Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

walled minds

Bill Dog (726542) writes | more than 2 years ago

Advertising 15

An anon poster wrote today:

An anon poster wrote today:

I'll argue the reverse. Life is competition. We compete with others for resources and, in today's consumer market, for "stuff". If some people aren't smart enough, don't care enough, etc. to turn on DNT [Do Not Track] - well that keeps web services cheaper for those of us that do turn it on. If the advertisers are getting quality demographics, market segmentation, etc. from the vast majority of folks then the people here - who know better - can continue to get free web sites. If nobody was tracked then we'd have to pay for our sites. Simple enough. Let the herd be tracked. Those that care and those that know will turn on the DNT.

I refuse to view life as a competition as much as I refuse to go along with the "we're all in this together" mentality.

We don't compete with others for resources; this is a flawed, Left-wing view, that everything is a zero sum game. A Left-wing view where the Right says of it "accept it" and the Left "we must do something about it". But either way they're both reactions to and in terms of how Leftists have defined how people are to think about it.

I take neither side of the issue because I reject the issue. Life is about neither ends of the Left's competition vs. cooperation false choice, it's about each person living it how s/he sees fit.

So it's not a matter of some people being "not smart enough" or "don't care enough", in that the reasons don't really matter. It's just people making choices and deciding what's important to them and how much. I don't want to be tracked so I avoid and block Google properties. Others may feel strongly about supporting the free sites that they regularly read. Still others may have mixed emotions and end up at different levels of in-between.

This is not a continuum of good on one end and evil on the other, or dumb vs. smart, or herd versus nerd. It just is. If anything, it's a range of equivalent goodness; it's good that people get to decide for themselves. Their decision is "good" because they made it (for themself). Incidental effects on me notwithstanding; I could end up with more or fewer free sites that I care at all about, depending on if more or fewer people are more or less concerned about ads and tracking. But I'm better off overall that my fellow man can have this incidental effect on me, because the alternative (of all of us having no personal choice in the matter) is far worse.

p.s. Another AC under the same topic posted this: http://advertising.microsoft.com/advertise/microsoft-media-network. I don't know how much this has gotten off the ground, but I for one did not know that MS had gotten into the advertising business. Troubling to me because I had been counting on them being a company that sells software, and not people, like Google.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If we don't compete with each other for resources (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40402471)

Then is it your view that the earth is infinite?

I have a tendency to agree that *for all intents and purposes* the Earth is infinite and what scarcity exists in our economic system is largely artificial, caused by exclusive private property rights and some people being allowed to own so much that the Earth becomes more finite than it should be; we should be easily able to support a population of 28 billion and we're struggling with 8 billion because of this. In addition, many of the resources that the Left Wing thinks are extremely finite, are actually renewable over the long run and perhaps even synthetically producable over the short.

It really isn't that hard to mine carbon out of the air and make organics, it's just that it's cheaper to grow plants.

But wouldn't this mean that scarcity itself is entirely artificial, and thus, there's no real need to use efficiency, except to make the rich richer?

Re:If we don't compete with each other for resourc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40403727)

He's just trying, with great difficulty I might add, to be contrary...

I don't care what you have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it!

Re:If we don't compete with each other for resourc (2)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40406411)

It is my view that the earth doesn't matter, it's people that matter. So I don't think too much about the finiteness or infiniteness of this planet and its resources. That's what the Left wants everyone to be concerned about, but I try not to let the dominant values set of the modern world dictate what I think about, let alone what I think about what I think about. As part of my Christian journey I try to be *in* the world, but not *of* the world [gotquestions.org] .

On competition for resources, think of job hunting. Whenever I have, I've never operated under the intent of screwing over someone else for a job, or even beating someone else out for a job. I'm just trying to get a job for myself, and any effect that has on anyone else is unintended and tough luck. So despite how it might come down to 2 or 3 candidates ending up, unbeknownst to them, as "in competition" for a single job opening, that's not what people are trying to do when they look for a job.

