What's the alternative? The system isn't broken, people are. I would bet that if social media ended, people would eventually return to the former state. Nobody edits what they have posted when they really should and nobody wants to back down when they're not face to face- I don't think a lot of comments would haev been made if the people had been in the same room.

Bullshot! All three are Abrahamic religions! The Old Testiment pre-dates Christ, so what was there before that? The Torah and who is Eloh (or Elohim)? Same God as Jehovah (Christianity) and Allah. "generally"? No, all three accept one god, all three accept that the same God revealed himself to Abraham, among other details.

Have you read anything in the Quran or about Islam?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org]

Islam-

[Link: en.wikipedia.org]

You can't just decide they aren't the same because you don't want to believe it and you're pissed off at one or more of them- the writings of all three have too many commonalities. Muslims believe the Quran is the only unaltered version- I fail to see how that's possible when Muhammad didn't even conjure this religion until the 7th century A.D.- The Middle East didn't use only one language (written or spoken) and the writings are in old Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, so they needed to be translated to assemble the Bible and Quran.

There's no agreement among most followers because they either don't know or don't care that the three have common basis.

If there's no common basis, why do all three consider Jerusalem to be holy and why have so many fought over it for so long?

Look at the American education system- I used to think that keeping people in a state of ignorance, dependence and poor health is no way to run a country until it became clear that it's EXACTLY what the government wants and needs in order to prevent a large-scale uprising. One party uses the courts to force people to do things they disagree with and the other thinks Congress is where laws are written, debated and ratified. The courts are supposed to interpret laws, not make them. Judicial activism is wrong, but that's what one side uses.

IMO, more people are in the middle- why are we not making that clear to the wingnuts at the fringes?

If one party isn't engaging in 'judicial activism' it's only because they aren't in a position to, so it's not exact fair to blame that on one side. The minute the other side is in a position to do so, they will. And then the folks on their side will suddenly not see it as judicial activism anymore. That's the real problem.

BTW, what's an example of people being forced to do something that they disagree with by the courts? And I mean here an example where what they are being forced to do isn't something like respect the rights of others, not discriminate, etc... Of course the court clearly forced a lot of people to stop setting quotas on Jews, to let blacks go to the colleges they want, to stop preventing women from having the same opportunities as men, etc...

But I would not count those as people being forced to do something that they disagree with. I would count those as people being forced to observe the law and the spirit of our Constitution. That's not judicial activism, that's doing what the courts were put in place to do, to act as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority (and its law making advantage) among other things.

BTW, the argument about the man keeping people ignorant as a means to keep them down is an example of what I was talking about before, of not smart but cynical. The man doesn't need to do anything to keep people down. People keep themselves down. Kids have largely been fighting against any attempt to educate them since whenever. Most people never make much of an effort to educate themselves in an ongoing way, at least outside of what is required for their profession perhaps.

It's easy to be cynical about the public school system, but any kid who goes into the public school system with a serious desire to learn and who applies himself beyond what is absolutely required to get through it, has all the opportunities he or she needs to be ready for the next step.

I know this because I was one of those kids who didn't take advantage of those opportunities available to me. I did OK, mostly just due to natural inquisitiveness. But had I really applied myself, I could have done very well, even in a small rural southern town school system. I, and the bulk of the kids around me, voluntarily gave up a free opportunity to one degree or another.

Obviously there is a certain element of FFB that many kids suffer from. If you are born to un- or under-educated parents, you are more likely to be so yourself. So it definitely is a cycle. Not just because they can't help you, but in a lot of cases, and I don't think I'm just being cynical here, there is a strong anti-intellectual current in poorer neighborhoods and some of the family members therein. Of course some of them to the other way and see education as a weapon to get out of that situation, but there's a lot of 'look at the teacher's pet' negative peer pressure when it comes to education. That exists all along the income scale I think, but often tends to be stronger and more wide spread, it seems to me, in lower income communities, some of it driven by the same cynicism and nihilism that is at the root of a lot of problems.

There is also a non-trivial element of anti-intellectualism in this country in general. It's somehow painted as elitist to be intelligent and proud of it, combined with a certain class envy against those who are and who use it to do well. It's probably not helped by a certain level of arrogance that can exist in those who are and who have done well, particularly if they do well early in life.

Anyway, that was a ramble, but the summary being, the man isn't keeping people down by denying them an education and keeping them stupid. People do that for themselves. If there are organizations out there designed to keep us befuddled and divided, I'd say those are news organizations and political activity committees and such.

