Gender and Violence and Blame

POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 20:14
VIEWED: 35185
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:18 PM

Hey Signy,

I look around and I see a world that isn't functioning for anybody any better than it is for anyone else. The triumphant guy at the top of the totem pole is a patriarchal myth. It's the engine that keeps the whole rat race going, Signy. Envy. You're buying into their frame and you think you're opposing it. You're feeding the myth. You're perpetuating the lie. Your point of view is crucial to that system's longevity. Perminent class warfare IS capitalism.

You think Donald Trump is a happy man? You think Dick Cheney knows a minute's peace in his life?

I see your conspiracy and call it a flaw in human nature. I call it cowardice and conformity. The de facto conspiracy of the fearful and the hopeless.

And I see that they are losing. Little by little, bit by bit, with every passing century the human race gets better. The trend over the course of history is not toward centralized power, but away from it.

And the internet has changed everything. We'll never be able to go back to the pre-information age. Knowledge is power and knowledge has NEVER been more available to more people, more cheaply, than it is today. And it's getting cheaper and more available all the time.

And the patriarchy, the rule of money and power and silence, can read the writing on the wall. They see their power slipping through their fingers with every reduction in the price of the iphone. So, they're going nuts with the multiple wars and the printing money and predatory behavior of every stripe, because they know better than anyone that their days as the Masters of the Earth are numbered.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:24 PM

HKC- people are dying in droves from all sorts of inequities and you think this is about envy???

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HKC- people are dying in droves from all sorts of inequities, and you think this is about envy???.

Hello,

It seems much more about control.

You're tired of the control these entities exercise on our lives.

It's time you had the control, instead.

You already want to end broadcast television and cable services. How much control over my life will you need in order to free me from my prison?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:47 PM

TONY, you seem to be defending your right to be in prison. Well, if you want to be in prison there's nothing I can do about it. *gestures you inside*

Look, not trying to make you mad or anything but just think about where your train of thought ends, OK?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I'm aware of that, M. And one or two or five examples doesn't change a dang thing, does it? What do you think is going on here?

A lot of software gets it start in some branch of military R&D, a lot of tech does, period. The internet itself started out as a military application. Does that mean we should get rid of our computers?

It's still a leap of some magnitude, I think, from there to a coordinated propaganda campaign that's destroying our culture and turning our youth into addicts. Are you onboard with Signy's analysis?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

No, I don't believe that there was a co-ordinated campaign. I'm generally not a big conspiracy theorist. But I do believe that the impact of military style computer games and other violent games has an overall impact on the vast numbers of people who play them.

Signy is right about the way the brain gets conditioned, or perhaps I might use the term shaped, and this is particuarly true of the adolescent brain which changes dramatically in response to stimuli. So if you spend all day playing violent video games, the younger brain will be shaping how that person responds emotionally, behaviourally and cognitively to that stimuli.

While its clear that not everybody who play games becomes violent, its not clear about the full impact on people who play regularly.

I do think there is an increasing level of aggression in society and how we interact with one another. I know that teens, particularly teen and young males have always been the most likely to display this behaviour, but its becoming increasingly prevalent amongst many sectors of society.

What I can observe -

*aggressive behaviour on the roads - up to increased incidents of road rage, but may also include excessive speeding, shouting, guesturing, tail gating as punishment and risky behaviour generally
*use of aggressive heaviour to solve problems. My neighbours hate my dog. Have they ever come over and had a discussion? No, they shout and scream abuse and make threats through the fence. Incredibly, both are in their 60's.
*acceptance of violent and aggressive behaviour in relationships. Don't like what your partner has done, it seems that its perfectly acceptable to slap them or call them a cunt. What ever happened to rules of behaviour even when you argue or disagree? There doesn't seem to be any.
I could go on and on...

Okay. So what are the causes?

I've got some ideas, but I'll leave them for now.

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:50 PM

Hi Signe, I think your idea to get rid of TV and put it all online sucks, because my TV is easier for me to work than my computer. For the computer if you want to watch shows on it you always have to update the players and stuff, whereas with my TV I just turn it on, que presto. Your idea sounds totally lame to me and wayyyyyy inconvenient for me. And what about PBS? Surely you're not opposed to history documentaries and the BBC. Come on Signe, work with me here, though I don't really want to work with you on this because its a lame idea.

Who is more violent, men or women? I think that statistically men are more violent, in regards to how many violent incidents occur with them in them. But women can certainly be violent too, everyone is an individual and so everyone can be violent or not, but I think if we were to add up the violent incidents committed by men in a year and the violent incidents committed by women in a year we'd see that men win out. So I disagree with Byte here. But I do agree that women are fully capable of violence and I also agree that they are less often prosecuted for it.

I too hate that if we see a woman slap her boyfriend we assume that he deserved it, whereas when we see a man slap his girlfriend we assume he is a crummy person. We should have the same assumptions when we see domestic violence whether its a man or a woman. Neither is okay and neither should get excuses made.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 10:54 PM

Sig: Caste system in India is alive and well and so long as people look at lower castes of people as inhuman they're going to dish out inhumane treatment to them.

Russia's problem is there's always someone looking for opportunities. Twelve year old unattended in the mall? Grab her, someone will pay good money to pass her around with their buddies while she cries and screams and bleeds. Decade and a half later she'll still be caught in that system, won't remember her name, but she'll have a daughter from it all that they're grooming to succeed her. And that's when they don't go right into it from the orphanages.

You're not the only one who's angry Sig. It's all right to be angry. The trick is finding the right target to focus that anger.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:14 PM

Yep, it was Morgan.

Quote:
Lewis Henry Morgan (November 21, 1818 – December 17, 1881) was a pioneering American anthropologist and social theorist who worked as a railroad lawyer. He is best known for his work on kinship and social structure, his theories of social evolution, and his ethnography of the Iroquois. Interested in what holds societies together, he proposed the concept that the earliest human domestic institution was the matrilineal clan, not the patriarchal family; the idea was accepted by most pre-historians and anthropologists throughout the late nineteenth century.
Also interested in what leads to social change, he was a contemporary of the European social theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were influenced by reading his work on social structure and material culture, the influence of technology on progress. Morgan is the only American social theorist to be cited by such diverse scholars as Marx, Charles Darwin, and Sigmund Freud. Elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Morgan served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1879.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_H._Morgan

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:21 PM

Matrilineal: well it does make sense. The mother is the only side of the equation that usually isn't in question.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY, you seem to be defending your right to be in prison. Well, if you want to be in prison there's nothing I can do about it. *gestures you inside*

Look, not trying to make you mad or anything but just think about where your train of thought ends, OK?

Hello,

The amount of control you wish to exercise in order to create a better world would just end up trading one prison for another.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:42 PM

Yep, and from what I've read and understood, it was patrilineal societies that developed controls over women's sexuality and behaviour. The only way to be sure that a child was yours, as a man, was to ensure you were the only one who slept with a woman.

From this concept springs marriage, adultery, restriction on women's clothing, behaviour, ostricising women for rape or being a single mother and a whole host of controlling, blaming societal behaviours that would not exist in a matrilineal society.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:48 PM

Quote:
From this concept springs marriage, adultery

Maaaaybe. The others definitely.

Marriage and adultery are concepts that theoretically might arise on their own, depending on how viable the takes a village option is or if even then two primary caretakers works best. But in fairness we're hardly a monogamous species even when we do try to practice marriage.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 1:45 AM

Magons, in regard to your points above about violent media. I think the answer is the age old principle of moderation in all things, and parents manning up and being parents. Parents have the right to decide what is apropriate for their child's consumption, they also have a right to set time limits and make sure that the child is living moderately, it goes beyond rights even, its their _job to raise their children to the best of their ability, so that when the children are of age and grown they'll know how to make good choices for themselves.

Again I also think that focusing on cause and affect and clarity between what is real and what isn't, what is okay in real life vs. what is okay in pretend and even that some things really aren't okay even in pretend play.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
From this concept springs marriage, adultery

Maaaaybe. The others definitely.

Marriage and adultery are concepts that theoretically might arise on their own, depending on how viable the takes a village option is or if even then two primary caretakers works best. But in fairness we're hardly a monogamous species even when we do try to practice marriage.

Marriage has traditionally been more binding on women than on men. Adultery by men has been far more tolerated than for women.

Matrinlineal = it doens't matter who fathers a child. Therefore whether a man or a woman takes a life partner or has many is immaterial.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
Magons, in regard to your points above about violent media. I think the answer is the age old principle of moderation in all things, and parents manning up and being parents. Parents have the right to decide what is apropriate for their child's consumption, they also have a right to set time limits and make sure that the child is living moderately, it goes beyond rights even, its their _job to raise their children to the best of their ability, so that when the children are of age and grown they'll know how to make good choices for themselves.

Again I also think that focusing on cause and affect and clarity between what is real and what isn't, what is okay in real life vs. what is okay in pretend and even that some things really aren't okay even in pretend play.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I agree Rione. I am not actually advocating any controls/prohibitions on any media.

I think the issues is what happens when people are unable to put limits on themselves or on their children. Pretty common.

I happen to agree that violence in movies and games can create excitment, an adrenalin rush. Porn results in sexual excitment. All of these things stimulate our emotions and feelings and I guess are in of themselves basically harmless.

But what happens when you have a society that is awash with violent and sexual imagery and where people spend a great deal of time viewing such images. I think there will be and is an impact on people's behaviour and expectations. What we do about it is something I am not all together sure about.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:49 AM

TONY

Quote:
The amount of control you wish to exercise in order to create a better world would just end up trading one prison for another.

I feel like I've just (metaphorically-speaking) tossed you the keys to the car and you're backing up with horror on your face, saying... Oh, no, man! You're like putting me in prison! I'm having a serious WTF??? moment. How, exactly, do you see this as lessening your freedom? What are you giving up? Please be clear.

BYTE

Quote:
You're not the only one who's angry Sig. It's all right to be angry. The trick is finding the right target to focus that anger.

The funny thing is, I'm not angry. At least, I haven't really felt that in this thread. But I feel like I can see this something about how our society... MOST societies... work.

So we look at India and we're horrified.... horrified, I tell you... about their misogynistic ways and their caste system which condemns people to a lifetime of automatic poverty, killing exploitation, and scorn. But did you know that India's rape rates are less than 1/10 of ours? And we have our own Dalit, altho we call them the black poor and the crazy homeless. It seems impossible for us to look at our own society with any sort of clarity. We flutter and hop around in our cages proclaiming how "free" we are!

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
From this concept springs marriage, adultery

Maaaaybe. The others definitely.

Marriage and adultery are concepts that theoretically might arise on their own, depending on how viable the takes a village option is or if even then two primary caretakers works best. But in fairness we're hardly a monogamous species even when we do try to practice marriage.

Marriage has traditionally been more binding on women than on men. Adultery by men has been far more tolerated than for women.

Matrinlineal = it doens't matter who fathers a child. Therefore whether a man or a woman takes a life partner or has many is immaterial.

Kinda does. Resource considerations.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:53 AM

Magons it sounds like we are mostly in allignment.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:51 AM

This... took a while, and a LOT of editing.
Okay, here goes, will try to keep this coherent if I can.

The vilification of self-defense is quite possibly the most dire setback of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, in that as a natural consequence it creates uncountable other ills.
It has enabled and emboldened criminal elements, had a tremendous negative social impact and has abetted some of the worst human and civil rights violations in decades.