We're all independent actors, and whatever results from a mass of non-colluding independent actors is not really the kind of thing I make value judgments about. Because I'm not a collectivist. My emphasis is not on the collective, the society, the system, whatever. I place individuals exercising their free will as the greatest good, and outweighing the sometimes downsides that can result.

Because God cares about us, as individual beings made in His image, and with unique God-given personalities and skills/gifts, and each of us coming to Him as we live out our lives, and not what's best for the collective. Our stupid little collectives are just that. Any organization of men by men, at least relative to how believers will exist in Heaven under Him, is hopelessly flawed and doomed to failure.

The American experiment was a nice try, and I'm grateful, but it boils down to who has dominion over this world and our mortal lives in it.

Re:If we don't compete with each other for resourc (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 2 years ago | (#40412009)

So the words Imago Dei mean nothing? Men aren't made in the image of God? And thus, do not attempt to form communities in imitation of heaven?

It's always the left... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40422741)

Of course the zero-sum game is "left-wing thinking", because you disagree with it... doesn't matter if a right-winger spouts the same nonsense, because they're republicans in name only [wikipedia.org] .

Re:It's always the left... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40449063)

It's hard to argue that "No true Scotsman" applies to an assertion whose meaning substantially includes the assertion of corruption involved.

That is, taking an example from wikipedia:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing."

Implicit in his reaction is the assumed premise that true Scotsman have remained pure (so the object of the newspaper article must therefore not be one). An example then of a Scotsman who's a "sex maniac" diminishes his underlying assertion.

But if he instead were to say "Unfortunately even Scotsman nowadays are turning into sex maniacs", then pointing to a Scottish sex maniac instead slightly reinforces his assertion.

Re:It's always the left... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40457581)

It's hard to argue that "No true Scotsman" applies to an assertion whose meaning substantially includes the assertion of corruption involved.

To quote Wikipedia for RINO [wikipedia.org] :

Republican In Name Only is a pejorative term that refers to a member of the Republican Party of the United States whose political views or actions are considered insufficiently conservative or otherwise conforming to liberal positions.

There is no assertion of corruption. There is only the statement that the Republican member is "insufficiently conservative". Implicit in that statement is the argument that they are not true Republicans, because they're not conservative enough.

I don't see how one can look at the phrase, "Republican In Name Only" and not see that it is synonymous with "Not a True Republican".

Re:It's always the left... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40461339)

I was referring to my assertion, not the example one from wikipedia. I asserted, lamentingly, that even Right-wingers are getting compromised, in the sense that I spoke of, by the Left. Whipping out the NTS card does not demonstrate that my assertion is wrong.

Re:It's always the left... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40464765)

I was referring to my assertion, not the example one from wikipedia. I asserted, lamentingly, that even Right-wingers are getting compromised, in the sense that I spoke of, by the Left. Whipping out the NTS card does not demonstrate that my assertion is wrong.

... but there are right-wingers who think that this is a zero-sum game.

The believing that the world is not a zero-sum game is not a necessary precedent for being "right-wing" or "conservative". In fact, a conservative could be argued to be even more in favor of a zero-sum game, because they want to conserve as much of the game as possible. e.g. There are only so many tax dollars, and the various budgets have to make due with what is available. We cannot just arbitrarily raise the amount spent, just because we want to spend more money, but we have to be limited by the zero-sum budget game of a balanced budget.

So, NTS does apply to the statement that I originally objected to. The idea that the world is a zero-sum game is not an exclusively left-wing or liberal position. Your inevitable argument that "then those right-wingers/conservatives have been corrupted" is just a different, but synonymous way of saying "no true right-winger/conservative would believe that the world is a zero-sum game".

Re:It's always the left... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40490033)

The Right-wing is known for its "a rising tide lifts all boats" philosophy. And the Left has their 1% vs. 99% and the 1% has the 99%'s money and it must be redistributed back. The Right is about individual achievement and getting as much as you can work for for yourself. The Left is about the advancement of the collective and urging consciousness of limited resources. This isn't rocket science, and it's not controversial.

