🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary Strand <gary@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu> wrote in article
<uxug1vygki7.fsf@titanic.cgd.ucar.edu>...
> m > Me <none@urbusiness.com>
> 
> m > Those CU students who rioted in Boulder are not likely to be liberals
due
>     to their socioeconomic bracket
> 
>   Liberals can't be rich? Pshaw.

I made no bones about my hypothesis being made based on
empirical observations.  Perhaps you don't understand the
word "empirical"?  I then said if I had the time and money
to do the study, I would.  Part of the study would include
nailing the demographics down with data.  But I think if
you were to have a chat with CU faculty, you may find
that my observations are fairly consistent with theirs.

To answer your questions, of course liberals can be rich.
Indeed every condition seems to have its exceptions.  
It seems your question is intended to negate my observation.
It doesn't, of course.  A good way to refute me is 
to offer demographic data that demonstrates my error.
If you have it, I'd love to see it, with proper citations, 
of course.  If you have documentation to prove me wrong,
it will help me find my way to your truth.

> 
> m > and other factors of political socialization.
> 
>   Such as?
> 
Such as anything an individual incorporates into his or her
personality that comes from the broader world.  Tell
me about your life and I can probably find the themes
that helped form your political personality.

> m > Those who rioted in Denver were likely socialized through living in a
>     lower socioeconomic bracket,
> 
>   And you know this how?

First, I don't claim knowledge.  I claim either a prejudice or an
opinion.  A prejudice tends to be based on no evidence whatsoever.
Opinion is based, at least, on some evidence even if it's only
cursory empirical observations.  I saw the video of who was 
driving up and down the streets.  That is the basis of my
opinion.  Again, I don't have the resources to document it in
an actual study.  But if you'd be willing to give me, oh, maybe
$100 grand, I could probably do a good one.

> 
> m > through being denied unalienable rights due to institutionalized
racism,
> 
>   It's "inalienable".
> 

Well, I am using Jefferson's spelling, and am doing so intentionally.
I trust you are familiar with the concept whether I call it unalienable,
inalienable, or just plain "human rights".  Maybe not.

>   I see, it's not their fault. Anglos made them do it.
> 

Huh?  When did I say that?  Everyone is responsible for
his or her own actions, and should consider the effect their
actions will have on others.  That's what I said.  Where did
your amazing perversion of my words come from?

However, that being said, economic factors are a part of one's
political socialization.  It's a risk v. rewards thing.  If a person
doesn't get rewarded for acting like the model citizen and
there appears to me more of a reward in lashing out, guess
what route that person's going to take?  It's good old
opportunity cost at work-- a valid capitalist economic principle. 


> m > and other factors.
> 
>   Such as?
> 
Redundant.

> m > It is also possible that their political philosophy is identifiable
as the
>     CU students.  
> 
>   And it's also possible that monkeys will fly out of your butt.

Context got lost here, buddy.  Let the ad hominems fly.  If you can't
challenge them socratically, hit em with a really smelly fart.

> 
>   The reason(s) for the two incidents boil down to just a few things -
not 
>   many young people are mature and responsible; a sense of "entitlement"
to
>   do whatever you feel like when you feel like it (certainly a leftish
idea);

The hell it is.  The notion, my friend, is classically liberal.. as in the
Locke, Jefferson, Mill version of liberal.  It's the idea that because one
owns one's self, one is free to "pursue happiness" without tyrannous
interference.  What you call an "entitlement" they called a right.  The
right was to be mitigated only when the exercise of one's right clashed
with anther's rights.  This requires an awareness of others, that the world
doesn't revolve around you, a sense of civic responsibility, and the
ability to think critically.  Now you may disagree with the philosophy. 
This is a big world with lots of ideas floating around.  However, this is
what I think is lacking in these kids, as I've been writing for the last
few days, apparently to a brick wall.  If you don't understand what I'm
writing, please ask for a clarification.  I don't mind, especially if you
want to criticize it in the spirit of finding the truth.  It's illogical to
criticize something you don't understand.  Americans do this all the time,
of course, but it's still illogical. 

>   havings lots of others around doing the same thing. In Boulder, add
lots
>   of alcohol, in Denver, add lots of misplaced "ethnic pride", and you
get
>   the kinds of incidents that occurred.

And how did these people come to believe that their need to drink
alcohol and to demonstrate "misplaced" ethnic pride (and I'd love to know
what you mean by "misplaced") is so important that they should use violence
to satisfy the
need?  I say both groups cited that it was their "right" to satisfy the
need, and apparently it was OK to be violent in order to satisfy the need
because they couldn't get it satisfied through other means.  

To reiterate my position, I am hypothesizing based on empirical observation
that because these two groups cited the same reason for doing what they
did,
and that they share an age demographic, there is a likely something present
in
that demographics political socialization that resulted in them citing the
same
reason.  They grew up and went to school during the conservative revolution
in federal, state, and local government and, certainly, in public school
boards.  I suggest there may be a link to the conservative policies and the
two group's
disconnection from civic responsibility.  If you disagree, fine.  But argue
it with data or reason, and for gosh sakes try to at least understand the
person's argument.

Were there riots in more liberal days?  Of course.  But I don't recall one
over not being able to drink beer or in "celebration" of ethnic pride. 
They
were over the government sending kids in this demographic to die in
southeast
Asia, and the like.  I see a bit of a moral difference between protesting
against underage prohibition and the wholesale slaughter and maiming of
several
generations in an idiotic war.  And if I have to explain this to someone or
argue the morality of it, we're dead meat as a nation.

And the rest was just right-wing boilerplate hardly worthy
of a civil response.