Now, before responding with the well trained and conditioned jerking of knees and reflexively screaming at me and throwing poop like a buncha goddamn howler monkeys, do me the favor of hearing me out for once before you utterly ignore it all once again like it never existed.

This starts in the family, parents, especially authoritarian and/or abusive ones, do NOT want their child defending themselves, cause if they stand up to others, that runs the risk of sooner or later them standing up to YOU.
Think about it for a minute, a physically or emotionally abusive parents reaction to a child striking back, what is it, what it it's PURPOSE ?
That one strikes home especially deep with me given how early I learned that Force Majeure, a weapon, and the will to take it all the way matters - it put PAID to my fathers abuse, then, there, and forever, with a side note of property rights since the sumbitch thought kids shouldn't "own" anything and regularly pitched out everything I had.

Then you got schools, which also vilify self defense, maybe slightly better reasons to it but not many - the excuses and hypocrisy are abundantly clear to children because the school itself often maintains control via force and fear, so bullies are simply doing what the school does, what they are "taught", on a smaller scale.
And those who stand up to them are more often than not vilified for it, certainly punished cause they stepped outside the established order - not even necessarily with violence, cause everyone with half a brain knows that going to the authorities just gets one brushed off, labelled a tattletale, probably disciplined on top of it, and for what, cause they'll just consider it he-said-she-said and not do a goddamn thing... except to YOU.
Step up physically, especially with Force Majeure and a weapon, and you WILL pay dire consequences for it often worse than simply suffering the abuse.
What message does this send, WHY do they send it ?
WHAT ARE THEIR INTENTIONS ?

Then on to employers, who do have a little more reason in our revoltingly litigous society, cause resistance will almost certainly get you fired, even if the bad guy was GOING TO KILL YOU otherwise - you're expected to lay down and freakin die, rather than defend yourself, for your employers damn convenience...
How many gas station attendents and convenience store clerks die every year because of this ?
No one knows, no one dares ask, because they don't WANT to hear or know the answers.
Sure - there's times resistance isn't the best option, but only the person on the scene, eye-to-eye with the bad guy has any right to make that decision in my opinion.
I got more on this, but that'll come back in a different section.

Law enforcement, obviously doesn't want you defending yourself, not only does it concern them that you might stand up to THEM, it also steps on their social "turf", and negatively impacts their little game of pretending they're all that stands between us and darkness, as well as calling into question exactly why we need them, or why we should hand over our human and civil rights in exchange for a protection that is damn near never actually present at a moment of crisis.

And finally, Governments.
Obviously they have the same issues as noted above, but to a Government you see, the difference between criminal and citizen is effectively immaterial, we're all just taxslaves, resources, beasts of burden to them, and what care they if one victimizes another ?

Quote:
Listen to them closely and you'll hear t

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ANTHONYT

Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:13 AM

Quote:
I feel like I've just (metaphorically-speaking) tossed you the keys to the car and you're backing up with horror on your face, saying... Oh, no, man! You're like putting me in prison! I'm having a serious WTF??? moment. How, exactly, do you see this as lessening your freedom? What are you giving up? Please be clear.

Hello,

A freer world does not restrict my freedoms in order to protect me from myself. It does not tell me I can't broadcast or consume broadcasted television. It does not tell me I can't buy cable services to consume cable television. It does not block the things I can do for fear that I will succumb to propaganda.

A free world not only trusts me, but wants to restrict me as little as possible.

You are not describing a free world. You are describing a new cage of a different color, where the bars are in place to protect me from my worst tendencies.

No, thank you. I choose not to consume only the approved entertainment conveyed by the approved format. The FCC is bad enough already.

Never mind that everything you worry about in broadcast television and cable can come to pass on a free internet. And what will you do next, once you see the propaganda flowing into everyone's minds via the internet, something that you don't control? What will you do once you identify the next great threat to the freedoms of the people?

How much will you take away for my own good and the good of the society I live in?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 2:36 PM

Sometimes with the police it's more they just want you to stop complaining and go away, so they charge you with something out of spite, sometimes they're looking for a scapegoat for a crime, sometimes it's just malice.

Oh, and also:

Quote:
Because yon criminal is so flummoxed at this, so damn far behind the mental curve, they just lock up for seconds, in rare cases even minutes, during which you can act freely against them.
BECAUSE THEY DEPEND SO UTTERLY ON THE LACK OF RESISTANCE.

Yep, you especially see this with bullies. Although most everyone in Salt Lake City also does this because they are just so unchallenging. They're seriously laughable.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2013 3:13 PM

TONY- Funny thing is, I never said that the same programming couldn't be produced and consumed via internet, so basically you're upset because you want your product delivered via cable? Is that the "freedom" that you're insisting on? Cable (and broadcast) media?

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2013 3:22 PM

FREM: I got as far as

Quote:
The vilification of self-defense is quite possibly the most dire setback of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, in that as a natural consequence it creates uncountable other ills.

and my reading came to a screeching halt. The vilification of self defense has been going on since governments were founded. There was a reason why weaponless fighting was developed in China. In Mayan cultures, one was expected to meekly give up one's child for sacrifice. During feudal Europe, weapons were restricted to knights; there was the droit de seigneur and other abuses which the peasants were to meekly comply with. There were exclusive warrior classes in many societies, restricted to the well-trained and fully propagandized.

I think you're harkening back to a time and place that either never existed, or only existed very briefly in rare moments in history, so your post (this far) is based on a false premise.

Back to reading.

---------------

Quote:
This starts in the family, parents, especially authoritarian and/or abusive ones, do NOT want their child defending themselves, cause if they stand up to others, that runs the risk of sooner or later them standing up to YOU.

Going back through history (until you get to matriarchy, of which there are no records) the higher the pyramid of power the more authoritarian the family, especially the male. Even paleoanthropology of Egyptian bones (showing systematic abuse of women) bears this out.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 3:33 PM

Well, um, perhaps not so much "false" as more far reaching than this conversation would indicate. One of Frem's favourite quotes is that one from the His Dark Materials series about how there's always been people out to oppress humanity.

Just because there's been worse acceptance of self-defense in other cultures doesn't mean there hasn't been a serious set back in ours.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:19 PM

Okay, made it through the entire post. There are parts I agree with strongly

Quote:
The first person you are ever taught to lie to, is yourself.

Let's start with that as a point of agreement. When you're lying in bed or taking the bus or stalled in traffic or just sitting and thinking, nobody can tell what's going on in your head, which is why thought-shackles are so important to TPTB. Endlessly watching TV, being on FB with friends, playing videogames... well, it's kinda hard to think when it's so noisy in there!

A while back, I said that violent media isn't about catharsis, it's about addiction. But I guess I could say the same for ALL media... nothing removes you from your real life, your real feelings, your real options, your real activities like your virtual life. Or booze, or other drugs.... But that's another story.

In any case, many people unconsciously limit their thoughts; certain thoughts would NEVER pop into their heads because it goes against the stories that they have been told their entire lives, whether those stories are about religion or economics or justice or human nature or "freedom" or self-defense.

OTOH, your post is focused on only one aspect of societal control, and that is violence: either imposing injustice or resisting it. However, there are many other forms of societal control... the stories we tell ourselves, the conveniences that are granted to us which make us dependent, the little bits of power we are handed. I think that your focus on individual self defense is biased by your personal history, and while it is important it not the full story, and in some instances may get in the way of recognizing a potentially better solution. There are societies today in which violence just doesn't occur: the matriarchies of today. What are they doing differently? Whatever it is, it's not self-defense.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:31 PM

Video games are often addictive... but I'm kind of uncomfortable putting simple escapism on the same level as propaganda sources and control measures such as facebook or television. Escapism is what people also get out of books. I guess you can argue that all art can be used as opiates of the masses, bread and circuses like tactics, but I don't really want a world devoid of art.

I think it's important to separate from art what is actually dangerous. And what is actually dangerous is not necessarily the art. Good art makes people think instead of misleading or repressing thought. What's really dangerous is the consumerism. It's the gotta buy, gotta keep myself in debt, gotta work a job and be a wage slave to support that habit, gotta pay attention to the frivolous celebrity bullshit or competitive day to day drama with antagonistic friends instead of being involved with the community and cooperating. And it's in that buzz of gotta have that propaganda is introduced in the advertisements, that there's vested interest in introducing propaganda into the stories.

The art is innocent. The art is that little twelve year old on the street, trying to get her message across even with the restrictions imposed on her. It's her pimps that are the problem, they make her say stuff.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:32 PM

Quote:
I've got some ideas, but I'll leave them for now.

Well, when you get to posting them, put them in big bold letters. I would hate to miss them.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:40 PM

BYTE- You're right. Art is important, but it's been perverted by the need to sell products. (BTW- the whole corporate drive to reducing your online privacy is to SELL YOU STUFF. That's why google/FB etc track your every goddamn online move. The government doesn't mind, of course, because it has it's own agenda for tracking you.) Consumerism is a huge problem. I heard a speech by a long-ago black comedian and activist... someone you'd never think of whose name escapes me right now, and he said something funny (of course). He said he was as careful of the media he watched as the food that he put into his body (He was a vegetarian IIRC). He never watched TV or listened to the radio when he was tired or distracted because he felt it deserved his full alertness, and he avoided commercials whenever possible. And despite all that, on his way back to LA from a stint Vegas, driving alone on I15 in the dead of night with nothing to distract him, the first thing that popped into his head was You deserve a break today, so get up and get away to MacDonalds!

ETA: Dick Gregory. I had to look it up.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, January 3, 2013 4:48 PM

Quote:
Consumerism is a big problem.

Yeah. There wouldn't be effort to subvert art for ulterior motives if there weren't consumerism, which props up the power structures.

And that's the other thing, the subversion of art. I think that might be what offends you, as we get down to the meats here. Art is great, tells stories, passes down information and ideas, causes humanity to lift it's eyes to the skies and wonder. The problem is when they take those stories and twist them to fit an agenda, especially one that supports the establishment and supports consumerism.

Same thing with sex and violence in a story, sex and violence can actually be an important part of a story, necessary for the plot, but there's ways to have sex and violence in a story that doesn't glorify them, doesn't titilate and turn off the mind and stunt the person. You don't have to "sex up" a story to sell it if it's good in the first place. I think maybe that's what offends you, and I'd be the first to say, I think that offends everybody. We know what a story needs and what it doesn't, and unnecessary sex and violence in a story for most people is as unwelcome as an unnecessary lesson on horticulture.

Like I said before, I think it's about finding what is actually the problem before you can tailor a solution - and the answer, for me at least, is usually society. People consume tasteless explosions of unnecessary depictions of sex and violence, then maybe it's up to us to counter that with good taste depictions of both, or at least choose to support that. Give the people a better alternative and a stage for that alternative to speak from, and I think gradually people will start to chose that.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OTOH, your post is focused on only one aspect of societal control, and that is violence: either imposing injustice or resisting it. However, there are many other forms of societal control... the stories we tell ourselves, the conveniences that are granted to us which make us dependent, the little bits of power we are handed. I think that your focus on individual self defense is biased by your personal history, and while it is important it not the full story, and in some instances may get in the way of recognizing a potentially better solution. There are societies today in which violence just doesn't occur: the matriarchies of today. What are they doing differently? Whatever it is, it's not self-defense.

