In the US there's a strange terrible background of hate and yet for the most part the usual scene at the grocery store. So I like to think that it's still just a morbid minority that's completely lost that basic trust and therefore trustworthiness, since the paranoid can 'justify' extreme measures in the light of the misperceived extreme threat. — igjugarjuk

Elsewhere I have suggested that hatred is a secondary emotion, typically a response to a primary emotion of hurt or fear. I imagine that fear is ever-present at the store and at the school, and at the council office over there, judging by the news we see of shootings. It seems, rather like global warming, that there are tipping points into a positive feedback loop where the lunatics take over the asylum, and the crazies drive us all crazy, to the extent that armed teachers in primary schools looks like a sensible policy. Though the bombs are falling, yet we still need groceries, and even that becomes mundane.

Elsewhere I have suggested that hatred is a secondary emotion, typically a response to a primary emotion of hurt or fear. — unenlightened

I find this quite plausible.

It seems, rather like global warming, that there are tipping points into a positive feedback loop where the lunatics take over the asylum, and the crazies drive us all crazy, to the extent that armed teachers in primary schools looks like a sensible policy. — unenlightened

Good example.

It's a bit insane that instead of guarding gold or cash against De Niro's crew in Heat that we have to think about how to stop maniacs from killing children at no benefit to themselves (excepting whatever strange benefit they calculate in the infamy.)

I connect this vaguely to our atomization. I get used to walking by the homeless lady who just settled on the sidewalk a block from where I live. I go on my own little way, minding my own business. This isn't all bad. It's connected with a vivid and differentiated society. But it's dangerous, for reasons you've emphasized.

A psychologist looks at democracy and goes "sigh, we have trust issues."

I connect this vaguely to our atomization. I get used to walking by the homeless lady who just settled on the sidewalk a block from where I live. I go on my own little way, minding my own business. This isn't all bad. It's connected with a vivid and differentiated society. But it's dangerous, for reasons you've emphasized. — igjugarjuk

Here is a nice piece of anthropology about this crazy tribe who worship The Duke of Edinburgh. Hard for us to understand that, but when they visited us, they could not understand why, if people were homeless, we did not build houses for them. And I cannot understand it either. In fact in my town, during covid lockdown they did provide little homes prefab in the town carpark. But now they've removed them again so the cars can have their home back.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/meet-the-natives

I hope you will be able to access it.

And I cannot understand it either. — unenlightened

If you understand why you don't build said houses (and instead play philosophy on the internet) then you understand why we don't.

If you understand why you don't build said houses (and instead play philosophy on the internet) then you understand why we don't. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don't think so. I don't build roads or power stations, but we do. Building even a small house is a big undertaking for one old man, but for a town of ten thousand, 50 houses would not be difficult or unaffordable. Your logic does not work, because one person is almost helpless, but a community is potentially a whole army.

I don't build roads or power stations, but we do. — unenlightened

It's a cop-out. We do - because we use political pressure to ensure it gets done.

If you understand why you prefer to play on the internet rather than to apply political pressure to ensure the homeless have homes - then you understand why we turn away from the homeless in parallel fashion.

It's a cop-out. We do - because we use political pressure to ensure it gets done. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You know me so well. I did my stint as a volunteer for the Cyrenians, many years ago, and later formed a residents association in Leeds that succeeded in getting about 150 homes taken off the condemned housing list where they had been languishing for twenty years and got them all refurbished and brought up to standard. But now I take a back seat and seek to understand the state of humanity that needs pressure to be applied before it will treat its neighbours with simple decency. I have become lazy and apathetic.

I did my stint as a volunteer for the Cyrenians, many years ago, and later formed a residents association in Leeds that succeeded in getting about 150 homes taken off the condemned housing list where they had been languishing for twenty years and got them all refurbished and brought up to standard. — unenlightened

Commendable work.

I have become lazy and apathetic. — unenlightened

That can't be pleasant. Unless it's just retirement.

If the tragedy of our time is that the masses have been manipulated by the expert manipulators, then why not clarify once and for all The Truth so I can know what to believe in and avoid this trickery.

This Forum in particular has been of no help so far. Every post offers a different opinion and every one peddles a different point of view.

...why not clarify once and for all The Truth... — Hanover

In this context the truth is easy: It's wrong to use a grotesquely smily red and yellow clown, an adorable robber and stuffed purple taste bud (Grimace), or to use a cute, charming cartoon tiger, frog, bear, pelican or minion to sell diabetes and obesity to children.

It's nothing new: but the diabetes and obesity epidemic is new.

For a classic expose, see Marshall McCluhan's The Mechanical Bride.



For adults: There's no love in a Subaru. Twizzlers only make mouths happy. She won't kiss you longer if you're chewing Big Red. Adults get diabetes and obesity too. Few adults have the awareness and integrity to withstand the perpetual onslaught of the adsters.

This Forum in particular has been of no help so far. — Hanover

I hope that helps.

