anti-freedom biases at NYT

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/fashi ... pathy.html (news article, not an opinion article)

"What happened? “We don’t actually know what the causes are at this point,” Dr. Konrath said. But the authors speculate a millennial mixture of video games, social media, reality TV and hyper-competition have left young people self-involved, shallow and unfettered in their individualism and ambition."

I was reading this article and found that quote particularly disturbing and contradictory. Here's why:

1. The claim that college kids are increasingly lazy (hence the references to video game playing, social media, and reality tv) is contradictory with the claim that they have unfettered ambition (which means they aren't lazy).

2. More importantly, the NYT seeks to tag the unempathetic as individualists (AKA libertarians). But this doesn't make sense. The lazy, unempathetic college student who flunks out then expects "society" - a collective - to provide for said college kid is not an individualist. He/she is a collectivist. He/she wants a handout from others. That is unempathetic and collectivist.

Furthermore, the new college kids voted almost unanimously for Obama, a collectivist, largely because they liked his policies such as "government" paying for their medical care (giving them free stuff that was stolen from older people). In other words, they voted for a collectivist for non-empathic reasons (they didn't empathize with the taxpayers getting stolen from, or those who wanted to have free choice in their medical decisions). Hence, the claim that college kids are increasingly individualistic is demonstrated to be false by looking at their typically 'political left'/statist voting record.

So, the theory that college kids are increasingly individualistic and non-empathic is likely half true. They may well be losing empathy, but this would be a sign that are increasingly collectivist, wanting handouts to finance their lazy lifestyle. On the other hand. the individualist represents the highest of empathy - the person who wishes to produce for himself, not leech off others and deny them free choice.

What do you think? More anti-freedom bias at the NYT?

That and the New York Times trying to be relevant, which they lost relevancy in 2008-2009 at the latest.

I have noticed that student advocacy groups do seem to demand State handouts, and are appalled when they don't get them. They believe that free "X" is a "right", something that is owed to them by the world. I find it strange, and destructive, as it generates a dependant class. Of while, I am unfortunately a member, as a virtue of being born into the system. I love free education, but it's a broken system.

They've been saying this stuff for every generation since WWII. For the most part it's bs but for the sliver of truth you can blame it on a few glaringly obvious causes that the article, which I agree has an agenda, seems to neglect to mention; being that almost half of all marriages in divorce and that single parent homes are becoming increasingly common, women have left the home for the workplace, political correctness or it's offshoot the ridiculous "self-esteem movement". No they neglect to mention these because it shifts the blame to back themselves and their liberal values. Now there are other factors too, our insane 24 hour "news" media projects nothing but fear in all directions in almost every facets of lives. I think the drug war has played a HUGE part of destroying certain communities all across this nation and I think a part of what they're observing are now are the children of this supposed war. Every action has a reaction. Blaming video games, social media, movies, or even things individualism, competitiveness, or ambition is utterly ridiculous.

"Blah, blah, blah, universal health care is evil, blah, college students and poor people are lazy, blah, young folks are unempathetic cause they care more about people dying than the notion of private property. Blah."

I think this points out the irony in libertarianism.
They are utopian socialists.
they just think the better world comes though selfishness.
they are way too interested in what other people are doing.
they have intentions and perscriptions for other peoples behavior.
they get mad when people do "dumb" things
when a really self-interested person would tent his hands and say excellent.
their naive and unknowing collectivism astounds me

but it should be expected we are social animals.

It's just a typical BS article where they try to pit generations against each other off of a garbage interpretation of some study. Sometimes, some articles just aren't worth your time. Most mainstream news services trying to interpret some kind of scientific study is one of those times. I'd recommend finding the same information on Physorg or New Scientist if they even bothered with it.

As for lazy college kids voting for Obama, Obama also won college graduates and won those with advanced degrees by an even wider margin. Obama won a great many demographics. That's why he is, you know, POTUS.

If you want to read something that is "anti-freedom", check out the enhanced emergency manager powers passed in Michigan a few months ago that allow the Republican governor to replace municipal governments in the state with hand-picked emergency managers, break union contracts, declare a municipality bankrupt, etc. It removes all power from local elected officials and replaces them with Republican managers. It may be a good idea, but democratic? Not so much.

It was just invoked last week on a small town and that's just the beginning of it.

Poor, poor, Michigan.