will take advantage of government goodies too).
The obvious progressive parallel can be found in Charles Murray's "Losing Ground". The idea that upper middle class whites sacralize situational ethics, while privately teaching their own kids largely traditional ethics of honesty, reliability and hard work.
The use of sacralizing in each case is obviously a rhetorical stretch, but I can see the similarities.
Paranoia is the basis of the US Constitution. Except that it is not paranoia if they are really out to get you. The Founding Fathers were well aware of how democracies died and how tyranny rose up on a regular basis. The fact that Krugman seems to be ignorant of this fact says much more about him - or his wife; who knows who writes his column anymore - than it does about anyone else. Or perhaps he/she is not ignorant and simply prefers some good tyranny.
It is safe to assume that Krugman is wrong on anything he writes. In this case he misses the point that traditional conservatives hold values that include the larger community: church, family, country, friends, patriotism. It is conservatives who give more to charity by a wide margin and who don't talk about their generosity much. Remember the Houston floods? Good-ole-boys in their bass boats by the hundreds saving people. They were too busy to be interviewed by the media and were not boasting--it is just what decent people do. That is their safety net. Rugged individualism is also a safety net because rugged individuals just go and fix things, they don't whine about the gov needing to step in. They have a bass boat, in other words. In the real world, it is likely that the police cannot come in time if you are being mugged or raped or someone is breaking in. They will arrive after you are dead, so a gun is a great idea no matter your politics.
Please note further that Krugman's view is backwards: it is the Left that has sacralized violence as a valid political tool, starting way back in the '60s with the weather underground bombings.
Tribalism.
In the United States the "homeless" live in tents and get government checks.
Oh it's a cruel world out there.
Remember, Krugman was a financial advisor to Enron.
Fact check unknown: The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that “liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.”
I wonder how Krugman deals with the fact that the Utah Territory, settled in 1847, did not become a state until the 1890s. For the vast majority of the early years, it was not just a de facto theocracy, it was one. The only goverment was the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
No help from the federal government? Doomed to failure! Except... they turned a desert into a thriving community, even though less than ten years after the first wagon train rolled into Salt Lake there were federal troops there to oppress and destroy.
Good, God-fearing pioneers rolled up their sleeves and built civilization in a harsh desert, with no help from government. Only themselves, their unity, wise leadership, and a sense of self-sacrifice and purpose. And they succeeded past Krugman's wildest dreams.
How much "rugged indvidualism" does it take to go off into some remote valley, in a desert, and literally build everything from scratch with little to no help; except some voluntary church help?
Go suck an egg, Krugman.
" Some of them have decided to self insure with Smith & Wesson. That includes the Seattle radio host who can't go back to his apartment with his pet cat, since there may be a bomb in the burned out Starbucks below his apartment."
Lwt's hope that he spends some time at the range after he buys his gun. These lefties buying guns make me nervous. Irresponsible people do not make for responsible gun owners. Note the Austin antifa idiot who bragged about what "pussies" right-wingers are (shades of Howard), fired his rifle at a car 5 times at point blank range, thankfully somehow missed, and then was shot by the driver, who clearly acted in self-defense. Then there is the black militia nimrod who accidentally shot some of his fellow nimrods because he didn't learn Gun Safety 101.
On second thought, let the leftists believe that simply being in possession of a gun makes you invincible and training at the range with the icky deplorables is unnecessary. As long as they only shoot each other, I'm cool with it.
"Fact check unknown: The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that “liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.”"
So, conservatives not more selfish. Got it.
we have to have AR-15s to be ready for the rebellion of the poor and nihilists we see looming just behind the Black Lives Matter protests
LOL - every time I think Krugmeister has gone beyond the pale of stupid, he outdoes himself. Nobody I know that owns weapons...and I know a lot of them...owns weapons to guard against the poor and the nihilists looming behind any movement, let alone BLM. Having a means to protect yourself and your family is the minimum requirement for an adult, whatever that protection might be. Look in any nature disaster region right after and that's all you need to know.
Static Ping said...
Paranoia is the basis of the US Constitution.
Pretty much so. Article 1 Section 9 is nothing more than a list of constraints on the legislature. Section 10 constraints on the states. The first of the amendments begins "congress shall make no law". The first 10 are more constraints on the power of government and the right's of individuals. Individuals- not groups.
Every time someone says "Americans don't trust government any more!" I reply "they never have." and point this out. Government is not to be trusted. It's embellished in our founding documents.
“liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.”
I'm lost as to why those of faith are "adjusted". Somehow the assumption is having faith makes you a generous. Instead of people that are generous also understand a higher power.
“liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.”
I honestly don't know what that means. If we take out half the conservatives then liberals and conservatives are equally generous?
Destroy the family.
Destroy the church.
Where my safety nets?
Every time someone says "Americans don't trust government any more!" I reply "they never have." and point this out. Government is not to be trusted. It's embellished in our founding documents.
This is part of the problem, and one I missed for years. The Democratic base doesn't understand this. To them, government is a friend and a provider. They like big government, and support making it bigger and more powerful. I even tried pointing out that the police were government power made manifest, but they simply ignored me.
In fact I would say that this is the basic divisor of the American people: Those that see government as a necessary evil, and those that see government as a positive good.
See Arnold Kling's The Three Languages of Politics. Very insightful on this point. And cheap on Kindle.
The left: violent mobs beating up and shooting at anyone in sight, but especially those our society has assigned to protect us. Occupies, burns down and loots cities like a foreign invader. On downtime, ruins people’s lives who are not left enough.
The right: likes free speech. Wants the violence to stop. Wants to go to work, church, be with family without being harassed.
Krugman: left good, right bad. Cause I say so and I have a Pulitzer Prize.
That's just Paullie "The Beard" Krugman being Palullie "The Beard" Krugman.
Known Unknown said...
Destroy the family.
Destroy the church.
Where my safety nets?
7/28/20, 9:37 PM
Trigger alert: Snopes identifies the following as: Legend
https://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/stalin/stalin.html
...Stalin looked at both of them scornfully. "Bring me a bird!" he ordered.
They did.
Stalin took the bird by its legs and slowly, one by one, he plucked all the feathers from the bird's little body.
Then he opened his palm. The bird was laying there naked, shivering, helpless.
Stalin looked at him, smiled gently and said, "You see... and he is even thankful for the human warmth coming out of my palm."
Stripped of your institutions, you too will be grateful for the warmth of Biden's nuzzle.
Fact check unknown: The bottom line, according to the MIT study, was that “liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income.
So I THINK what this means is that some portion of conservatives' charitable giving goes to keep their churches' lights on (which doesn't apply to non-church-going "progressives" - who are by and large not liberals and you can't make me call them that), and that conservatives are richer than liberals. I THINK.
But I can't say for sure since the "fact check" is simply asserted without cite.
If that is what's meant, though, I wonder how they're figuring income - in the aggregate? Or individually? Because there sure are a lot of "progressive" billionaires.
And keeping churches' lights on (more accurately, paying church leader salaries, based on my own experience working in a church office for some years) still provides social services, such as cost-free counseling, that "progressives" think are up to government to provide.
Post a Comment