In a way, it is - by putting themselves at the top of the power structure and then NOT abusing it.
If you took the message that self-defense = violence from that post, you seriously misread it, cause I rather explicitly pointed out this isn't the case, that it encompasses a vast range of things.
Nor am I offering it as sole cause or solution, it's a facet, but one of many - as you say economics are another form of control, as is popular consciousness (which does tie in), and control of media/message.

I just wanted to show that facet, in detail, from a perspective folks hadn't really thought about due to the psychological blind spots you describe, which I admittedly have a habit of exploiting myself, sure.

Media and message is another facet, and one part of that which sets my teeth on edge is how popular consciousness stories always seem to point out ruthless sociopathy as strength, while holding up altruism as naive or weak, I could prolly sit here and throw twenty examples right off the top of my head - but those messages only work of folks pre-conditioned to accept them, which is why I consider a strong sense of self, personhood, and critical thinking dire important to bring to our children as soon as they can possibly adapt them - which is, itself, a form of self-defense.

-Frem

PS - While I have no explicit beef with the notion of a matriarchal society, it does concern me that once again that seems a method of changing which hand holds the leash, rather than cutting it entire, and thus as an Anarchist I must reject it as a solution.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY- Funny thing is, I never said that the same programming couldn't be produced and consumed via internet, so basically you're upset because you want your product delivered via cable? Is that the "freedom" that you're insisting on? Cable (and broadcast) media?

Hello,

And if so, so what? Why on Earth should anyone let you decide how they wish to receive their programming?

I can ban television and cable from my life any time I want by pressing a switch. Why should I surrender my ability to choose because you want it that way?

And of course every single thing you decide to subtract, you will tell me it shouldn't be important to me anyway. Well, I'm sorry. I decide what I want and what's important. If I don't want television, I'll decide when to flip the switch.

I'm not interested in you banning anything on my behalf. I'm not interested in giving you my remote control and letting you choose how I'm allowed to consume my entertainment.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

ANTHONYT

Thursday, January 3, 2013 10:38 PM

Quote:
There are societies today in which violence just doesn't occur

Hello,

Call me cynical, but there is bound to be some level of aberration in any sampling of sufficient size. A society where nobody is ever violent seems rather unlikely.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

HKCAVALIER

Friday, January 4, 2013 12:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
While I have no explicit beef with the notion of a matriarchal society, it does concern me that once again that seems a method of changing which hand holds the leash, rather than cutting it entire, and thus as an Anarchist I must reject it as a solution.

Hey Frem,

I think the term "matriarchal" is itself corrupted by a patriarchal bias. More responsible sources I've read use words like "matrilinial" or "pre/post-patriarchal" or "partnership culture."

Patriarchy, as has been alluded to in the discussion of marriage above, comes bundled with a whole raft of concepts that are simply foreign to a pre-patriarchal consciousness. The concept of "ownership" is a patriarchal invention, wholly unnecessary outside its sphere of influence. The Native American matrilinial bias against ownership and against heirarchy, against the concept of linear time itself, persist even today in Native communities. Even after the Catholic Church's cultural genocide, these pre-patriarchal biases persist in their humor and their family structure.

So, pre/post-patriarchal, partnership culture is a cultural context without a "leash." Now watch the patriarchal bias rush in and call what I'm saying impossible.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 4, 2013 4:51 AM

TONY

Quote:
And if so, so what? Why on Earth should anyone let you decide how they wish to receive their programming?
I can ban television and cable from my life any time I want by pressing a switch. Why should I surrender my ability to choose because you want it that way?
And of course every single thing you decide to subtract, you will tell me it shouldn't be important to me anyway. Well, I'm sorry. I decide what I want and what's important. If I don't want television, I'll decide when to flip the switch.
I'm not interested in you banning anything on my behalf. I'm not interested in giving you my remote control and letting you choose how I'm allowed to consume my entertainment.

You asked me what I thought should be done and then when I told you you suddenly became wildly defensive. I offered you my opinion; I can't imagine why a simple opinion should be so threatening.

It seems like "cable TV" is essential to your definition of freedom, like "guns". What's next on your essential list? Beer?

RIONAEIRE

Friday, January 4, 2013 4:53 AM

I agree with Frem's basic premise, self defense is penalized by our legal system. Sure you have the right ... on paper, but when it actually happens its almost not worth trying, after years of legal red tape and confusion, you start wishing that bad guy had just ended it for you, because you're worn out. Not to mention that they interrogate you and try to get you to change your story, which is actually quite easy, it doesn't even necessarily take waterboarding etc.

Signe, I saw some amazing shows last night on PBS, learnt about Icelandic volcanoes and ancient India, and I only pressed one little button. I think if you're taking away regular TV you have to come over every time I want to find something good to watch and help me get it all set up. That will change your mind I reckon.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

ANTHONYT

Friday, January 4, 2013 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY
Quote:
And if so, so what? Why on Earth should anyone let you decide how they wish to receive their programming?
I can ban television and cable from my life any time I want by pressing a switch. Why should I surrender my ability to choose because you want it that way?
And of course every single thing you decide to subtract, you will tell me it shouldn't be important to me anyway. Well, I'm sorry. I decide what I want and what's important. If I don't want television, I'll decide when to flip the switch.
I'm not interested in you banning anything on my behalf. I'm not interested in giving you my remote control and letting you choose how I'm allowed to consume my entertainment.
You asked me what I thought should be done and then when I told you you suddenly became wildly defensive. I offered you my opinion; I can't imagine why a simple opinion should be so threatening.

It seems like "cable TV" is essential to your definition of freedom, like "guns". What's next on your essential list? Beer?

Hello Signy,

Forgive me for saying so, but sometimes I feel that you are utterly incapable of envisioning freedom from any vantage but your own.

Yes, beer. I don't drink beer. Vile stuff. And it is essential to my view of freedom. Because I think people should have the right to drink beer. And smoke, too. I am not into telling people what they should be allowed to do with themselves. That's for them to decide. Taking away those choices is the opposite of freedom.

So yeah, your opinion is Terrible, and it makes me alarmed to think that there are people in the world who might have such an opinion, and might try to shape the world based on it. I will generally recoil and speak my disgust whenever people express such an opinion, and in so doing, I shall be expressing my opinion that their opinion stinks.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

SIGNYM

Friday, January 4, 2013 4:57 PM

Quote:
So yeah, your opinion is Terrible, and it makes me alarmed to think that there are people in the world who might have such an opinion, and might try to shape the world based on it. I will generally recoil and speak my disgust whenever people express such an opinion, and in so doing, I shall be expressing my opinion that their opinion stinks.

TONY I said nothing about banning your favorite cable TV shows, did I? (Or banning beer, for that matter.) In fact, I said just the opposite, more than once. So why are you so afraid of losing centralized media?

The ability to speak your mind freely to all of your fellow netizens and to hear them do the same, to put whatever product you want "out there" whether it be classes, music, or even paid programing like your favorite cable shows somehow just doesn't match up to your "right" to get cable programming?

The only "right" that you seem to recognize is your "right" to buy corporate product, which seems to be more in the front of your brain than your right to work, your right to think freely, your ability to communicate widely and without fetters, your right to privacy, and your right to decide (along with your fellow citizens) the future of your society in broad scope.

And, if I may be so bold, I think a lot of people feel this way. That's because we live in an economy where we are presented with a million irrelevant choices, but the inability to affect anything real. As I have said before in other threads.... toilet paper: single ply, or two? Quilted or plain? With "wet strength" or regular? 12-pack, or 4-pack? Recycled or virgin?

Dolphins or Steelers? Lakers or Spurs?

Light, dark, or regular?

ESPN, SYFY, or HBOZ?

WoW or Grand Theft Auto?

Detective show, or reality show, or classic movie?

Guns or mixed martial arts?

A million totally effectless choices and no way at all to reduce unemployment except by "hoping" that TPTB will be "generous", no way to deflate the monster that has become Homeland Security/ NSA/ Google/ Microsoft/ Apple/ AT&T/ Verizon. (Yes, they do work together.), no way to require actual cybersecurity but having to put up with constant government intrusion, no way to reverse environmental damage, no way to improve our schools, or reduce violence.

So here we are: Constantly courted by advertisers... thousands of wares laid out for our consideration from around the world ... this necklace or that toothbrush or the Presidential candidate over there? ... and (if you have money) the ability to shape "the market" in a million irrelevant ways AS CONSUMERS ... but by god, nothing else. No right to privacy from either corporations or the government, no right to demonstrate on the street and - more importantly- no ability to get the message out to the media anywhere near as frequently as Budweiser gets out its beer commercials. Football teams and toilet paper and cable TV shows and factory-farmed food seems to be our realm.

It's the narrative that we are told over and over again.... look here, these are your choices.... and it's so damn rewarding... until it becomes our tiny world view and we literally cannot see anything else. It's a comfy little prison, isn't it? So, yeah.... here's your remote. Enjoy.

That reminds me of Wallace Shawn in My Dinner With Andre... But I LIKE my cold cup of coffee in the morning!

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1178-my-dinner-with-andre-long-
strange-trips

Quote:
Call me cynical, but there is bound to be some level of aberration in any sampling of sufficient size. A society where nobody is ever violent seems rather unlikely.

BTW- as far as those matriarchal societies and violence. I did see a show on one of them (the one in western China). Their punishment for transgression is banishment.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 5, 2013 12:22 AM

Well, I hope this means that y'all are thinking, and not just royally pissed.

This thread created an epiphany for me, and they don't come along every day. Not even every year. Thank you all for that.

So, back to the topic at hand...?

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, January 5, 2013 6:41 PM

Worth re-quoting here in case you missed it, Siggy.

Quote:
...those messages only work of folks pre-conditioned to accept them, which is why I consider a strong sense of self, personhood, and critical thinking dire important to bring to our children as soon as they can possibly adapt them - which is, itself, a form of self-defense.

A large part of that myriad of irrelevant choices is because people become trapped by the little boxes in which our society operates, incapable of seeing outside the boundries of the game because they're never even aware those boundries are there.

Which results in them playing the card sharpers game, with his deck, at his table, by his rules - and adding more shells to the shell game doesn't change the fact that the pebble isn't under any of em.

This is one reason I've been skeptical of conventional protesting due to it having become nothing more than a systematic self-destruction, we need to engage other methods if we are to strike at the kneecaps of the powers that be - the web blackout over SOPA/PIPA was a good example of alternative method, and quite effective, although that just means the bastards will try to sneak it onto other bills one provision at a time, you just watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA

But if there's one thing I learned in my campaign against the Hellcamps, and abuse of youth in general, it's that from a wider aspect nobody much CARES about morals or human rights violations, so when you have a shot...
AIM FOR THE MONEY.
Note once again how those two bastard Judges in PA were tried ONLY on financial charges, no one cared about the lives they destroyed, the damage they caused, the issue that got them crushed was someone not getting their cut!
That's also how we trashed WWASPS, in the end, waging economic warfare on their intake centers (Pathway), cutting them off from Government subsidies (still workin on this with Teen Challenge), and bleeding them white in the courts via the lawsuits of former victims.

