This is what I thought you meant, and am just using the word entity to refer to the group as a whole. — Kev
No, I do believe there is plenty of conspiring going on. I just don't think that explains everything, though. — Kev
And I don't think the absence of these conspirators would solve much (others would probably have taken that place). I think the conditions were set up to make such grand manipulations possible, but not by design. Good intentions have been acted on in the form of poor engineering. There was never a chance that the public would not have become corrupted. — Kev
Who knows the actual meaning of these words today? Historians should not be counted.
Probably, activists that are using this words do not know the history. — Number2018
The control far is more subtle control in the US. What you disagree about is given to you by the media and by the political elite. You see, disagreement in the "culture war" doesn't threaten any way the economy or those in control.At least people in the US are allowed to disagree. — Professor Death
The economy does run on human labor, though. "Resources" are not measured by weight or volume. Resources are anything required to produce human value. Without human labor there are no resources. We can run out of raw materials (technically we can't, because the physical material does not just disappear), but the existence of raw materials is not the most important condition in the creation of human value. — Kev
How do we measure "good" in "good lives"? Who decides what is good? There is a non-arbitrary way to measure value, and that is based on what people are willing to pay for.
If people want to live like the natives did, or adopt certain aspects of that culture that they think is good, they can do that. But the design of power structures is a completely different issue, unless you want people to live in small tribes.
Bilderberg Conference 2019: What happens in the secretive ...
www.businesstoday.in › OPINION › Columns
Jun 6, 2019 - ... of the Western world's 100 most powerful people, has been meeting in ... happens in the secretive meet of the world's most powerful people? — business today
Bilderberg meeting - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bilderberg_meeting
The Bilderberg meeting is an annual conference established in 1954 to foster dialogue ... Various popular conspiracy theories describe the Bilderbergers as the most powerful group of men in the history of the planet. ... OCLC 2359663. anybody who has ever been to a Bilderberg Conference should be able to feel that he ...
List of Bilderberg participants · Henri de Castries · List of Bilderberg meetings — wikipedia
Oh, I'm one of those conservatives who believe in representative democracy, even with it's failures and defects, and believe that changes can happen through consensus, mainly when the at first opposing side finally takes the agenda as it's own too. — ssu
Could it have been any other way? If you put humans on a planet, does a secret global elite inevitably develop? Probably. — fishfry
Add things mentioned here alreadt: de-escalatory tactics, use of other officials than just the police in every occasion, a wide variety of methods that have been seen successful in reality, not emerging from some ideological agenda. Yet I really would not put the issue of the police using excessive force into being part of the culture war. Is wearing a mask and combating the pandemic part of "the culture war[/quote/
Welcome to the police state we defended our democracy against. Sometimes force is not the best idea. The police officer who took the side of the demostrators and lead through town, was the most successful because he won the hearts of the protestors. Instant peace and fulfilment of our American right to protest.
— ssu
Why the year 1958? The National Defense Education Act that radically changed public education, the new government relationships with media and reserach. That was a busy year for President Eisenhower in establishing the Military Industrial Complex that he later warned us against.
I think the "culture war" and the ongoing polarization have made the discourse highly contemptuous. And unfortunately, on purpose. To discuss values and morals in elections is good, yet things normally ought to be far more palpable to the voter concerning real issues. Because now the duopoly of the two ruling political parties use the "culture war" card in my view as a distraction. Both democrats and republicans seeks to use the culture war to their advantage.
Do you know what a non renewable resource is? I grew up in California and we went to ghost towns. Towns that were once thriving economies because of gold. Then there is oil. Have you heard of an oil well going dry? Do you know for awhile our national wealth depended mostly on being the world's supply of oil? The US was an exporter much more than it was an importer. Our national wealth was built on a labor intense industrial economy. I don't think there was anything not made in the US. What happened? — Athena
Not that long ago I don't think anyone would have measured happiness monetarily. For sure hippies did not. In the past people thought happiness was about friends, family and social prestige that could be attained by entertaining people or volunteering. — Athena
Why the year 1958? — ssu
The impact of Sputnik.
We replaced our liberal education that was addressing political and social problems through education from the first day a child entered school, — Athena
I graduated high school in 1954 and college in 1958, but I don't remember that kind of instruction. In the 1960s the civil rights movement affected school curricula in that way. — jgill
Maga.Among other things we want back our industrial base and an acceptable standard of living for hard working people. We want human values to come back and we aren't buying over priced designer things in a competition to be better than others any more. US is coming back! And we are going to take down the controllers who stole our national wealth and put it in their pockets. We are mad and glad to be united again. — Athena
part of "struggle" in the "culture war" is to redefine terms like "marxist", "nazi" or especially what being a "racist" means as people are very timid at being called racist. When you take the terms out of the historical context and the original ideology, you can accuse people who don't have anything to do with the ideologies and paint the dark picture you want of those who you oppose. — ssu
you will be divided into two camps that hate each other. The white racists against the marxist iconoclasts. Pick your side, pick your tribe. — ssu
We lived in a truly different culture than the one we have now. A career choice was about self fullment more based on being service to others than monetary reward. — Athena
I think technology that is extremely impersonal and prevents us from getting to a real human being, and putting a monetary value of everything has made our lives hell! — Athena
The most successful high tech industries followed the democratic model. — Athena
It depends on how the power structure is set up. Here you can read a developed theory with a lot of primary sources on how the political structure is the determining factor in the trajectory of a society. https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/ It's pretty long winded, but there's a lot of gems in there. — Kev
Curtis Guy Yarvin (born 1973), also known by the pen name Mencius Moldbug, is an American far-right blogger.[4][5] Yarvin and his ideas are often associated with the alt-right.[6] From 2007 to 2014 he authored a blog called "Unqualified Reservations" which argued that American democracy is a failed experiment,[7] and that it should be replaced by monarchy or corporate governance.[8] He is known, along with fellow "neo-reactionary" Nick Land, for developing the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic ideas behind the Dark Enlightenment.
