Originally Posted By ecdc The only problem with this is you've failed to demonstrate the collapse of our society, you've just assured us it's right around the corner for the last four years. I don't worship the Constitution and I'm all for open discussions about its limitations, even free speech. The problem is, you act as if this is all new. It's not: there's the robber barrons, the New York tenements, etc. America is, in many ways, better off than it was. Like it or not, the study of history is the study of the few exploiting the many. Hey, maybe I'm wrong and we're done for. But you haven't made the case.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Mawnck, you're setting aside the principles that this country was founded on for the sake of economics and commerce. You're advocating that individual liberties and freedom of conscience must take a back seat to the needs our our economic system and production. My kid's future will be better if she is free and poor than a comfortable slave to the banks and Wall Street. At least then her labor would be her own rather than theirs.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I cannot see a reason to start shutting down free speech. Part of free speech is speaking BACK at misinformation outlets like Fox Noise. But that's as far as I'd ever want it to go. Boycott their sponsors, write letters to the editor, set up a soapbox in the center of town, plaster bumper stickers on you car -- all that's fine and fair game. But alter the Constitution to shut down Fox? No, thanks.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The only problem with this is you've failed to demonstrate the collapse of our society, you've just assured us it's right around the corner for the last four years. << Math sucks like that. Debt which cannot be paid back, won't. >>Mawnck, you're setting aside the principles that this country was founded on for the sake of economics and commerce.<< Actually, economics and commerce ARE some of the principles that this country was founded on. >>You're advocating that individual liberties and freedom of conscience must take a back seat to the needs our our economic system and production.<< That's the propaganda talking. A ban on the "L" word might not be such a bad idea either. It's become meaningless, except as a mallet for bopping political opponents over the head with. Like you're doing here. The Germans had "individual liberty". They used it to vote for Hitler. Then they didn't any more. That's why I'm relieved that it's going to be Romney and not Gingrich or Santorum. I'm pretty sure Romney isn't Hitler. I'm a tad less sure about Santorum, and a LOT less sure about Gingrich. The point here is that truly effective, scientifically designed propaganda, like that which has turned your elderly relatives into angry, unreachable, e-mail forwarding nutcases, is something we have little defense against. As has been noted time and again, there's no reasoning with these people. In other words, freedom of speech isn't going to help. >>My kid's future will be better if she is free and poor than a comfortable slave to the banks and Wall Street.<< You can't be free AND poor in the system we have now. It's one or the other. And a growing segment of the population thinks that's God's will. >>The problem is, you act as if this is all new. It's not: there's the robber barrons, the New York tenements, etc. America is, in many ways, better off than it was. Like it or not, the study of history is the study of the few exploiting the many.<< On the contrary, I do not think it's new at all. The history you're speaking of is the very one that ought to have you panicking right about now. America IS better off now than it was during the time of the robber barons ... but we are slipping right back to that time, and I see no way of stopping it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>But alter the Constitution to shut down Fox? No, thanks.<< Not to shut down Fox. But how about to save your future? We aren't there yet, but it's time to start having this conversation.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Don't you see that you are speaking in exactly the words that the people you fear would use against you, mawnck? We have to think about the children. We need to take away freedom of speech in order to save it. We have to limit liberty in order to preserve it. The only way to reason with these people is to take away their right to express their opinions publicly. I understand your point and your frustration, but you're proposing killing the patient in order to save the organs.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That's why I'm relieved that it's going to be Romney and not Gingrich or Santorum.<< Yeah, but it's ALWAYS been an inherent possibility we'd elect, of our own free will, someone truly terrible. It's a risk with a democracy, but one I'd rather have than not. >>The point here is that truly effective, scientifically designed propaganda, like that which has turned your elderly relatives into angry, unreachable, e-mail forwarding nutcases, is something we have little defense against.<< But that's always how it's been (well, sans e-mail perhaps). People gravitate towards "information" that supports their already-held beliefs. The John Birchers were around long before Fox News. The McCarthyites and all the rest preceded them. It makes life more stressful and frustrating that it needs to be, but generally, it works out in the long run. If the population eventually gets to the point where they become a majority of e-mail forwarding nut cases jumping at shadows, well, perhaps that's the national staledate for us, and proves we've turned rancid anyway.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But how about to save your future?<< That's what ballot boxes are for.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't like what Fox does. It's a cynical propaganda arm of the right, no question. But how effective have they really been? In spite of them, Obama got elected. And in spite of them (and right wing radio) Bill Clinton won two terms (fox came along midway) and remains popular to this day. They play to their choir, sure, but they're kind of an obvious joke to the rest of us at this point.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Don't you see that you are speaking in exactly the words that the people you fear would use against you, mawnck?<< How about that? >>I understand your point and your frustration, but you're proposing killing the patient in order to save the organs.<< I don't consider the "patient" here as important as the "organs" (you, me, your daughter, etc.). >>It's a risk with a democracy, but one I'd rather have than not.<< You say that NOW ..... >>If the population eventually gets to the point where they become a majority of e-mail forwarding nut cases jumping at shadows, well, perhaps that's the national staledate for us, and proves we've turned rancid anyway.