This has borne some fruit on another level too, given my passionate hatred for the alphabet-soup crowd and their protection-racket nature, especially since they're a greater threat to us than anything they supposedly protect us against, long and long have I wanted to take a financial chainsaw to them, and we've delivered the first hit already - eight BILLION in budget cuts, yeah, Billion, with a B!
And boy howdy are they pissed about it, right now some of em are climbing the walls in a rabid-foaming how-dare-they frenzy, and if they get stupid about it we'll play the same game we did on a local level here with the Police, and turn that right around as an excuse for MORE cuts.
Not that this is likely to impact them financially in any realistic way since they bulk up their budgets trafficking in drugs and weapons all around the world, but the concept here is very important.

1. Strike at the money.
2. Subvert from within.

On the second, I was re-watching the original 1980's miniseries V, and V: The Final Battle, and one thing I noted was how effective the conscience of those within the system can be - without folks willing to carry out their orders, would-be tyrants are ineffective.

Well, there's this one cop, Randy Talbot, who looks the other way and keeps his mouth shut *several* times, thus aiding the Resistance by inaction, allowing them to smuggle the Maxwells out of town safely, and letting Ruby escape (he actually stifles a laugh, blink and you'll miss it) after she firebombs a Visitor shuttle - and that is of course only the stuff we see cause he's a minor character, but that kind of inaction is well worth appealing to... you won't influence the leaders and would-be tyrants, they're sociopaths, but the poor bastards working for them are a definately exploitable group.

And that's all I'll say to it at the moment.

-Frem

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 5, 2013 8:49 PM

Hey Signy,

I'm all kinds of confused by your argument with Anthony in this thread. I just can't believe that you really don't understand his objection to your idea of censoring all television media.

To me, it's like this: let's say Anthony's got a daughter and she's dating a drug addict. It's bad for everybody. And you come along and murder the drug addict boyfriend and wonder why Anthony isn't greatful. Because murder is wrong, Signy. Even if it eliminates a bad influence in our lives, murder is not an acceptable solution.

Same with censorship. Even if everything you're censoring is "bad," the concept alone is offensive. Fighting oppression with counter-oppression. But I already talked to you about this fighting fire with fire concept and you had nothing to say about that but to question one word in my post. Envy. You implied that it wasn't about envy but about all the people dying because of oppression. Well, I see envy here as well--once again, you envy TPTB their power and you want it for yourself. Specifically, you envy their power to oppress and you want to oppress them right back. Where I see the whole notion of winning through oppression as fucked. Yes, people are dying from oppression, but I fail to see how shutting down all the tvs is gonna solve that.

And the grand irony in this is that broadcast televion as we know it IS DYING. In another generation--hell, another 10 years--no one will be watching that shit. But then what? We already have corportate commercials attatched to every movie we see in the theaters. So, you gonna shut down the theaters as well? I think they tried that in 16th Century England and it didn't work out so well.

In your desire to purge society (Purge? Where have we heard that word before?) of bad tv you WILL end up oppressing folks that didn't do anything to anyone. There will be collateral damage. That's how oppression works. And that's why folks of good conscience avoid it.

I'm sorry if I've totally misunderstood what you're advocating but in that case I totally musunderstand what you're advocating!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:06 PM

HKC- I'm all kinds of confused about your confusion. I am not at all talking about censoring television media, I'm talking about the medium itself, not the content. I simply want to move the content to a medium that is less easily controlled from a central point. Decentralized distribution. Also, I wrote about keeping the internet free so that it could not be controlled in the future.

Seems a simple concept. Get it?

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:21 PM

Wull, I guess the question is: how ya gonna do that without censorship and oppression? How ya gonna outlaw tv without outlawing tv? And, by the way, the content IS moving to a medium that is less easily controlled! What you desire to happen IS PRECISELY what's happening!

Anthony has, as far as I can tell, objected not to your goals but to your methods (trouble arises, because to an Anarchist/libertarian the methods of oppression are generally understood to BE the goals of oppression--the pretext for the oppression being secondary, changeable). This is always the problem, it seems. How are we gonna reach a better world? By the same means that landed us here in the first place? By blaming and violating an enemy? By treating the bad guys the way they've treated us? That's just a vicious cycle, Signy.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:25 PM

First of all... the internet.

It CAN be controlled. In fact, it IS controlled and governments and corporations are moving forward to control it even further. The internet needs to be placed squarely in the legal realm of a vital public service.

Oh crap, I'm out of time.

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 5, 2013 11:52 PM

To my understanding--correct me if I'm wrong--internet control is always limited by political boundaries, by government's control of physical hardware, and political boundaries mean very little to wifi. If government takes control of your device, get a new device--you can prolly buy one over the internet!

As long as we avoid one world government, there will always be a free internet. And no government, even the one world variety, can control technology when technology is getting cheaper and more available my the minute.

Signy, your thinking on this really seems to be trapped in the 20th Century. The Age of Dictators is over. Big Brother may still have a whole lot of fight left in him, but he's lost the war.

Sorry you ran out of time. Thanks for continuing the conversation when you can.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 6, 2013 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The Age of Dictators is over. Big Brother may still have a whole lot of fight left in him, but he's lost the war.

Tell that to the victims of drone attacks.
Sorry HK, but I see things getting a bit worse before they get substantively better...
Oh crap. My computer tells me this thread's been red flagged.
SEE!!!?!?!??

Re-routing to tertiary diverting IP

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, January 6, 2013 12:30 AM

Chris. You and Signy with your "Stop thinking because people are dying!" argument changes nothing. I never said that because dictatorship is a moribund social institution all war and all oppression will end. I was saying that no one is gonna do away with the internet!

And, okay, so people are dying from drone attacks. What's your solution? That's what pisses me off about the "people are dying!" argument. People are always dying. What does that have to do with the ACTUAL DISCUSSION at hand?

Cynicism is the easiest, most disempowered worldview, man. It helps no one. Try a little optimism, try to find meaning and progress in the world and help it along and you might live a little longer.

I'm sorry, Chris, it's just this whole "PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!" thing is so facile and so condescending and so completely designed to shut down the conversation.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:11 AM

Frem long post, can't say I understood it all, but I am having a crack at replying anyway. Scusi if I misrepresent your argument.

I was in near violent disagreement with you, until this bit -

"Bear in mind here than when I use the words self-defense and resistance I am not limiting that to any particular option (unlike some pinheads which oughta know better) but rather encompassing an entire RANGE of them, from a simple words like "No!" to negotiation, psychological manipulation, exploitation of perceived authority, running like hell (always a good option), anything and everything which could possibly throw a monkeywrench in the plans of an aggressor - and yes sadly that does in extremis include the option of blowing a hole in them, but it's a damned poor solution to most problems due to a combination of both the vilification and the outright stupidity of some who resort to it. "

I guess then you and I agree on the kinds of actions that can be taken, but I don't know if I see your conspiracy to respress. More I see a mindset that includes a lot of people here on these boards - that you meet violence with more violence, that we should all be poised ready and alert for danger, hand on the trigger.

I'd hope that for most of us in our lives we don't have that many instances of being under threat. I can only assume that some of us live in places that are more dangerous than other.

I believe almost the exact opposite to you. Rather than being prevented from defending ourselves, we are programmed to live in fear. fear is a great distractor, especially if we point the finger at the *other* as being the cause of our fear.

It's the Muslims, Soviets, Socialists, Black People, Yellow People, illegal immigrants........

Our fear makes us stupid, do stupid things. Get involved in stupid wars and commit acts of atrocity in the name of freedom. It makes us cling to outdated ideas - ie that personally owning a gun will somehow make a government accountable????? It makes us jingoistic and narrow minded.

I have seen politicans and corpotations use fear. it's the main tool of admen, preying, playing up our fear of failure, of death, being unlovable.

I think we can defend ourselves okay. I just think we live like prey herds on a prairie, all primed up and ready for a bigcat strike, when really we are nobodies prey.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:25 AM

Quote:

It's the Muslims, Soviets, Socialists, Black People, Yellow People, illegal immigrants........

Our fear makes us stupid, do stupid things. Get involved in stupid wars and commit acts of atrocity in the name of freedom. It makes us cling to outdated ideas - ie that personally owning a gun will somehow make a government accountable????? It makes us jingoistic and narrow minded.

You might notice that those here you are addressing, who are against gun control, are also very against fearmongering, nationalistic stupidity, and equally brainless wars.

Your jingoism applies to some of them. Not all of them.

Fingerpointing fearmongering is bad. Fear itself lets you know something is wrong, deep down in that place few of us venture in our waking hours. It's not paranoia - if you're right.

If you do not have reason to fear, then you may well feel fortune that you live in a comforting and free society. Some of us do not have that option.

You do not tell us what we should feel. Just as I do not tell you.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:

It's the Muslims, Soviets, Socialists, Black People, Yellow People, illegal immigrants........

Our fear makes us stupid, do stupid things. Get involved in stupid wars and commit acts of atrocity in the name of freedom. It makes us cling to outdated ideas - ie that personally owning a gun will somehow make a government accountable????? It makes us jingoistic and narrow minded.

You might notice that those here you are addressing, who are against gun control, are also very against fearmongering, nationalistic stupidity, and equally brainless wars.

Your jingoism applies to some of them. Not all of them.

Fingerpointing fearmongering is bad. Fear itself lets you know something is wrong, deep down in that place few of us venture in our waking hours. It's not paranoia - if you're right.

If you do not have reason to fear, then you may well feel fortune that you live in a comforting and free society. Some of us do not have that option.

You do not tell us what we should feel. Just as I do not tell you.

I used the term 'we', you'll find. Not fingerpointing, but discussing what I see as being a prevalent tactic of government and corporations (and organisations such as the NRA) to distract us from the real issues.

I can give you an example from where I live. Boat people. Much as you have issues with illegal immigrants, we have them with boat people arriving from various warpits of the world.

The amount of fear generated by politicans, one in particular that will mean nothing to anyone here, to distract from a whole range of more relevant issues. They've equated these boats as being an invasion force, of the people smugglers as being the worst human beings in the whole world. When frankly, its a non issue. The world is in part a crappy place, people will try to flee. Some people will pose as asylum seekers and not be genuine. But it makes little difference to me whether they arrive or not, and they will as long as the world is full of inequality. But I can;t tell you how much media space, how much parliament space is taken up with this subject.

So I think we have to question our fear to see whether it is based in any likely reality. Because while we live in fear our brains don't funtion to their full cognitive level and there are those who choose to take advantage of that.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, January 6, 2013 8:35 AM

And I am trying to politely hint that while false fears created by propaganda exist, there are also other fears with a more solid basis.

Don't be so quick to dismiss fear. It's part of being human. We wouldn't have survived nearly this long as a species without it.

Unless, as part of this lesson you are attempting to teach us, you are prepared to abandon fears about global warming. Perhaps you believe our species might survive without that fear?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:28 AM

I am no way suggesting that anyone abandon any emotion. All of them have their purpose and their uses and are necessary, at times for survival.

I am indeed talking about the use of falsely manipulated fear for political and or commercial reasons and am suggesting in a cautionary manner that we each consider in what ways we are being manipulated to be fearful, and whether those fears are really justified.

Fear is intended to motivate quick action. It is supposed to be a short, sharp emotion, not to be lived with for extended periods of time. The impact humans emotionally, psychologically and physically when they live with fear for extended periods of time is dramatic and harmful and probably can account for at least some of the mental health problems experienced enmasse in western societies.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 6, 2013 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

Cynicism is the easiest, most disempowered worldview, man. It helps no one. Try a little optimism, try to find meaning and progress in the world and help it along and you might live a little longer.