Your bit of a rant for or against (I'm not sure which) antiintellectualism is not helped when you use the designation FFB

A partial list of its meanings is Fürstenfeldbruck, Foundation Fighting Blindness, Fédération Française du Bâtiment, Federal Financing Bank (US), Fantasy Football, Force Feedback (haptic technology), Florida Farm Bureau, Fédération Française de Billard (French: French Billiards Federation), Food from Britain (UK strategic international food and drink export marketing consultancy), Fresh Fruit Bunch, First Fidelity Bank, First Financial Bank, Fédération Française de Boxe (French: French Boxing Federation), Fédération Française de Bridge, Frostfire Bolt (World of Warcraft)... and many others. The anti-intellectual approach would be to use words to describe what you mean.


You understate the effect and reality of the arrogance and you overstate the amount of anti-intellectualism.

The large population centers on the two coasts are huge bastions of arrogance. For decades I've noted that the more conservative people I run into know conservative and liberal people, but the liberal people seem to think they are a huge majority or even claim not to know any conservatives. The amazement of the left that Hillary Clinton didn't win, and even her subsequent claims of what happened, show that in some ways the intellectuals are terribly misinformed.


I totally agree with you.

I used an acronym to avoid being profane. Figure it out. I'm not getting paid.

As to your other claim, that's just broad brush painting of the same sort that lies at the root of the very problems I've been talking about.

And if I had to pick which I'd prefer to have more of, i.e. more intellect and more arrogance, or less intellect and the various problems that come from that, I'd take the arrogance I'm pretty sure. I'd prefer them a bit more arrogant and able to educate and care for their children and to put more taxes into the system and to create more jobs and invent more things.

Say what you want, but that big bundle of what you consider arrogance that lies in the center of the west coast puts more butter on the toast of this country than the rest of the areas combined. They they get labelled as 'snowflakes' and 'socialists' and so forth by conservatives, despite being engaged in the biggest and longest running capitalist free for all in the last century or more probably, and one of the purest meritocracies on the planet.

Give me more of that.

I'm too naive for your crowd, I guess.


I said both coasts

And yet those same snowflakes decry the Republicans as the rich guys, the one percent, the tools of the very thing described in that last paragraph.

Did any of this capitalist free-for-all change in any way since Trump started doing things? I'm not talking about getting focused on the stupid things Trump says, I'm focusing on the governmental things Trump has done. Of course, in personal terms he IS an idiot, which is why he created or allowed the whole separating kids from parents thing... but things like the tax cut, or backing out of the Iran deal (which had to be done by Obama because neither house nor senate would approve it).

Again, you are painting with a vastly broad brush. I lived there for 18 years and never heard any of that kind of talk in that area, from actual people on the ground. On the whole they would be more concerned with social issues, than any sort of economic class warfare. To the extent that wealth concentration becomes a social issue, e.g. access, influence, health quality, etc..., then of course it would fall into that category. And it is one to some arguable extent.

I's a common mistake to treat the other side as though it is monolithic when it's not. California has everyone from Jeff Bezos to poor farmers to Tom Cruise to immigrant construction workers. It's a big place and it's not any one thing.

Generally speaking, I'd say that the economy of California is probably bigger than the president and isn't that much affected by who is in office. No president would likely be stupid enough to do anything to significantly damage that revenue stream.

I think it's mostly affected by just economic cycles. Of course sometimes long, ongoing lack of oversight by both sides of the isle, possibly encouraged by green lubrication, can lead to catastrophic changes in the normal economic cycle (like the housing crisis.) But, that's not a left/right thing, that's just run of the mill human nature mostly. No one wants to ask too many questions about how the sausage is being made when there's a lot of sausage to go around. It was also a matter of lack of oversight by the people, because they were also too busy eating sausage to face reality. I was as guilty on that front as most.

Abrahamic to you means they are basically the same if I follow you correctly.

What I said is that they are certainly not the same, and their "gods" are quite different in name and in character. Thus they inevitably conflict. Thus they all want the same land.

Ah. So they do have something in common!

This is especially interesting since maps in many Muslim schools have a blank spot where Israel exists. How can you want land that isn't there?

Abrahamic does not mean they're the same, it means they have common information at their foundation but they're far from the same in many ways. Unfortunately, the things they share shouldn't have ever happened and shouldn't exist.

What I said is that they are certainly not the same, and their "gods" are quite different in name and in character. Thus they inevitably conflict. Thus they all want the same land.

The name 'Steve' is different in other languages- why would this be different, when they're referring to the same entity and how would the characterization NOT change over the time when Judaism (over 3000 years ago), Christianity (about 2000 years ago) and Islam (Muhammad begins preaching in about 613 AD) began? Same deity, same prophets, same angels, same concept of heaven and hell, Judaism and Islam share the same sabbath, much of Halal is the same as Kosher- you want me to continue? It's not just the land, it's that the land holds major religious significance for all three and none of them want to share it. All three claim that their version is more correct and up to date.

Sunni & Shiite have different versions and are unable to get along and each of the others have had wars between & among the various factions, over their differences within their own religion.

Islam is the fastest growing religion.

Same deity - .not.

We will have to agree to disagree.