I love it how the conversation is going based on social popularity and not substance

It's the Internet, people. If you are looking for the Internet to fill your social life, you're being pathetic. Unfortunately, some people are. So don't you hate when this happens? The other day I was reading some Internet exchange on a mostly (but not all) male message board that went like this.
One guy: Ever notice how extreme feminists are ugly bitches?
Other guys: Yeah totally!
A girl known for being 'on the left': Why thank you!
Other guys: (Getting all defensive, oh we didnt mean to piss you off blah bleh you dont seem like an extreme feminist)
Girl: I'm not one.
Guy: I still apologize if I offended you.
Other (new) girl: I'm not a feminist! Nothing pisses me off more than those femi-nazis! Nothing!
Guy: I avoid dating that type myself. You are awesome! Welcome to the message board!

Now, if I was a young up-and-comer in an informal setting with people who were going to be important to the future of my career, this is how I would act. Because I would care about what people thought of me. Because when you are with those people, it is never unprofessional.

But this is just fucking pathetic. I mean, come on. People will say "oh we were being totally honest!" Yeah, totally honest in expressing your contempt for an entire group of people until you think someone you actually meet and know might be one. Totally honest in proclaiming yourself to just happen to fit into whatever Internet social norms there are. This is not just one conversation I saw. This is a common, common thing. People who are really thinking one thing but only say what is closer to what other people seem to be saying. Generally in these dynamics the braver person is the person who tries qualified agreement instead of wholehearted agreement.

Don't people have any opinions these days? Even if you don't, ever just felt like kicking up a storm? Jeez. Forgive me for being a little trite, but it's called "being yourself." You'll never find a safer place to do it than an anonymous chat.

Pro-lifers against Buffett-Gates alliance

NEW YORK - Warren Buffett's new philanthropic alliance with fellow billionaire Bill Gates won widespread praise this week, but anti-abortion activists did not join in, instead assailing the two donors for their longtime support of Planned Parenthood and international birth-control programs.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to which Buffett has pledged the bulk of his $44-billion fortune, devotes the vast majority of its funding to combating disease and poverty in developing countries. Less than 1 percent has gone to Planned Parenthood over the years.

"The merger of Gates and Buffett may spell doom for the families of the developing world," said the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer, a Roman Catholic priest who is president of Human Life International. Referring to Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor, Euteneuer said Buffett "will be known as the Dr. Mengele of philanthropy unless he repents."

This guy is a PRIEST??? The B&MG Foundation donates more money to fight diseases such as AIDS and malaria to developing countries than USAID or the United Nations. And a Roman Catholic Priest wants to compare this charity to Nazis? And what did the Catholic Church do when the real fascists were taking over Europe? Fantastic. Utterly fantastic.

The Culture of Misanthropy

"Hatred or mistrust of humankind"

This is means less forgiving (to the criminals); less compassionate (to the poor); less tolerant (to the different); less yearning (for progress); and more afraid (of the outsider). It is darker; the more cynical. "I am no bigot," is the setup. "For I hate everyone equally!" is punchline. It is all tied together by this, and only this.

The public misanthrope is uneasy. He dreads the failure of the good intentions and so is convinced to let sleeping dogs lie. If that means rolling the dice on history, then let God roll it. His distance, his cool detachment, insensitive, impenetrable, nonchalant levity and world-weary wisdom perch him on a branch where the silly critters running around and their silly craving for the betterment and comfort of strangers cannot reach him. They care, he does not. They are invested, he has cashed out. Comfort and improvement are not a moral value; morals are all defensive, prohibitive. Never active. So he has confronted the instinct, and like a childhood insecurity, banished it. The craven fear and certainty build and build each month, each year, with the shrinking of horizons and perspectives even as the dead weight of knowledge and sophistication accumulates. Then he dies.

The Bankruptcy of Majority Rule

Often we speak of "the will of the majority": if I am out with a group of people or my family, we'll go where the majority wants to go. Corporations make decisions based on what a majority of the shareholders think. Governments are run by popular majorities. But does the majority always know what it wants?

Suppose Alice, Ben, and Cory want to decide between going to the movies, the bowling alley, or the party.
Suppose that:
Alice prefers the movies to the bowling alley and the bowling alley to the party.
Ben prefers the bowling alley to the party and the party to the movies.
Cory prefers the party to the movies and the movies to the bowling alley.

They are all good democrats and decide to make a decision by majority rule.

Suppose someone proposes that they go to the movies. Alice would most like to go to the movies, but Ben would least like it; he'd prefer the party to the movies. Cory prefers the party to the movies as well. So Ben and Cory vote to go to the party, leaving Alice unhappy.

But Alice knows that Ben would rather go to the bowling alley than the party. She'd also rather go to the bowling alley. So she proposes to go to the bowling alley. Alice and Ben form a majority to agree to change their destination to the bowling alley, leaving Cory unhappy.

But Cory knows that Alice would rather go to the movies than the bowling alley. He'd also prefer the movies. So Cory and Alice form a majority, leaving Ben in the dust.

Finally, Ben can do what he did before and propose going to the party, which Cory would agree to, making the cycle begin all over again. Eventually Alice, Ben and Cory argue all night and end up not going anywhere. By adhering to the principle of majority rule they've failed to come to a decision and ruined their night!

Now even if they saw their predicament and realized further voting was useless, they would still have to make a decision by some other principle than simply majority rule. Democracy doesn't always work, folks.