Nothing really changes.
Major Nelson once asked Jeannie if she could fill the Sahara desert with water to make it arable, she said she could, but it would cause droughts elsewhere.
And that's the way things go; fix one problem, another appears to take its place.
No, the internet won't be swept away, just twisted, regulated, monitored, and ultimately used for societal control & monetary gain for them that are already rich. At this moment (on the internet) we are freer than we will ever be again. Avarice, greed & the general need to frack up anything that works as is will chip away at an increasing pace. It's a forever war.

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."
"Yeah, major bummer."

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 6, 2013 5:44 PM

Quote:
Chris. You and Signy with your "Stop thinking because people are dying!"

HKC... My first response was to the word "envy" bc frankly, I stopped reading there. There are many problems one can solve by framing them as emotions, but the problem of sociopaths controlling the world isn't one of them.

On further reading, you went about where I thought you would- "Be the change you wish to see". In using the opponent's tactics, you risk becoming the same thing. War is a poor tool of peace. Etc. Please let me know of I'm off the mark in my restatement.

Well, I don't think I'm proposing any such thing. But here is a question that you, FREM, and TONY need to answer for yourselves: Are democracy and free speech impositions? Is prohibiting the monopolization of the lines of communication a tyranny? Are ALL rules harmful?

Ultimately I see that there are rules that even the most peaceable and equitable societies impose, if only that most agree that self-centered people must not rule society for their exclusive benefit. That's a rule, right? And there must be at least one effective consequence, if the consequences is only banishment. So I think I understand your viewpoint, but in taking it to its logical extreme it stops making sense. Thinking that you can achieve a good society by eliminating ALL rules doesn't address the economic dynamics that we have set up... eg. very fine division of labor, large-scale economic integration, and exchange-at-a-distance. Those particular dynamics make it very easy for the sociopath to operate undetected and completely outside of the realm of individual response.

Also, it doesn't address the fact that we are ALREADY living under a set of rules imposed on us and not for our benefit.

Think of society as like a body... more than individual cells. While each cell carries out the same basic operations, each cell also has a specialized function. There are (or should be) limits to any cell's acquisition of resources and growth, otherwise you have a cancer. The consequences are brought about by the immune system.

The question for me isn't whether there should be rules or not. My view that society is like an organism makes it clear that there are rules that must be followed or the organism fails. The question for ME is... what are the least number of rules, and who implements them, which has the highest chance of being self-sustaining and impervious to corruption. For example, it's pretty clear that democracy was a good idea, but it became corrupted pretty quickly when another source of power (economic power, as opposed to political power) took over.

1KIKI

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:01 PM

"And that's the way things go; fix one problem, another appears to take its place."

Well, life is an endless series of problems that must be solved over and over - getting water, getting food, staying warm ... etc - or life ends. What do you propose as the solution to end all problems - death?

Anyway, in that response I see the American inability to imagine anything better. But hard as it is to imagine, there are whole countries where the people are healthier, happier, more peaceable, better housed, better educated, better fed. Of course one can't fix all problems permanently and make paradise on earth. But there are better choices and worse choices. Why not choose the better?

BYTEMITE

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:05 PM

Depends on what the pros and cons are. Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.

1KIKI

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:21 PM

Then you have to look at the result. For example, looking at the US economic system which is SUPPOSED to be superior, does it produce a superior result compared to other countries?

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:38 PM

Quote:
Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.

Like cable TV and iPhones?

As my hubby likes to say "Unexamined convenience is the road to extinction."

BYTEMITE

Sunday, January 6, 2013 7:49 PM

Results are precisely what I'm talking about. You ask me about existing countries, I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries. Particularly I know you support a mixed economy, whereas I think there are too many strings attached, so I'm a big believer in micro-economies.

Sig: Kinda? Both have their problems, true, and are instrumental in dividing people, isolating people. I'd actually argue the pros for them outweigh the cons though.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 6, 2013 8:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Anyway, in that response I see the American inability to imagine anything better.

I can imagine a whole lot better, but I live in a country where OJ Simpson can get away with murdering his Wife & I can't beat a bulls**t traffic ticket. The difference is money. It can solve problems, but in acquiring it, create just as many more.
Truth fades before the allmighty Dollar; justice fears it. Individuals and institutions kill for it.

Like I said, nothing ever really changes. Except the window dressing.

1KIKI

Sunday, January 6, 2013 8:59 PM

"... I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries ..."

Well, when I say look at the results, I mean tangible, measurable results. Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer? Do more people have an effect on how the society is run, or fewer?

As I see it, there are all sorts of 'isms', both social and personal, which seek to abolish some things and enforce others - mostly based on some theoretical notion of how things 'should' be. And frequently compliance is based on an as yet undemonstrated result - If you do this and don't so that you will get to heaven. If you do this and don't do that it will create a bountiful society for the productive. If you do this and don't do that everyone will be perfectly free. And so on. Those 'isms' I think of as religion b/c they are based on unproven beliefs.

So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.

The reason why I think things are so fucked up at the moment - and they are fucked up, we are facing environmental collapse the like of which will put any minor economic problem like the Great Depression into perspective - is b/c people are putting their hope in 'isms' rather than demanding results which benefit THEM directly.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.

How much will it cost? What is the profit margin? How much can be skimmed? And so on.

Cynicism would be saying we are all doomed. But we aren't. You don't doom your servants, you control them. It's an endless push & pull is all.

1KIKI

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:24 PM

Then I must be cynical, b/c I think while we aren't ALL doomed, the vast majority already is. I'd been thinking that environmental collapse would be gradual, but I see accelerating changes. And some scientists think the system could become unlivably unstable in as short a span as 5 or 10 years. Not that it will happen in the next 5 to 10 years (though it might) but that when it does happen it will be faster than most people think. And the belief people have in their 'isms' will keep them marching till we go right over the cliff. So, uhm, my current thinking is ...

Always have an exit plan.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:28 PM

Quote:
Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer?

Yes, money determines nutritious diets and education and health care. The systems you argue for still seem to have people who are richer than other people, and therefore who live more healthy and are more educated. I see those countries and think that their strings outweigh the effectiveness of their solutions.

I think we may need our own solution. Even those countries with national health care didn't wholesale copy each other.

Quote:
Always have an exit plan.

I agree with this.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"... I don't actually like any of the systems of existing countries ..."

Well, when I say look at the results, I mean tangible, measurable results. Do more people have nutritious diets, or fewer? Do more people have better health, or fewer? Do more people have an effect on how the society is run, or fewer?

As I see it, there are all sorts of 'isms', both social and personal, which seek to abolish some things and enforce others - mostly based on some theoretical notion of how things 'should' be. And frequently compliance is based on an as yet undemonstrated result - If you do this and don't so that you will get to heaven. If you do this and don't do that it will create a bountiful society for the productive. If you do this and don't do that everyone will be perfectly free. And so on. Those 'isms' I think of as religion b/c they are based on unproven beliefs.

So I propose a society based on actions and measurable results rather than religious 'isms'. Do you want more people to have nutritious, wholesome diets? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? Do you want better educated children? Which countries achieve that? How do they do it? How can we implement that? And so on.

Interesting, Ikiki. What you are proposing is something I see few Americans ever suggest, look to see what others are doing elsewhere, see what works, what can be adapted, and which bits you might be able to do. That would seem to be a self evident place to start.

And then I see Byte's response, which is, why bother looking elsewhere, all those systems suck.

It seems kinds of pervasive attitude that the rest of the world is a basketcase and only the US is capable of coming up with any answers. Makes for a certain degree of isolationism, which is probably not helpful.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:48 PM

While I have issues with the systems elsewhere, my problem is they simply won't translate here. Any attempt we make to have a national health care system, which is something that I'd actually like, would inevitably be subverted as a massive gimmee to the insurance companies.

So until we wreck the insurance companies and the stranglehold big business has on this country, it's a futile effort. Adding in government isn't going to help, because government is currently in their pocket.

The way I see it, in order to fix the system, we have to strike at the massive amount of power and stake that various entities have in it. And it can't be one or the other, it has to be both, simultaneously. That is why both the anti-government conservatives and anti big-business liberals parallel my objectives.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:55 PM

I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore! - ?

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 7, 2013 12:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
While I have issues with the systems elsewhere, my problem is they simply won't translate here. Any attempt we make to have a national health care system, which is something that I'd actually like, would inevitably be subverted as a massive gimmee to the insurance companies.

So until we wreck the insurance companies and the stranglehold big business has on this country, it's a futile effort. Adding in government isn't going to help, because government is currently in their pocket.

The way I see it, in order to fix the system, we have to strike at the massive amount of power and stake that various entities have in it. And it can't be one or the other, it has to be both, simultaneously. That is why both the anti-government conservatives and anti big-business liberals parallel my objectives.

How do you know it wouldn't work any better in the US? Do you think you are the only society in the world where government is in bed with big business? Isn't a public health system with flaws better than none at all. I'd say yes, because that is what we have.

The only way you can envisage change is with some monumental restructure of power? How is that going to happen? It's a classic case of entrenched helplessness. The only way any change is possible is when some other monumental change takes place. "I'll be happy when I lose 20 kilos" "I'll do what I want with my life when I win the lottery".

No system is perfect. No system is capable of being perfect. As Ikiki says, life sets us a series of problems and you have to work out how best to resolve them, and when one set gets resolved a whole new set will appear. That is life.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 7, 2013 12:30 AM

Hmm. In fairness, I suppose that my argument against national health care is rather like Sig's argument against the subversion of arts.

So in that case, I guess I object to both not having it as well as forcing mandatory participation.

Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.

Now imagine there are laws passed that citizens have to get insurance, but there are only a few providers.

I concede that maybe you're right and we should try to have both art and national health care, but participation can not be mandatory in order to maintain any kind of claim about societal freedom.

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 7, 2013 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

No system is perfect. No system is capable of being perfect.

Bruce Lee's system of martial arts was perfect. Applied to other fields it would improve them greatly, but it would require a dropping of ego & dogma, and a sincere exploration of what works vs. what doesn't. This would disturb established norms, accepted conventions, and entrenched idiocy- in short, it would disrupt the flow of MONEY, and that is not acceptable in the United Society of Affluence (USA).

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 7, 2013 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.

Not hard to imagine at all.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 7, 2013 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hmm. In fairness, I suppose that my argument against national health care is rather like Sig's argument against the subversion of arts.

So in that case, I guess I object to both not having it as well as forcing mandatory participation.

Can you imagine, if there were laws passed that said citizens had to watch certain political speeches/conventions/debates, under the umbrella of claiming that watching is necessary for citizen action in society, but then only a few points of view get shown? So it becomes a vector for one group or another to profit immensely from it.

Now imagine there are laws passed that citizens have to get insurance, but there are only a few providers.

I concede that maybe you're right and we should try to have both art and national health care, but participation can not be mandatory in order to maintain any kind of claim about societal freedom.

Frankly, Byte, a lot of guff is talked about societal freedom, which generally means looking at things in absolutes.

No one single person on this planet is totally free. All of us have things which bind us, things we must participate in, be it certain laws, taxation, systems of governance, family obligations, cultural imperatives.