Commendable work. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well no. That is rather the point. What I was doing politically 50 years ago had some small local success, but overall the problem of homelessness and poor housing has gotten much worse. My efforts were useless in the face of a society that does not look after its weaker members as well as a bunch of heathen tribal primitives who are by comparison desperately poor and highly irrational.

I think your praise or blame offered to me rather exemplifies the root of the difficulty. You do not even see what a terrible inditement of our society it is that we cannot, despite our enormous wealth and sophistication, even feed and house ourselves adequately to the climate. The callousness of our society comes very much out of this kind of attitude of moralising the individual, and making the relation between the individual and society one that presumes the moral justice of social circumstance, and thus blames the weak for their weakness, whether it be disability, lack of education, mental illness, addiction, or mere accident.

the betrayal of truth has become so commonplace amongst advertisers, politicians, and the media, we no longer trust them and their messages lose their meaning. — unenlightened

But how do you know they've betrayed truth? You personally are not expert in the matters they pronounce on, so in order to come to believe they've betrayed truth you must have not trusted them (to some extent) first. You cannot have possibly have had any notion they were lying unless you were inclined to seek out the 'truth' from someone else whom you do trust. So did you really trust them in the first place? And has trust, as a whole, gone away? You've clearly got a perfectly adequate range of people from whom you can get 'the truth' on all matters, so what's the problem?

I am saying, not that truth and trust are the same, but that truth is required to maintain trust. — unenlightened

Yet still not saying how.

Let's say Jim claims "X!" and Jack claims the mutually exclusive position "Y!". I trust Jim so I believe X. Now how do I come to no longer trust Jim on account of his lying? The only way I can see is if I come to believe Y. But to come to believe Y I have to have already decided not to trust Jim and to trust Jack instead.

If, to use your example, the bank promised that £5 was worth £5's worth of stuff, and later didn't pay, it's not the truth of their promise that's the problem, it's their failure to pay. Trust would be equally eroded if they truthfully promised to pay out, with the sincerity of an angel, but just kept on accidentally failing to do so. I would not trust them with my money.

Broken promises erode trust because of a failure to be able to accurately predict outcomes using them. It makes no difference if the failure was the result of dishonest intent or sheer incompetence.

We cannot communicate without the trust that folks mean what they say — unenlightened

tell the truth, because otherwise nothing you say has any meaning. — unenlightened

So no jokes then?

It's a ruse to call a society governed by mass manipulation a democracy. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If it wasn't your politicians, it'll be your parents, your work colleagues, your wife/husband/significant other...

Advertisers may be responsible for creating a desire among people for the latest chocolate bar (tastes the same as the old one, but with "six different types of bio-molecules which reduce signs of ageing!"), but no advertisers were involved in the initial preference for flannel shirts in the 90s, that was just a cultural movement (at first). It was no less powerful a draw nonetheless.

The problem is not manipulation, it's manipulability. It's not those who fill the gaping hole in our self esteem with obvious lies, it's the gaping hole in our self-esteem available for the filling.

The problem is not manipulation, it's manipulability. — Isaac

Difficult to disagree that that's the problem. But it's prudent to accept that the vast majority of folks will always be manipulable. At least until our society begins to prioritize education.

Moreover: Advertising influences all of us. Even more insidiously when we believe we're unmanipulable.

but no advertisers were involved in the initial preference for flannel shirts in the 90s, — Isaac

Advertisers were absolutely at the heart of it. Without advertisers there would be no TV as we know it. Without TV there would be no MTV.

I assume you accept that the popularity of flannel shirts in the 90s had its origin in the grunge movement given a global platform on MTV. If MTV didn't have advertisers, they wouldn't have the lucre to exist.

In the US there's a strange terrible background of hate — igjugarjuk

This is on the mark. Being a multi-ethnic society, a history of slavery, then discrimination which lasted until the 70s, freedom of thought & religion, the rich-poor gap, basically a huge list of divisive entities, hate in overt & subtle forms is inevitable in a country like the US of A.

However, this isn't a disadvantage as far as I can tell. We must learn to keep the peace not in the absence of animosity (easy peasy) but in its presence (tough as hell) - this defines the greatness of a country or a nation. There will be a few goof-ups to put it mildly (race riots one of 'em) but it'll all work out in the end. Fingers crossed.

What I was doing politically 50 years ago had some small local success, — unenlightened

Hence: commendable work. If - as appears to be the case - you helped at least one person.

I'm not suggesting you solved the problem.

Advertisers may be responsible for creating a desire among people for the latest chocolate bar — Isaac

This is a gross understatement of the power of advertising to influence culture. Advertisers have created a culture of consumerism. To make a buck.

You do not even see what a terrible inditement of our society it is that we cannot, despite our enormous wealth and sophistication, even feed and house ourselves adequately to the climate. — unenlightened

It's imprudent to tell someone what they can and cannot see.