We don't even think of the economy as a zero-sum game. I.e. we're not against raising taxes because we think there's only so much in the economy. We afterall believe you can grow your way out of deficits. We're against raising taxes because we don't want to see govt. grow any bigger than the bloated overbese pig that it is. I don't want to hold the growth of govt. to a certain %-age of the economy, I want to hold the growth of govt. period. (But then I'm a "true Conservative". :)

Re:It's always the left... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40507267)

The Right-wing is known for its "a rising tide lifts all boats" philosophy. And the Left has their 1% vs. 99% and the 1% has the 99%'s money and it must be redistributed back. The Right is about individual achievement and getting as much as you can work for for yourself. The Left is about the advancement of the collective and urging consciousness of limited resources. This isn't rocket science, and it's not controversial.

None of this requires that someone in the right-wing must not believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

In fact, those who call for a gold-standard economy are specifically aiming to turn the economy into a quite-literally zero-sum game, in order to defeat inflation.

Re:It's always the left... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40507641)

None of this requires that someone in the right-wing must not believe that the economy is a zero-sum game.

Of course it doesn't; I'm speaking about *generalities* about the two schools of thought. It's just that when someone exhibits a characteristic that is more characteristic of one side than the other, I tend to think that, barring further evidence, that might be the side they are predominantly on, no matter what they claim they are. Someone could claim they're a Right-winger all day long, but if the only thing I ever see come out of their mind is defined by a box the Left has made for people, then they're more of a person who's not good at being a Left-winger than they are someone who's good at being a Right-winger.

In fact, those who call for a gold-standard economy are specifically aiming to turn the economy into a quite-literally zero-sum game, in order to defeat inflation.

Well that's a good point.

Re:It's always the left... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40515099)

Someone could claim they're a Right-winger all day long, but if the only thing I ever see come out of their mind is defined by a box the Left has made for people, then they're more of a person who's not good at being a Left-winger than they are someone who's good at being a Right-winger.

You mean, by a box that you define for the Left. You're certainly not using the left's opinions in this matter, as we all construct our own boxes. When a Protestant calls the Mormon faith "non-Christian", it's because the Protestant has established a box that they define as being "Christianity", and refuse to put "Mormonism" in there. Even though, a Mormon could readily agree with all points of the Nicene Creed, which my church home (from when I was Christian) considers as the fundamental list of Christian beliefs.

And that's kind of the point. If I said I were a cat, you could point out that I am clearly not a part of any feline species, and thus not a "cat". However, if I say that I am "Republican" then short of locating my voter registration designated party, you cannot verify it. And if I've been elected as a Republican, then I am a Republican, whether you disagree with me or not.

And thus the inherent No True Scotsman in the acronym "RINO"... implicit (explicit in the acronym) is that there is some defining set of beliefs that a Republican should have, and that since this person stands in contrast to that ideal, there is an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.. that the speaker's opinions on who is and is not a Republican are authoritative.

I mean, when "He is a RINO", is the most obvious response to "But Congressman XY is in favor of raising taxes, and he's a Republican", it should be clear that the term is itself a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Re:It's always the left... (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 2 years ago | (#40524509)

It seems you're circling back around now to points you've already tried to make. And that I've already said my peace on why I think they're all invalid. I don't see how there's anything more to say.

Re:It's always the left... (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 2 years ago | (#40457623)

It's hard to argue that "No true Scotsman" applies to an assertion whose meaning substantially includes the assertion of corruption involved.

Hell, Conservapedia's page on RINOs [conservapedia.com] doesn't even assert "corruption". But makes a baldfaced patent assertion of No True Scotsman:

A RINO (Republican in Name Only) is an officeholder or candidate who is a member of the Republican Party, but holds views to the political left of most Republican voters. The term "RINO" describes politicians who claim to be Republican but are in fact liberal. [emphasis added]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?