Most people in western societies live in a kind of financial servitude, locked into mortgages and jobs and insurance obligations, and in reality have bugger all freedom.

IF you move away from absolutes, from the dogma, you can start looking at solutions. I don't know enough about your health care system to argue it one way or another, and having compulsory insurance sounds pretty stupid to me, but a national health care system by its very nature will have to cover everyone. So somehow, whether by tax or a levy or insurance, everyone will have to participate.

In the end absence of decent healthcare for everyone doesn't seem more free to me. Just seems unfair.

CHRISISALL

Monday, January 7, 2013 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
a national health care system by its very nature will have to cover everyone. So somehow, whether by tax or a levy or insurance, everyone will have to participate.

Our taxes fix roads, but our taxes don't fix people.
Kinda tells what's important here, eh?

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 7, 2013 3:53 AM

As I've said, I like national health care, but I'm concerned how it might be implemented here. I don't think the horror stories about death panels are remotely true, but it is clear to me that the national health care idea we came up with is to force everyone over 26 to buy mandatory insurance through their employment. If they can't afford the regular insurance programs or they are unemployed, there's a reduced cost coverage they can buy from so-called called "health care exchanges"... That cover bugger-all. And if you can't afford those, IF you qualify for medicare and medicaid, you get federal health care coverage... that doesn't even cover contraceptives and birthcontrol.

Quote:
IF you move away from absolutes, from the dogma, you can start looking at solutions.

WHAT dogma? The only one here I see speaking in absolutes is you. No one is free? And we can do nothing about this, I suppose? I tell you what doesn't help create freedom, creating more restrictions, more drain on poor families.

You think, oh yay, they've got national health care! But what we have is a lot of profits for insurance companies and still no real coverage for the at risk groups. What we have is still a major wealth gap for different groups of society, created by cost of living issues that fall the most heavily on the poor, unemployed, and self-employed. And we keep piling that cost of living expenses higher on them until they're buried.

The only good thing about the law is that they set rate caps and made it much harder for insurance companies to reject a claim... But if you think the insurance companies won't find loopholes, you're going to be disappointed.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 7, 2013 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
As I've said, I like national health care, but I'm concerned how it might be implemented here. I don't think the horror stories about death panels are remotely true, but it is clear to me that the national health care idea we came up with is to force everyone over 26 to buy mandatory insurance through their employment. If they can't afford the regular insurance programs or they are unemployed, there's a reduced cost coverage they can buy from so-called called "health care exchanges"... That cover bugger-all. And if you can't afford those, IF you qualify for medicare and medicaid, you get federal health care coverage... that doesn't even cover contraceptives and birthcontrol.

I'm really not in a position to discuss the ins and outs of your proposed health care system, so I can't possibly comment. I guess how this started was that you had disputed Ikiki's proposal to look elsewhere to see what works, which you disputed claiming that you didn't like other systems. I can't see how your disappointment in the proposed health care system supports your argument. Did Americans actually look to leading systems of health care to see how they worked before coming up with some options? It doesn't appear so.

Quote:

WHAT dogma? The only one here I see speaking in absolutes is you.

That is not my intention. I don't *feel* like I speak in absolutes. I feel like i talk a lot about compromises.

Quote:

No one is free? And we can do nothing about this, I suppose? I tell you what doesn't help create freedom, creating more restrictions, more drain on poor families.

No one is totally free. And yes, I think that absoulute freedom is a myth.

You think that governments are the only hindrance to people's freedoms? DO you think poverty = freedom. Ill health = freedom. You don't think people are restricted by inequality, by social structures that keep them living in poverty. You don't think private corporations have ever restricted people's freedom?

Your the one that speaks in absolutes because you see, as many Americans aparantly do, that a public health system = infringement on liberty. And don't say you support public health that doesn't cover everyone, because that if you can choose to opt in or out, that makes it a private health system.

If having a public health system is such a socialist/freedom reducing construct then why don't people opt out of public education funding? Why can't you choose whether or not you want to pay for roads with your taxes? Or the military?

Quote:
You think, oh yay, they've got national health care! But what we have is a lot of profits for insurance companies and still no real coverage for the at risk groups. What we have is still a major wealth gap for different groups of society, created by cost of living issues that fall the most heavily on the poor, unemployed, and self-employed. And we keep piling that cost of living expenses higher on them until they're buried.

The only good thing about the law is that they set rate caps and made it much harder for insurance companies to reject a claim... But if you think the insurance companies won't find loopholes, you're going to be disappointed.

Yeah, well again can't comment on the effectiveness of your system.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 7, 2013 2:59 PM

Quote:
Did Americans actually look to leading systems of health care to see how they worked before coming up with some options? It doesn't appear so.

We did. The problem is, THIS is the only shit that can get passed here. That's the point I'm trying to make. Until something fundamentally changes within the American system itself, any improvements we try to make to the system end up subverted and potentially making things worse.

So saying we need to look to other systems is way more problematic than you realize.

Quote:
You think that governments are the only hindrance to people's freedoms?

Okay, so now we're going to strawman me. Yeah, I think GOVERNMENT is the only hindrance when I've been saying ALL ALONG that all the big corporations are a threat as well and that there's real problems in this society created by the wealth gap. That's an INTERESTING interpretation.

You know, I've actually been trying to not attack socialism, if you guys want that, you can implement that where you live and it doesn't affect me whatsoever. I could not give less of a damn. It's not a system I personally want to live under, because I see strings attached, but this is a big damn world and I can move somewhere completely remote, where enforcement of any law would be a joke, or I could become a vagrant as I care nothing for your creature comforts. It's not even a problem for me to move - hell, it's my contingency plan ready to go anytime.

What does PISS ME OFF though is when you all decide that I'm attacking socialism and then you start making WILD claims about what I believe that aren't remotely true so you can discredit me. Like how you assumed I was against national health care, or how you think I think government is the only danger to our society. I'm against bullshit private insurance company based "national health care systems".

I actually wouldn't have a problem paying taxes for a national health care system, like I don't have a problem paying taxes so my grandmother can get her medicare and social security. I spend so little money as it is that it doesn't even matter to me, and while it chafes somewhat to know that those systems will be broken well before I can benefit, I don't intend to live that long anyway. What I have a PROBLEM with is paying money to goddamn greedy insurance middlemen, and a government that gives them FREEBIES, forcing me to PAY THOSE ASSHOLES without my having any say in the matter. Forcing poor families and the self-employed to pay insurance companies more than they would have to pay in an adjusted tax pool for a national health care system.

This is a complicated world, the arguments are complicated, the problems are complicated, the solutions are complicated, and the people are complicated. So don't tell me to look to others because they know better, can do better, or are just plain BETTER than me, and don't tell me what *I* think or feel. You clearly don't KNOW what I think or feel even after five years of familiarity.

And frankly, that's incredibly disappointing.

In retrospect, this argument has nothing to do with blaming victims of assault and violence. Are we doing anything here at this point anymore except attacking each other for various long-standing political disputes and mischaracterizing each other? If so I have no further interest.

SIGNYM

Monday, January 7, 2013 5:26 PM

MAGONS RE PUBLIC HEALTH

Quote:
Did Americans actually look to leading systems of health care to see how they worked before coming up with some options? It doesn't appear so.

A consistent 60-65% of the American population supported the public option. It was yanked by Obama and Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats and replaced with.... what we have... because of strong insurance lobbying. "Americans" overall wanted something different, but the insurance companies wouldn't let it happen. This is just another example of our thoroughly corrupted government... hardly a day goes by that Congress and the President don't agree on something that the majority of Americans hate and fear.

BYTE has every right to be wary, and Chris every right to be cynical, because if there is one thing our current government has perfected 100%, it's the ability to take the crisis du jour and turn it into another torture for the American people. I cite NAFTA, the DOMA, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Patriot Act, Obamacare, the financial system collapse (rewarded with $17 trillion dollars, mostly off the books).... every time we face a crisis of some sort, the American people go thru the wringer and come out looking like hamburger.

SIGNYM

Monday, January 7, 2013 5:51 PM

BYTE

Quote:
Sometimes something that sounds good and easy has a lot of strings attached that makes it look less attractive.- BYTE

Like cable TV and iPhones? As my hubby likes to say " Unexamined convenience is the road to extinction." -SIGNY

Sig: Kinda? Both have their problems, true, and are instrumental in dividing people, isolating people. I'd actually argue the pros for them outweigh the cons though.-BYTEMITE

You seem to be responding to this as "cable tv and iphone or nothing?" In other words, your imagination seems to be following the pattern of choosing among what's presented on TV, versus... nothing. Can't you imagine better? This is what I meant by Americans being saturated in propaganda. The first thing that you are made to believe is that the only choices that you have are the only choices presented to you.

HKC, TONY, BYTE- Little story here on centralized media... before the election there was a groups of older reporters tackling the question of "why is the American political landscape so polarized?". They went mistily back to the old days, when everyone watched broadcast TV and everyone learned the same news at the same time from David Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. The national narrative, all from the same source and all at the same time. And then they went on to contrast cable news, and the internet and being some horrible divisive force, and I kept thinking.... But... but that's a GOOD thing!. It struck me that centralized broadcasting is a very successful medium of social control. That is the basis for eliminating one-way communication... ie. when the listener is unable to respond to the broadcast.

HKC You think the inet is free? It is hostage to a series of interlocking corporate and government controls. The NSA already has spliced into every backbone internet server operated by the main telecoms. A 30-year veteran of the NSA-turned whistleblower just came out several months ago to tell us all that the NSA ALREADY collects every email every written by everyone on the USA.

Quote:
'Everyone in US under virtual surveillance' - NSA whistleblower

http://rt.com/usa/news/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/
Everything you post on LinkedIn, on Instagram, FB, on ANY of these websites becomes their property. Your prize photos? Theirs. Your thoughts on building a better fusion-powered reactor? Theirs. All of your google searches, your FB entries, your Amazon purchases, your bank transactions? Bagged and tagged, to go to that great database in the cloud which anyone with any money or a warrant can and will mine for THEIR interests, not yours.

Use Apple products??? Well, aside from the fact that you must absolutely run ONLY Apple products, they have all of those nifty little apps that keep track of where your phone is ever second of the day. Apple, MSoft, AT&T, Verizon... my god, they can't wait to hand over your data to the FBI and "fusion centers" to see if you're planning to demonstrate or are illegally downloading copyrighted material.

Quote:
The document – reproduced here in an easily searchable format – shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: in some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council. And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally planned, locally executed mission... to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens [who were protesting banks].

The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, January 7, 2013 6:20 PM

Magons

Yeah, that's the rub, I see "Self-Defense" as a huge range of options rather than holding to a ridiculously narrow viewpoint and interpretation, words are a hell of a lot cheaper than bullets, although in some cases they can be damn near as harmful.
(See Also: Abuse victims)

This bit stood out though, cause I wanna refine the point here.

Quote:
but I don't know if I see your conspiracy to respress...

As I am fond of pointing out to PN and others, there's never any great grand single conspiracy, what you get is a bunch of little ones all mixed in with personal agendas, office politics, incompetence, fingerpointing, blamestorming and fearmongering, which is generally not even half as effective as the folks involved wish it was - however sometimes they get that push anyway by sheer weight of collective effort regardless of how incompetent their execution, the social version of a brute force attack.