<< This actually IS my point (one of them anyway), stated better than I stated it. Emphasizing again ... I don't think we're there yet, only that we're headed that direction. But I propose that the info in that link from post #1 is a sure sign of rancidness. So what do we do about it? Ballot boxes? They put us where we are now - facing a choice between corporatist and crazy, and not sure which will win. And if the crash DOES come, then advantage: crazy.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Mawnck, are you seeing a wide-spread collapse of society with roving bands of outlaws fighting over the last scraps of whatever is important in those dark times? Are you seeing some sort of Orwellian/Huxleyesque future where we are just cogs in a giant machine built to maintain power for an entrenched few? We all come from families that went through unimaginable problems in our history. Depressions, recessions, wars, famine, plague, Viking attacks, marauders, pillagers, Mongol hordes, evading saber tooth tigers, Huns, Romans, even the Pressler/Harris era. Our ancestors lived under rulers that were far crueler and far bloodier than any that we would ever face. A thousand generations of your ancestors having kids and those kids having kids have surpassed all of these Ozymandian delusions and quietly survived.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It isn't a choice between corporatist and crazy. It's a choice between corporatist and community.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<As has been noted time and again, there's no reasoning with these people. In other words, freedom of speech isn't going to help.>> Exactly. This is well beyond freedom of speech, and along the lines of existing in alternate universes. A society cannot function when opposing factions fail to operate under a shared history and reality. And that is what the current political media culture is creating---even advocating. Just one example: the idea the Hitler was a socialist. Other than the party name, there was little socialism in his economic plan. In fact, he privatized numerous industries which had been previously nationalized under the Weimar Republic. This is in direct contrast to the economic trajectory of most nations during the Great Depression. Yet, you hear the same crap parroted by the lemming mob who prefer to be told what reality is by those who most benefit from the lies. Global climate change is another example of this anti-logic. Until we stop seeing past each other and view reality as it exists, we cannot have beneficial policy debates on how to fix the problems that do or don’t exist, depending on your ideology (more of a religion actually). This is an empirical universe. We cannot just wish it away, or ignore reality.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Our ancestors lived under rulers that were far crueler and far bloodier than any that we would ever face.>> Indeed, but such situation were often a precursor to fundamental societal changes---the collapse of an empire or whatnot. But it also tells us about the futility for those with such different realities to co-exist within a single political system. Something has to give somewhere, or the brutality described may not be relegated to our ancestors.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 ">>If the "good guys" can do something like ban free speech because it's an "emergency," - are they still the good guys?<< "Why not? Because it's against our "religion"? Isn't it time to admit that we "worship" the Constitution, and that that's not necessarily a good thing? That we are clinging to its principles even when it has failed to prevent the collapse of our society, or a default dictatorship with a few extremely rich sociopaths at the helm?" And the pigs looked at the farmers, and the farmers looked at the pigs, and already it was impossible to say which was which.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Mawnck, are you seeing a wide-spread collapse of society with roving bands of outlaws fighting over the last scraps of whatever is important in those dark times? Are you seeing some sort of Orwellian/Huxleyesque future where we are just cogs in a giant machine built to maintain power for an entrenched few?<< I'm seeing an unsustainable financial and political situation. As to which way it winds up, you'll have to ask the psychic friends. I try to refrain from telling fortunes, and stick with observing trends. >>A thousand generations of your ancestors ... quietly survived.<< Well then, by all means, have a blast "quietly surviving". >>It isn't a choice between corporatist and crazy. It's a choice between corporatist and community.<< ... and it's been made quite clear that many of us here in WE are not welcome in that "community" of yours, whether because of politics, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever. >>And the pigs looked at the farmers, and the farmers looked at the pigs, and already it was impossible to say which was which. << Yes? So what's your point?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Mongol hordes are not on trial here! Man, I have ALWAYS wanted to say that!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Yes? So what's your point?" That I don't want to be that. And if we're going to go down ( which I'm not convinced of), I'd rather go down fighting for principle rather than expedience.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And if we're going to go down ( which I'm not convinced of), I'd rather go down fighting for principle rather than expedience. << That's a very Republican attitude. Government by slogan rather than what actually works. And I've come around to believing that putting principles (IE beliefs IE bull-stuff) ahead of our fellow man is a fundamental part of the problem. The conservatives sure are big on it. No one is talking about farmers and pigs, and Animal Farm is not an analogous situation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >And if we're going to go down ( which I'm not convinced of), I'd rather go down fighting for principle rather than expedience. << <That's a very Republican attitude. > Really? Because as I and others have pointed out, what you've been saying lately fills that bill nicely. <Government by slogan rather than what actually works. And I've come around to believing that putting principles (IE beliefs IE bull-stuff) ahead of our fellow man is a fundamental part of the problem. The conservatives sure are big on it.> You missed my point. How is depriving someone (yes, including the "bad guys") of free speech putting your fellow man ahead of beliefs? It's the opposite. It's putting your belief that they're not entitled to it ahead of your fellow man... unless you believe that they're not also fellow men, or that certain fellow men are more equal than others, which gets us back to... <No one is talking about farmers and pigs, and Animal Farm is not an analogous situation. > ...this.