The fact is I see that very clearly.

making the relation between the individual and society one that presumes the moral justice of social circumstance — unenlightened

Your grammar is imprecise: a "relation" can't "presume" something. Only a person can.

Some number of persons I don't doubt choose to make the presumption you point to. But plenty of larger-minded, nobler-minded folks would consider this presumption ludicrous.

If it wasn't your politicians, it'll be your parents, your work colleagues, your wife/husband/significant other... — Isaac

All of which is compounded by the insidious influence of advertising.

On false needs and false consciousness:

[Marcuse] argues that "advanced industrial society" created false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought. This results in a "one-dimensional" universe of thought and behavior, in which aptitude and ability for critical thought and oppositional behavior wither away. Against this prevailing climate, Marcuse promotes the "great refusal" (described at length in the book) as the only adequate opposition to all-encompassing methods of control. — wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Dimensional_Man

False consciousness is a term used in Marxist theory to describe ways in which material, ideological, and institutional processes are said to mislead members of the proletariat and other class actors within capitalist societies, concealing the exploitation intrinsic to the social relations between classes. Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) used the term "false consciousness" in an 1893 letter to Franz Mehring to address the scenario where a subordinate class willfully embodies the ideology of the ruling class.[1][2][3] Engels dubs this consciousness "false" because the class is asserting itself towards goals that do not benefit it. — wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness

it's prudent to accept that the vast majority of folks will always be manipulable. At least until our society begins to prioritize education. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oddly enough, I think the focus on education is the problem, not the solution. But I agree with the prudence.

I assume you accept that the popularity of flannel shirts in the 90s had its origin in the grunge movement given a global platform on MTV. If MTV didn't have advertisers, they wouldn't have the lucre to exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I didn't say they had no part to play. Had transistors not been invented there'd be no televisions and hence no MTV, but we don't blame transistors for the popularity of the flannel shirt. The point was that advertisers neither decided, nor encouraged the trend. They may have helped finance the technology which allowed it, but so did bankers, accountants, HR managers...

This is a gross understatement of the power of advertising to influence culture. Advertisers have created a culture of consumerism. To make a buck. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Have they? Or are they a consequence of a culture of consumerism?

Are you familiar with Milgram's thoughts on Arendt? I think you're overestimating the intent behind advertising.

I think you're overestimating the intent behind advertising. — Isaac

Have they? Or are they a consequence of a culture of consumerism? — Isaac

I suggest reading Edward Bernays and Ernest Dichter (et al) to get a picture of how a culture of consumerism was intentionally created. They're proud of their work and talk about it more or less openly.

Are you familiar with Milgram's thoughts on Arendt? — Isaac

I'm familiar with Milgram's famous experiment and conclusions and familiar with Arendt. I'll take a look at the connection. Thanks for the reference.

Are you familiar with Milgram's thoughts on Arendt? — Isaac

Is this what you had in mind?

https://oonae.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/arendt-and-milgram/

Berkowitz tells us that “Arendt rejected… Milgram’s claim that obedience carried with it no responsibility. Instead, Arendt insisted, ‘obedience and support are the same.’” But Milgram is only claiming that being obedient makes us think we aren’t responsible, not that we should be held less responsible. And isn’t this also the meaning of the line cited from Arendt? Obedience and support are the same: Arendt believes it, and Milgram believes it. Obedience vs. support is, for both of them, a false opposition: there is no obedience unless you’ve already invoked an ideology, unless the subject has, as Berkowitz puts it, joined.

I suggest reading Edward Bernays and Ernest Dichter (et al) to get a picture of how a culture of consumerism was intentionally created. They're proud of their work and talk about it more or less openly. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not only read both, but taught classes on them. I think their influence is exaggerated. Take a look at Milgram on Arendt and see what you think.

I'm not here suggesting that advertising doesn't work, or that control on it wouldn't help. I'm just sounding a note of caution as to the real problem. If we raise children to think their social support systems are dependent entirely on these tokens of group membership and reward, then they'll spend their lives trying to work out what those tokens are. If advertisers don't tell them, they'll look elsewhere. The hole needing filling is the problem.

I didn't say they had no part to play. Had transistors not been invented there'd be no televisions and hence no MTV, but we don't blame transistors for the popularity of the flannel shirt. The point was that advertisers neither decided, nor encouraged the trend. They may have helped finance the technology which allowed it, but so did bankers, accountants, HR managers... — Isaac

Fair enough.

Yep. That's the line of thinking. It revolves around the idea that social group membership and reward has become so compartmentalised in these broken-up ideologies that what one does to be a 'good member' is no longer holistically relative to being a 'human being' but rather just being a 'good accountant' or a 'good wife' or a 'good advertising executive'. Hence what we do in instances of 'work' is not related to any holistic ideology but rather a localised one in which actions from one sphere might be totally unthinkable in another.

Advertisers do what they do because that's their job. It's what being a good advertiser is. It's their job because their boss told them to do it. Their boss told them to do it because that's his job, that's what being a good boss is.