Example - you see a bunch of crabs walking in lockstep on a beach, you could take that for evidence of a hivemind, but it's not, it is that their limited worldview, primitive cognitive, and reflex response causes them to all react in much the same fashion to the same stimulus.
This is actually a weakpoint of the powers that be, and the foundation of follow-the-money, strike-the-money tactics, given that avarice and greed for power breed extremely predictable responses.

And while not so much a great, grand overwhelming one, there's ALWAYS been some level of conspiracy in american media, here's some cases in point for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

The latter is why american comics are generally considered garbage even today, having been used as a propaganda engine ever since their inception (which hasn't at all stopped, See Also: Civil War) and plagued by generally awful writing as within the CCA there wasn't room to tell decent stories.
Sadly that ain't improved much...

Then there was the PMRC, one of the reasons I would not have voted for Al Gore, cause the notion of him and especially his wife having the position and power to try to force their moral standards on us gave me the wiggies - although Ashcroft under Bush did about the same bullshit, it just mostly went unnoticed under worse abuses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
If you can find it, the video of Dee Snyder from Twisted Sister handing Al Gore his ass on the Senate Floor is downright epic, cause they made the *dire* mistake of taking him for an idiot.
He's not.

But what really shows some of the sad underbelly of this, and how deliberate it was, is some stuff from Mark Evanier.
Link 1: http://www.newsfromme.com/archives/2008_12_11.html#016337

Quote:
TV networks, because they reach so many people, are always being sued and/or protested, often over things you could never imagine would create problems. Most of the time, the network position is defensible and the outrage falls into the "nuisance" category...but even nuisance suits and protests can be a nuisance. And expensive to defend against. In kids' television, the stakes seem higher. A protester yelling, "This show is poisoning our children" will usually get more traction than someone bitching about a show for general audiences. The sponsors of kidvid are especially frail and known to atomize over very little negative feedback.

Censorship of broadcast television has declined greatly in the era of HBO, Showtime and DVDs...but in the early eighties, if you were creating a show for CBS, NBC or ABC you usually found yourself in the following dilemma. You had to please the Programming People who bought the show and prayed for ratings. They wanted your program to be edgy and sexy and full of action and excitement. And then you had to please the Standards and Practices People. They wanted your show to be nice and quiet and non-controversial. The two divisions rarely spoke with one a

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 7, 2013 6:22 PM

Quote:
You seem to be responding to this as "cable tv and iphone or nothing ?" In other words, your imagination seems to be following the pattern of choosing among what's presented on TV, versus... nothing. Can't you imagine better? This is what I meant by Americans being saturated in propaganda. The first thing that you are made to believe is that the only choices that you have are the only choices presented to you.

Actually no, that's still in line with my "if we have lots of media sources it'll spread them too thin to control everything" argument.

It's like how all hackers target internet explorer for the most part because it's the most ubiquitous program. But while they're distracted with that, people using more obscure programs can avoid a lot of the damage and fallout.

I don't want cable tv or nothing, I want cable tv and everything.

SIGNYM

Monday, January 7, 2013 6:50 PM

FINAL THOUGHT FOR A WHILE... I've been on vacation, it's the first proper vacation that I've taken in over 20 years, and part of my enjoyment was coming here and yakking with you guys. (Also, I dug the bermuda grass out of my garden.... again.... and am going to invest in a durable root barrier. But that's another story.

--------------

I mentioned that I thought society was like an organism, and I would like to expand on that idea and see if it leads to any further thoughts at your end.

When societies begin with very few members, those members are necessarily rather unspecialized. Everyone does everything. The units are more-or-less undifferentiated, except that some are younger and less capable, and some are capable of budding and others are not. (This puts a little kink into the relationships between these units.) As these units grow numerically and form a larger organism, the individual units themselves cannot absorb water and nutrients directly, they must be brought, so certain units form food-and-water-gathering/transportation structures, while certain other units form waste-excreting structures. Movement thru the environment improves the chances of finding food, so some units propel or extend the organism along. Remembering where one has been and what has been encountered (whether good or bad) also improves the chances for survival, so sensory, memory and response units become feature of the whole. Defense against internal invaders is useful... defensive units develop. There are also defensive units which fight internal renegades.

This could describe an embryo, a beehive, or a society. To analogize societies even further, what could cause a society to collapse?

Well, like all living creatures it could collapse due to environmental catastrophe... the 500-year drought, the cataclysmic volcano. It could use up all of its local resources and die. It could collapse due to all kinds of internal failures... memory failure, internal signalling failure. It could develop a cancer... a portion of the organism which grows beyond the bounds of utility and into the realm of fatal parasitism.

But unlike the organism on which society is modeled, society does not have to remain in its mature form. A lion can become a cow, or a hydra. As far as death is concerned, many societies have atomized so completely that little is known of them today... necrotic failure. But others broke down into smaller semi-independent and still-surviving units... apoptosis.

The ability of society to survive either internal changes or environmental challenges is the ability of the fundamental algorithms to adapt to new circumstances... to change themselves.

I'm going to go back to that paper I mentioned before: The Algorithmic Origins of Life . I think the concept can be applied not only to cellular life, but also electronic life and organizational life.

The Algorithmic Origins of Life
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4803

RIONAEIRE

Monday, January 7, 2013 7:29 PM

Note that no one is even trying to change my mind about TV, because everyone knows that I ain't changin my mind.

Signe, I'm glad you got some time off work and had a relaxing time. But I'm sorry you didn't get to go somewhere, maybe you went to the ocean or something for a few days in there somewhere? I hope so.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:35 PM

FREM: ALL societies have an "or else" in them. You sat around while others sowed, reaped and thrashed? You don't get to eat. You broke what it took many people weeks to build or make? You have to go away. The Constitutional Amendments? Those are rules. Treat others as you wish to be treated? The Golden Rule. Even your beloved "self defense" supports certain rules. The idea of there being a society which has no rules and no "or else" is ludicrous. Rather than talk about things which could not exist and SHOULD not exist, let's talk about which rules and which "or else's" are likely to create the kind of society we want.

On the media: My original proposal (which I will reiterate for roughly the 7th time) was not to ban content, but to simply eliminate one kind of transmission and to ensure that the remaining form(s) were free. The kind of transmission I would ban is the one-way kind. As a rough outline, I would suggest that everyone who has a portal pays a fee (for repairs, expansions and upgrades) that upload and download speeds be symmetric, that the physical backbone be replicated for truly un-interruptable service, and that all transmitted content not be protected by copyright. Part of the problem with our current setup is that we're still operating on the backbone of the old AT&T monopoly... because whatever service provider your think you have, if you have transmission problems the finger will eventually be pointed back to AT&T or Verizon, or Time Warner. (And if you go back far enough, you'll STILL wind up at AT&T or Verizon servers)

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:50 PM

Quote:
FREM: ALL societies have an "or else" in them. You sat around while others sowed, reaped and thrashed? You don't get to eat. You broke what it took many people weeks to build or make? You have to go away. The idea of there being a society which has no "or else" is ludicrous. The Constitutional Amendments? Those are rules. Even your beloved "self defense" is based on rules.

Waittaminute, that sounds like the words of someone who's ready to abandon society to go off and live in the woods on their own. Is it true, Sig? Have you become one of us?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:52 PM

NO, because (unlike you) I actually want to live in a society. I also recognize that rules are an important part of society. I'm willing to live with rules, as long as they promote the kind of society that I want.

BYTE, you have no idea what it's like to live without society. I don't mean "without company" I mean "Without society"... all the benefits of society... the food, utilities, the web... If you didn't have large groups of people playing by "the rules" and working cooperatively all of that would be gone. poof!

Yanno, in every population there are some who really really want to be by themselves. They're five standard deviations on from the norm... Hey. it's a dirty job but someone has to do it. Back in the old days they would be "mountain men" (not too many little women filling that role... too physically demanding, I guess) or "hermits" or - if they were wealthy enough' "recluses". Societies with sufficient surplus can tolerate deviations; and in THIS society it is even more possible to participate at arms-length. But society cannot tolerate EVERYONE behaving that way because certain forms of production are necessarily large-scale, requiring many people's immediate input. Also, at this point we have created enough problems for ourselves that... should we ever get to deciding to do something about them in realistic way, we will need large groups of people acting together. Not only that, most people don't WANT to be hermits. So the structures that you are likely to suggest based on your personal preference (again, several standard deviations from the norm) are likely to be impractical in the long run.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 6:07 PM

Riona- at this point, nothing relaxes me more than straightening out the hoarders nest that has become my house and my life!

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 6:26 PM

Um, sure I do. I go camping, multi-nights, don't really bother with a tent or sleeping bag. I hike up into and around the mountains. Sometimes it's cold, but I don't really mind the cold, I can pretty easily sleep in ten degree weather on the frozen ground. I know where to find berries and what mushrooms are edible, I'm learning how to make my own clothes out of natural materials, and frankly, if it doesn't work out, I can't think of a better way to go than to die out there, unknown, unmourned, but part of something that's actually real.

I guess I'd have to actually start eating meat though if I did that full time. Maybe fish. Lotsa fish.

The best possible non-vagrant future I can imagine for myself is to play in the system just a little longer, enough to secure some land for myself since for some reason this society thinks that you can "own" land. And then I'd build a shelter from society. Other fugitives could live there too, I don't really care too much.

Society is bogus though. It's not that I like the internet, I'm addicted to it - eats up all useful time. If I don't care about money, and I don't care about dying, and I don't care about luxuries or even basic comforts or my health, then society doesn't really mean anything to me. None of the problems people have, none of the differences people see between people, none of this is actually matters. People have convinced themselves they can trade an electrical impulse or wood pulp or stones from the earth among each other, and if you have a whole bunch of stones or wood pulp or electrical impulses you can buy weapons (instead of making your own?) and boss people around. That's society. Forgive me for thinking it's pretty much a massive joke on everyone.

I don't really care what society people chose, and I don't care what happens to that society, or what that society does, or having any say whatsoever in that society. I might care about the people within that society and what happens to them, but not enough to be part of it.

I'd ask you, like I asked Magons, not to tell me what I can think or feel. I never suggested my isolation as an option for society or for anyone but myself. I asked if you are beginning to think the same - you don't. Good for you.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I'd ask you, like I asked Magons, not to tell me what I can think or feel. I never suggested my isolation as an option for society or for anyone but myself. I asked if you are beginning to think the same - you don't. Good for you.

Excuse me, I never told you what to think or feel.

Sounds like you are a bit of a transendentalist, Byte. Loved On Walden Pond. Another was "My side of the mountain". Did you ever read it. Wonderful. Read it to my lad a few years ago, and we both wanted to go off and live in a tree hollow somewhere. Had an ancestor who did that. World authority on lyre birds, supposedly.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:56 PM

Quote:
Excuse me, I never told you what to think or feel.

It was in the implying that you don't think I can live outside society because I wouldn't like it. I can and do. But perhaps that was something you just didn't know about me.

Quote:
Sounds like you are a bit of a transendentalist, Byte.

I'm technically more of a cynic, but I'm actually not one for philosophers or their schools. They think they got things all figured out, but I don't think any of them do, and I've never been into the idea that happiness/virtue/meaning of life/whatever can be found by embracing someone else's ideas or methods. The only part of philosophy I ever use is the critical thinking lessons.