Yarvin has links with the website Breitbart News, the former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, and with the billionaire investor Peter Thiel.[9] Yarvin's ideas have been particularly influential among radical libertarians, and the public discourses of prominent investors like Thiel have echoed Yarvin's project of seceding from the US to establish tech-CEO dictatorships.[10][11] Journalist Mike Wendling has called Yarvin "the Alt right's favorite philosophy instructor".[12] Bannon, in particular, has read and admired his work.[13]
Man this guy's dangerous. He's an authoritarian globalist, not an alt-right or right-wing type.
Curious, what about this guy interests you? Can you summarize so I don't have to read it all? — fishfry
I'd recommend you just start reading... because it will likely suck you in. Don't put too much stock in the wikipedia page about him, you'll probably disagree with what it says. His own ideals are not really important in his writing, it's more about how he gives the facts of history a new meaning as he provides more information that you probably didn't know was out there. You can stop at any time and still come out with some valuable insight. — Kev
I accept your criticism. Probably, the concepts that I use look like vague, taken out of the context and the appropriate conceptual framework. For Butler, in her book.And by what non-arbitrary standard is the state not a part of "the people"? The media is the media, the universities are the universities, and the state is the state. They all exist, a priori, for the people and by the people. But to consider "the people" self-determined is to reify the abstraction. There is no such thing as "the people." There is a complex system of individuals that can appear to function as a single unit in particular instances. These instances can largely be understood by accounting for incentives. — Kev
As power becomes more accessible to more people we see sweeping changes in social behavior. — Kev
As power becomes decentralized we also see a shift in how power is used. As the power structure shifts to the left, so does the culture. Politics is not downstream of culture, it turns out. The will of the people changes depending on how much power the people have. — Kev
People usually have some point in what they are saying. Often they describe well certain a problem. Yet especially with what they give then to be the solution, one should be extremely careful and critical. If you can find things that you agree with even if on the whole you disagree with many other points, you aren't falling into the mold of the tribal culture war. One only needs to actually listen what people say to stay above the fray. People seldom do that.How can you stay above the fray? What is your position? — Number2018
People usually have some point in what they are saying. Often they describe well certain a problem. Yet especially with what they give then to be the solution, one should be extremely careful and critical. If you can find things that you agree with even if on the whole you disagree with many other points, you aren't falling into the mold of the tribal culture war. One only needs to actually listen what people say to stay above the fray. People seldom do that. — ssu
Real answers, the one's that actually work, are usually long, complex and, well, boring. People get excited about short snappy answers that one can yell out. — ssu
Are you for or against taken down historical statues? — ssu
Do you support taking down historical statues? — Number2018
Taking down statues means that you have something so traumatic in your history that you cannot face it otherwise and cannot accept it being a part of your history, but see it as something needed to be erased away. — ssu
And on social media, the reaction was swift, with some heaping ridicule on the letter’s signatories — who include cultural luminaries like Margaret Atwood, Bill T. Jones and Wynton Marsalis, along with journalists and academics — for thin-skinnedness, privilege and, as one person put it, fear of loss of “relevance.”
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.
The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.
This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.
These are dangerous times. People think awful stuff "couldn't happen here," but every bad thing that ever happened in the world happened in a place where the people thought it couldn't happen. — fishfry
But civilization existed for thousands of years before that gold and oil was of any value? Why? Because nobody had done the work to find it, drill it/mine it, and transport it. Non-renewable resources are such only as long as they are 1. resources and 2. non-renewable. Like I said, the actual material does not disappear. We don't know if oil will ever be renewable, although it most likely won't be a resource by the time we had such technology. But when you pay for gold, you aren't just paying for a raw material. You are paying for all the work that went into delivering you that raw material. — Kev
I am having a hard time following your reasoning. When a gold mine is closed the businesses close, and then everything including real estate has no value. We recentedly experienced this in a big way when the banking/housing crisis crashed our economy. All that property lost its value. Lives and futures were destoyed. Now where is the happiness? — Athena
I doubt if anyone questions more what they think than I do and I am not interested in defending myself. — Athena
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.