I guess that makes me kind of an intractable arrogant jackass. I'm kind of okay with that though.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:08 PM

er that wasn't me.

And I think Signy's point is a valid one. Individuals may be able to live on societies fringes, but that doesn't mean that society is superflous. For one person to live in their own cave is quite different to everyone doing it.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:24 PM

Magons. I did say I didn't think this was for everyone.

Whether or not people need the sense of control and support and rules that society gives them is up to them as individuals. But from what I've seen, more often than not, the support and society fails people. They fall through the cracks. Comfort in numbers, even though there are constant threats to health and safety and the numbers make no difference. It all seems illusory to me.

You can collect food and blankets and first aid for hurricane survivors, and that's good. But you can't stop the hurricane from coming ashore. Society is a reassurance, but ultimately it can't really protect anyone in the first place. Society often causes harm that it was meant to prevent, while promoting those who care to game it or who make the rules favour them.

RIONAEIRE

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:38 AM

If living off the land is what it takes to get Byte eating nonbegan again then I'm all for it! Plus some people are happiest that way, just being connected to the earth and I think that is beautiful and something special. I love survival novels, the more clichet tropes the better! I have no chance in the wild and when I was a younger woman, and an older girl, that made me very sad and upset, I could never be truely timeless, I was bound to this world and this modern way of life and that hurt me badly.

But since I've found ways to be timeless inside myself and except the reality I live in, because I have ways of escaping it for a little while and being anything I want to be, and having that way to be something good and beautiful makes real life more manageable and doable and even not so very bad, I can survive it now.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 8:41 PM

Back on track

Quote:
The lawyer representing three of the men charged with the gang rape and murder of a medical student aboard a moving bus in New Delhi has blamed the victims for the assault, saying he has never heard of a "respected lady" being raped in India.

Manohar Lal Sharma said his clients will plead not guilty to all charges tomorrow when they make their next court appearance. His comments come as Indians have reacted with outrage to the opinions of politicians and a religious preacher who have accused westernized women of inviting sexual assaults. Sharma said the male companion of the murdered 23-year-old was "wholly responsible" for the incident as the unmarried couple should not have been on the streets at night.

"Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady," Sharma said in an interview at a cafe outside the Supreme Court in India's capital. "Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect."

Sharma's comments highlight frequently aired attitudes toward women in India. Activists say reporting of sex crimes and police investigations of rape are hindered by a tendency to blame the victim for not following the traditional, conservative social roles ascribed to women.
Advertisement

"This is the mentality which most Indian men are suffering from unfortunately," said Ranjana Kumari, director for the New Delhi-based Centre for Social Research. "That is the mindset that has been perpetrating this crime because they justify it indirectly, you asked for it so it is your responsibility."

'Chant God's Name'

A spiritual guru, Asharam, sparked an outcry earlier this week when he said the New Delhi victim was equally responsible and should have "chanted God's name and fallen at the feet of the attackers" to stop the assault.

Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the pro-Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh that underpins the country's main opposition political party, said rapes only occur in Indian cities, not in its villages, because women there adopt western lifestyles.

Sharma said the man and woman should not have been traveling back late in the evening and making their journey on public transport. He also it was the man's responsibility to protect the woman and that he had failed in his duty.

"The man has broken the faith of the woman," Sharma said. "If a man fails to protect the woman, or she has a single doubt about his failure to protect her, the woman will never go with that man."

Sharma, 56, a Supreme Court lawyer for the last two decades, says that his clients are innocent.

Courtroom Chaos

"This is a very complicated case and the matter has not been solved yet," he said. Police have said they have DNA evidence linking all six to the crime.

Ram Singh, the driver of the bus and the alleged ringleader, is struggling to communicate and fluctuating between crying and laughing, Sharma said. Sharma, who has also been appointed to represent Singh's brother Mukesh and Akshay Kumar Singh, who is unrelated, plans to challenge police over their handling of the evidence.

Sharma's appointment comes after chaotic scenes on Jan. 7 that forced the magistrate to order a private hearing over concerns for the safety of the accused. Sharma was one of two lawyers denounced by other advocates for volunteering to represent the defendants. Arguments and scuffles over his offer led the magistrate to order the court room be cleared and future sessions to be held behind closed doors.

The gang rape of the woman on Dec. 16 provoked a sustained and charged debate about the safety of women in the world's biggest democracy. The brutality of the crime and allegations by a male friend of the victim that it took police 45 minutes to respond to calls outraged the nation.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:00 PM

Quote:
saying he has never heard of a "respected lady" being raped in India.

Quote:
said rapes only occur in Indian cities, not in its villages, because women there adopt western lifestyles.

One of your own female prime ministers was raped in a village. Repeatedly! And you dicks voted for her, guess she suddenly became respectable huh! Because it's not like she was respectable before, or deserved to be afforded any respect because she was a living PERSON!

Respect. I'll tell you fuckers who's gonna get no respect! You assholes stand by while someone who could be your sister, your wife, your mother gets raped, then you animals aren't even fucking HUMAN, and you deserve no respect from any of the rest of us! Fall on a funeral fire, maybe you'll get an APPRECIATION for how it feels to be one of your nation's women!

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:58 PM

BYTE: I wasn't taking at dig at you about living in civilization, I was being tongue-in-cheek about ME. I guess it didn't translate well. Old as I am, I enjoy not having to work brutally hard 12 hours a day (study of peasant and colonist bones here and in the EU indicate a short lifetime of unremitting toil, starting at the age of 5.) and I like the idea of modern medicine and modern plumbing.

FREM, HKC, TONY... You guys still haven't accepted the fact that even YOUR ideal societies have rules, and you still haven't figured out how to make them durable and less corruptable.

FREM: Raise them right, and everybody will turn out OK. But what if they don't, and what if they don't? Your answer is the monkeysphere but I got news for you... our society is no longer a monkeysphere, and some of our biggest robber barons are very personable. Your suggestion is too primitive.

TONY I include you because you're our favorite libertarian. In YOUR world, there are only two "valid" responses... shooting someone, and individual market response. If you can't fix it using your wallet or your gun, it can't be fixed. Your adherence to "individualism" as the basis of "freedom" is unrealistic. Even our FF realized that in order to create freedom, they HAD to create rules.

HKC: You answer is individual adjustment to the situation, so again, YOUR "rules" rule out other responses which may be more effective.

Yanno, I'm trying to look at this from the broadest possible perspective... freedom might need a structure which promotes it, and that it MAY require some sort of collective and (in a society which is economically integrated over a wide range) relatively impersonal rules. You seem to keep pushing the idea that we're back in the late 1700's and that we can handle things at the individual/ family/ village level. I obviously don't think that will work. Society is NOT just the average response of individuals. If it were, we would never be in the mess we are today. Since this seems to be an area in which people are not looking beyond what they already feel comfortable with, I'll just push on by myself. Thanks for the input.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 14, 2013 4:04 PM

Quote:
You guys still haven't accepted the fact that even YOUR ideal societies have rules, and you still haven't figured out how to make them durable and less corruptable.

I'd argue Frem, HK, and Anthony are all for rules - they particularly like the ones about what the government can't do to it's citizens.

Corruption is an abuse of power. The less consolidated power there is, the less impact any corruption can have, and the easier it is to depose.

In fairness it's likely that business entities in our current system are not democratic enough, hence a concentration of power that allows executives to pollute small towns, gut a company, sell it off, and flee instead of run it properly. That concentration of power seeps into the governing body.

I've never thought that more investment in the government and government controls will improve regulations. But an outraged and educated public finally ALLOWED to have a real say in the system and those businesses might.

Ultimately, though, I have misgivings about forcing any kind of system on any individual, much as this shoddy-ass piece of society was forced on me like a pledge of allegiance because I was born here. Hence my individualized rejection of this awful society and its death spiral. Groups of people and individuals should be able to do what they want and organize how they want so long as they don't impede anyone's health, choices, or livelyhood.

Not really free unless you can leave.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, January 14, 2013 8:02 PM

Ain't about "Rules" - it's about who makes em, and how they are enforced.

It's one thing to have the community as a whole generally agreeable on them, and enforce them with moral persuation, negotiation, and in extremis giving someone the cold shoulder and cutting them off from trade by virtue of the folks they'd deal with are the ones they've offended....

Yet another for some miniscule group to formulate arbitratry rules which benefit THEM, usually at others expense, and enforce them by ramming the gun barrels of The State down peoples throat forcing them to comply OR ELSE.

I suppose the issue is between asking, and telling.

Funny thing about that, even in military service, my superiors realized very quickly that asking me to do something would get it done quickly and well, with attention to detail and a little extra, as opposed to orders, which would get it done next week sometime-maybe and the halfassed bare minimum if that, and adapted accordingly.

So too could we.
IF we wanted to.
But no, it's just too EASY to manipulate the system into forcing your will on others, unwanted and unwelcome, behind the barrels of the weapons in the hands of The States enforcers, all the while pretending ones own hands are clean.

They ain't.

-Frem

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 14, 2013 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Ultimately, though, I have misgivings about forcing any kind of system on any individual, much as this shoddy-ass piece of society was forced on me like a pledge of allegiance because I was born here. Hence my individualized rejection of this awful society and its death spiral. Groups of people and individuals should be able to do what they want and organize how they want so long as they don't impede anyone's health, choices, or livelyhood.

Not really free unless you can leave.

Sounds like you and Maggie Thatcher would have a lot in common.

"There is no such thing as society, only individuals and families."

I think we are compelled as a species to live in societies, and ALL societies, large and small have rules which individuals are expected to follow.

Perhaps the difference between unbearable and bearable societies is how much chance does an individual have in influencing those rules. And if you take a historical view, apart from very small communities, we're probably better off that any other point in time.

BYTEMITE

Monday, January 14, 2013 10:22 PM

I'm not sure a single quote that I don't know the context from is "a lot in common." Like maybe one thing in common if you kinda squint at it and stick your tongue out to the side.

There is always society, and there have always been people who remove themselves from society.

Quote:
And if you take a historical view, apart from very small communities, we're probably better off that any other point in time.

I think that might be removing like 99% of the human animal family history.

Better, sure. It still sucks.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:15 AM

Quote:
Corruption is an abuse of power. The less consolidated power there is, the less impact any corruption can have, and the easier it is to depose.

And so, given the apparently inevitable tendency for power to consolidate, what rules do you put in place to reverse the consolidation of power?

There is a very good description of how power consolidates and societies become corrupted in the Climate Change Hitting Home thread.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:29 AM

Quote:
It's one thing to have the community as a whole generally agreeable on them, and enforce them with moral persuation, negotiation, and in extremis giving someone the cold shoulder and cutting them off from trade by virtue of the folks they'd deal with are the ones they've offended....

Back in the day, you could have people generally agreeable that blacks weren't human. Some people still think that today.

Your idea that giving someone the cold shoulder ignores the fact that they COULD be very nice to you and the people around them, but brutalizing whole populations halfway around the world. What then?

Also, back in the day, banishment wasn't a social inconvenience, it was a death sentence. So, back in the day... a lifestyle my hubby actually lived in during post-war Hungary up in the mountains... social controls actually had teeth in them. We need something equivalent in today's extended economy because ultimately, in the end, someone actually has to enforce fairness on those who choose not to be.

I can't imagine how to translate your ideas on today's situation. It would only work in economies that are self-sufficient and isolated among those who know each other directly.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE