Real Life System Stories XVIII - Are we Being Ripped Off?
Mr. Steve
can tell you something is very fishy with the way that the prices are
set up at 'competing' stations.
Through doing my own research, and observing the prices of gas while
driving around from place to place - there have been many observable
trends over the years:
(1) All gas stations in a certain area change their prices at exactly
the same time - and there is no difference in price between
stations in the same neighborhood.
In a free market, one would think that perfect competition
would exist, where supply and demand operate to control the prices
of gas. That is, if Shell and Chevron are across the street from
one another and more customers fill up at Chevron - then the
price of gas would go up at Chevron to compensate for the increase
in demand. Then, to offset the price difference, customers would
flock to Shell across the street because of the cheaper price. And
so the price would reach an equilibrium.
But this doesn't happen. Instead competing oil companies change
their prices in unison, irrespective of how many customers fill up
at one particular station. Which brings me to point #2.
(2) The price of gas will dip down gradually to a certain level (all
stations following in sync, of course) and then shoot back up to a
high price, ALL COMPETING COMPANIES DOING THIS IN SYNC. This 'up
and down' sinusoidal fluctuation of gas prices happens on a regular
basis, and goes like this, based on actual observations I
recorded at my own station I worked at from Jan to present:
All recordings in cents/litre:
54.9 52.9 49.9 47.9 45.9 42.9 39.9 39.9 (first half Jan)
54.9 49.9 47.9 43.9 42.9 40.4 39.9 39.9 (second half Jan)
49.9 47.9 45.9 44.9 39.9 38.9 37.9 38.9 (first half Feb)
49.9 48.9 47.8 44.9 42.9 39.9 38.9 38.9 (second half Feb)
49.9 47.9 44.9 42.9 39.9 37.9 36.9 36.9 (first half Mar)
49.9 47.8 45.9 41.9 39.9 36.9 36.9 34.9 (second half Mar)
54.9 49.9 48.9 47.9 47.9 45.9 44.4 44.4 (first half Apr)
57.9 55.4 54.4 52.4 52.4 50.9 49.9 49.9 (second half Apr)
58.9 56.9 56.9 54.9 52.9 51.9 50.9 49.9 (first half May)
58.9 56.4 55.5 54.5 53.9 52.9 51.9 50.9 (second half May)
58.9 57.9 56.9 54.9 53.9 52.9 52.4 52.4 (first half June)
60.9 60.9 60.9 60.9 60.4 60.4 (till present)
Now what the hell is with the price of gas getting so expensive when
summertime happens to conveniently roll around??? And why is it that,
the price of gas will ALWAYS dip back up to a high price, usually 54.9,
, as seen by the data, with the competion following suit. This isn't
what I would expect to happen in a free market system.
(3) Different communities charge different rates for the gas. Where I
live, it is a suburban community mostly isolated from the city. We are
the most expensive place to buy gas in the region. Why? Because
customers have to drive further out to competing areas - and oil
companies know this. The oil comanies know that they can charge more in
my community because of less regional competition. We are the last
place to lower our prices, and the first to raise them.
(4) As already seen by the data, the changes in price follow a
systematic formula. Every two weeks, the price will dip down - then
rise back up again for another two weeks. In a market system driven by
perfect competition, the price changes should be sporadic - determined
by random fluctuations in consumer behavior.
(5) Seasonal price changes. The gas is always the most expensive in
the summertime, when more people are on the road, as seen by the date.
The price has been sitting at over 60 cents now for the last week and
has barely budged.
Methinks that the oil corporations are teaming up and controlling the
market in terms of how much they can charge customers for the price of
fuel. Of course there are things to consider such as tax and
transportation levies and other tariffs imposed by the gov't - but the
bulk of the price is determined by the private oil corporations.
I have heard complaint after complaint from my customers over the prices
of gas, and many other people think they're being ripped off as well.
My own personal solution to this oil conspiracy is to limit how much
driving I do. I sold my own car, and instead take the bus, bike, and
walk to most places now. Sometimes I drive my parents' car or my
sisters but this is only for emergencies.
Steve.
--
"Give up yourself, and you will find your real
self. Lose your life and you will save it."
- C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
the paper chase guy
learn something about shyness.
In article <7konh6$hhp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> (2) The price of gas will dip down gradually to a certain level (all
> stations following in sync, of course) and then shoot back up to
a
> high price, ALL COMPETING COMPANIES DOING THIS IN SYNC.
Maybe you could check crude oil prices, and consumption rate of gas
during these times to see if they are mitigating factors.
But I guess it's more fun to get indignant and blame somebody.
> Now what the hell is with the price of gas getting so expensive when
> summertime happens to conveniently roll around???
Increased demand?
> My own personal solution to this oil conspiracy is to limit how much
> driving I do. I sold my own car, and instead take the bus, bike, and
> walk to most places now. Sometimes I drive my parents' car or my
> sisters but this is only for emergencies.
Mine is to buy the cheapest gas I can find. There's one place that
always has the lowest prices around, so I go there. Plus, there are
several cut rate stations just outside the area I live in, so when
returning from a trip, I fill up.
paperchaseguy
DAERON
> In a free market, one would think that perfect competition
> would exist, where supply and demand operate to control the prices
> of gas.
The problem is that there is no 'free market'. It's a mythology invented
for the hoi polloi. And, given the control of the press-media, this
propaganda line can be repeated ad nauseam, with most of the public
believing it.
In effect, 'supply and demand' no longer operates as before. Now, more
often than not, corporations employ interlocking directorates, or shared
monpolies, to *control* demand, supply or both (and prices).
>That is, if Shell and Chevron are across the street from
> one another and more customers fill up at Chevron - then the
> price of gas would go up at Chevron to compensate for the increase
> in demand.
That would happen if the free market were true, as opposed to being a
phantasm. And if the law of supply & demand was actually followed.
> But this doesn't happen. Instead competing oil companies change
> their prices in unison, irrespective of how many customers fill up
> at one particular station.
Exactly, and this is what's called 'a shared monopoly'. It enables
corporations - Oil, cable tv, electric or other, to control prices
without slicing and dicing each other's throat.
Genuine free market capitalism - pitting relatively equal individual
competitors against each other, with the *consumer* benefiting, hasn't
existed in this country for years. Hell, decades.
What we have now- with anti-trust oversight agencies looking the other
way half the time, and allowing laws with loopholes big enough to drive
a Space Shuttle through, is a travesty.
> Now what the hell is with the price of gas getting so expensive when
> summertime happens to conveniently roll around???
The oil companies, to save profits, had to erect a quick shared monopoly
by limiting supply, to jack up the price. Part of the reason was the
relatively mild winter in most of N. America, which left a surplus of
fuel behind. In the first part of spring, this surplus led to plummeting
gas prices, and consumers were winners. Then, the Oil companies 'wised
up' and began to limit supply, to allow prices to rise, back to $1.10 or
more.
>And why is it that,
> the price of gas will ALWAYS dip back up to a high price,
Control supply and the prices will follow.
> Methinks that the oil corporations are teaming up and controlling the
> market in terms of how much they can charge customers for the price of
> fuel.
You got it.
> Of course there are things to consider such as tax and
> transportation levies and other tariffs imposed by the gov't - but the
> bulk of the price is determined by the private oil corporations.
Yes indeedo.
> I have heard complaint after complaint from my customers over the prices
> of gas, and many other people think they're being ripped off as well.
The people are wise to that. They just aren't able to articulate it or
put into words what's happening. But, you needn't be a physics or
chemistry whiz - able to describe ionization in a flame, to receive a
burn from a match. And know you've been burned!
> My own personal solution to this oil conspiracy is to limit how much
> driving I do.
That is, of course, a good idea. Another one - if you must drive - as we
had to in VT, is to go to a less well-heeled community to buy gas there.
Oil companies pitch their gas prices to the 'upscaliness' of the
community the station is in. For example, in an upscale town like
Manchester, VT we saw prices up to $1.15 /gal.
In tiny little off the beaten places, like Pownal, outside of
Bennington, it was $1.04/gal or less.
--
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save
the few who are rich."
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, from his Inaugural speech, January 20, 1961.
Tom Hopf
is an old and familiar subject. There are said to be nasty ways of
keeping would-be rebels among the gas station ranks in line as well (all
threatening done over the phone or so I've heard). I can't substantiate
that of course, but then, if it's true, no one independently could,
legally, now could they?
Seems the difference has gone down some though from what it used to be
(seems it was a 20 cent/gal. difference within 100 miles at one time).
Perhaps enough people were complaining, and there was some kind of
investigation, although that didn't seem to amount to much. Maybe
enough to scare the difference down a little. For how long? You guess.
Mr. Steve
the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> This post is off topic to this newsgroup. Don't read it if you want
to
> learn something about shyness.
Excuse me, but I believe this article does indeed relevance to a shyness
newsgroup. If this particular article does not interest you, and you
wish to learn more about the personal aspects of shyness, you are more
than welcome to not reply to this post, and instead use your mouse to
click on another one.
For a good overview on how these larger socioeconomic and sociopolitical
issues are related to shyness, check the Deja News archives and read the
article I spent 6 hours of my time researching, entitled "What Does all
this Political Stuff have to do with Shyness"
Also I would suggest reading Daeron's series "Elements of the
Corporatocracy" also on the Deja archives, and read several of the books
that he has referenced.
While I agree with you, that at first glance, an article on gas stations
and price fixing may not have any relevance to shyness - you will find,
upon doing further reading - that such issues are extremely important
for us, as informed citizens, to learn about how we are governed.
To put it simply - we do not live in a democracy, we are governed
economically by private power. Private power that has assumed
governmental roles and has kept many citizens in the dark as to how it
operates. This Corporatocracy is extremely complex, and oil
corporations are only a small chunk of it - but nonetheless you will
find that the governmental powers that the oil corporations exercise -
such as price fixing - do indeed affect your life and that of others.
So it is in your interests if you do the reading, and find out more
information on this. Otherwise, feel free to click on another post, but
don't tell me not to post this stuff on a shyness newsgroup.
> Maybe you could check crude oil prices, and consumption rate of gas
> during these times to see if they are mitigating factors.
Checked 'em. The price of crude oil has been at an all-time low during
this past winter, due to a fuel surplus. Thus, the low fuel prices
occured during the early winter - as some of the prices were below .40
per litre as I referenced.
However, you will note - as from the data I posted, that the price of
gas jumped up significantly towards late spring. We're talking a jump
as extreme as 39.9 to 58.9 in less than a month! That's almost 20
cents a litre difference!
Although the price of gas in a "free market" would normally bid itself
up during the summer months due to increase in demand, it would be a
rarity, again in a "free market" to see it jump that high that quickly.
What happened is that OPEC has cut production of oil, despite there
still being a surplus. The consequence, then, is for the price of gas
to be quickly raised - as demand is essentially being controlled.
Realizing that during the summer months, oil corporations could make
a killer profit by controlling the price - they indeed did just that.
> But I guess it's more fun to get indignant and blame somebody.
No - not at all. It's about showing concern, as a citizen, for how I
and others are governed. Before you accost me with your personal blame
theorems, I would suggest that you do the reading I suggested so you can
learn more about these issues. Or else, read another post.
> Increased demand?
See above. This would be the case in a free market, but where the
market is being controlled by an elite group of corporations, the demand
for fuel ends up being controlled as well.
> Mine is to buy the cheapest gas I can find. There's one place that
> always has the lowest prices around, so I go there. Plus, there are
> several cut rate stations just outside the area I live in, so when
> returning from a trip, I fill up.
This is a good sign - you demonstrate that you're willing to go the
extra mile to get a good bargain. Now wouldn't you want to invest more
in yourself by doing some of the reading that I suggested. That would
be an even better bargain :-)
Steve.
--
"Give up yourself, and you will find your real
self. Lose your life and you will save it."
- C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity"
the paper chase guy
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> In article <7kovgo$kqf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > This post is off topic to this newsgroup. Don't read it if you want
> to
> > learn something about shyness.
>
> Excuse me, but I believe this article does indeed relevance to a
shyness
> newsgroup.
No, it doesn't. Anyways, I was talking about my post.
> For a good overview on how these larger socioeconomic and
sociopolitical
> issues are related to shyness, check the Deja News archives and read
the
> article I spent 6 hours of my time researching, entitled "What Does
all
> this Political Stuff have to do with Shyness"
I read it when you posted it.
> Also I would suggest reading Daeron's series "Elements of the
> Corporatocracy" also on the Deja archives, and read several of the
books
> that he has referenced.
I read part of them, enough to convince me that I didn't need to read
any more of them.
> So it is in your interests if you do the reading, and find out more
> information on this. Otherwise, feel free to click on another post,
but
> don't tell me not to post this stuff on a shyness newsgroup.
Don't post this stuff on a shyness newsgroup.
> > But I guess it's more fun to get indignant and blame somebody.
>
> No - not at all. It's about showing concern, as a citizen, for how I
> and others are governed. Before you accost me with your personal
blame
> theorems, I would suggest that you do the reading I suggested so you
can
> learn more about these issues. Or else, read another post.
This is a tactic you've learned from Daeron, that if I disagree with
you, I must not understand you, or I need a Summer Reading Assignment.
You and Daeron also tend to object to problems you find with me, rather
than what I've posted. I would have to jump through all of these hoops
to satisfy your checklists:
1) Read every post you've ever made.
2) Read every book you've referenced.
3) Become a member of Mensa.
4) Get two master's degrees.
5) Age to a year of your choosing.
6) Admit to whatever hidden agendas I might have.
7) Stop using a pseudonym.
8) Stop being an overpaid unix jockey.
Bringing up these hoops changes the topic to whether one is even
entitled to object. It's a status/putdown game: "you're not as
informed", "you're not as experienced", "you're opinion differs because
you're shady or selfish". I'm sure it gives the two of you thrilling
feelings of superiority. On the other hand, people who recognize these
games won't be swayed.
Besides, if you don't like my opinions, read another post.
> > Mine is to buy the cheapest gas I can find. There's one place that
> > always has the lowest prices around, so I go there. Plus, there are
> > several cut rate stations just outside the area I live in, so when
> > returning from a trip, I fill up.
>
> This is a good sign - you demonstrate that you're willing to go the
> extra mile to get a good bargain. Now wouldn't you want to invest
more
> in yourself by doing some of the reading that I suggested. That would
> be an even better bargain :-)
No, partially because there would only be another hoop to jump through,
but mostly because your and Daeron's arguments (relying heavily on
quotes from the books you suggest) are unconvincing.
paperchaseguy
Mr. Steve
the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I read part of them, enough to convince me that I didn't need to read
> any more of them.
Then I can't figure out, for the life of me, why you are continuing to
read and reply to this post. If these issues don't interest you, then
don't read them. It's as simple as that.
> This is a tactic you've learned from Daeron, that if I disagree with
> you, I must not understand you, or I need a Summer Reading Assignment.
No. It's not a simple case of disagreeing with me. I can handle that,
and in fact I prefer a good and rational debate.
What I find irritating with you is that your "disagreements" don't deal
directly with the content, but rather you act to play some sort of
Usenet cop and tell me that what I'm posting doesn't have anything to do
with shyness.
I am suggesting that you do some of the reading for the benefit of
seeing how these issues relate to shyness, and other aspects of people's
lives. That is all. I'm not forcing you to do any of this reading, but
when you come out of the blue and say, "This doesn't belong here" with
little background knowledge, then I feel that having some more
background on how these issues DO deal with shyness would help you in
your own criticisms.
> 1) Read every post you've ever made.
> 2) Read every book you've referenced.
Not true at all. You can get a realitively accurate perspective just by
reading the Corporatocracy series. But you even admitted that you read
part of the series, and were convinced you didn't want to read anymore.
> 3) Become a member of Mensa.
> 4) Get two master's degrees.
More strawmen. I am still working on my bachelor's degree, and at this
point I don't expect to get any more education because I'd prefer to
work on a career and start packing away money for my 'nest egg' to
achieve financial independence early.
Besides, it's so bloody competitive out there, that I'd have to work my
butt off just to qualify to get into some of the graduate programs - let
alone be accepted, of which requires references and an interview
nowadays. My average is not spectacular, just a low B (~73%) in my
courses taken, so I consider myself an average student.
I do, however, pride myself on being broadly educated. That is I don't
like narrowly specializing in one area, but rather having knowledge
across the board. Although I am majoring in Meteorology, I am also
keenly interested in Psychology, Sociology, Politics,
Economics, Religion, Physics, and Electronics, and have taken courses
and read books in each of the above, and plan on mixing more in with the
next two years of university.
Also, I'm one of those rare students who actually applies what I learn
in school to my life. Many of my fellow students, although nice people,
just go to their classes and cram for the finals.
> 5) Age to a year of your choosing.
Well I'm only 21, so I don't know what this is all about.
> 6) Admit to whatever hidden agendas I might have.
Going by what I've seen so far, you agenda is to play Usenet cop and
censor what's appropriate on this newsgroup, and what isn't.
Also, you have chosen to reply to both of my posts thus far, even though
you *openly admitted* that you aren't interested in these issues.
> Bringing up these hoops changes the topic to whether one is even
> entitled to object. It's a status/putdown game: "you're not as
> informed", "you're not as experienced", "you're opinion differs
because
> you're shady or selfish". I'm sure it gives the two of you thrilling
> feelings of superiority.
No - not at all. We are offering an alternative viewpoint to
discussions of shyness - namely those that involved larger social
issues. How we are governed. How living in this culture affects our
lives and that of others. How we can become more aware of these things.
How we can increase media literacy. How we can choose more sustainable
and environmentaly and socially conscious lifestyles.
What we find irritating, is when you and others feel you have the right
to tell us not to post this viewpoint here. Because it "doesn't have
anything to do with shyness"
I don't find it thrilling to make up these posts - I could be doing many
other things with my time. I feel though, that it's my duty to give
more awareness to others on these issues. To get something out in the
air.
> Besides, if you don't like my opinions, read another post.
No. *You* replied to my post, and *you* took the first chomp. So don't
tell me to read another post please.
> No, partially because there would only be another hoop to jump
through,
> but mostly because your and Daeron's arguments (relying heavily on
> quotes from the books you suggest) are unconvincing.
And what, pray tell, books have you referenced to support your point of
view? Why should I find your arguments convincing? Because you're the
official cop of this newsgroup?
Steve.
--
"Give up yourself, and you will find your real
self. Lose your life and you will save it."
- C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity"
DAERON
>
> In article <7kr471$cem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> It's a status/putdown game: "you're not as
> > informed", "you're not as experienced", "you're opinion differs
> because
> > you're shady or selfish". I'm sure it gives the two of you thrilling
> > feelings of superiority.
>
> No - not at all. We are offering an alternative viewpoint to
> discussions of shyness - namely those that involved larger social
> issues. How we are governed.
Obviously, from the perspective of the person you're responding to, the
larger social issues don't matter, or count. He probably doesn't even
have the foggiest clue about how his opinions are media-manipulated and
pre-propagandized to confer this limited, parochial view in the first
place!
As they say, you can 'lead the horse to water, but you can't make him
drink. '
> How living in this culture affects our
> lives and that of others. How we can become more aware of these things.
Exactly, and speaking of that - take a gander at this revolting story of
image-dominated teens that appeared in The Washington Post. It almost
made my stomach turn, to read how these youngsters - many only in
mid-teen years, were pressured by the marketing maniacs, their
advertising lackeys and brainwashed peers into 'going under the knife'
to improve their appearance.
Totally and absolutely revolting. See it at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/june99/plastic23.htm
> What we find irritating, is when you and others feel you have the right
> to tell us not to post this viewpoint here. Because it "doesn't have
> anything to do with shyness"
Brother, you've got that right. But mostly now, I flip past the critic
or complainant and move on, attributing their carping to plain
ignorance. Ignorance of the larger Social Self, and how it shaped
'top-down' the personal 'self.' In my Bfifurcation of Shyness Theory
article, I showed this in extensive detail: how the larger culture,
society shapes false images and pseudo-personalities to fit within it.
No discussion of shyness, or temperament avoidance behavior, can be
complete- imho, without cognizance of the 'soil' from which
'personalities' spring.
The sad truth is that this 'plastic' (as in image-obsessed, plastic
surgery) society is now churning out false personalities - based on
superficial disguises and 'rehearsed acting', with a frequency 100-150
times greater than authentic personalities, self-aware and motivated by
inner authority, as opposed to external pressures, agents.
And when this load of 'fakes' finally assumes all reigns of power, in
government or wherever, we will all be for the 'high jump', to use the
Bajan expression.
A nation of fakes, governed by fakes.
All image- no substance.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<37713F...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Mr. Steve wrote:
> >
> > In article <7kr471$cem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> It's a status/putdown game: "you're not as
> > > informed", "you're not as experienced", "you're opinion differs
> > because
> > > you're shady or selfish". I'm sure it gives the two of you thrilling
> > > feelings of superiority.
> >
> > No - not at all. We are offering an alternative viewpoint to
> > discussions of shyness - namely those that involved larger social
> > issues. How we are governed.
>
> Obviously, from the perspective of the person you're responding to, the
> larger social issues don't matter, or count.
Not obviously that answer, actually. What I think he means is that the
quotes he listed above really, really don't do anything to help him
understand those larger social issues and how they relate to him and the
world around him, and aren't exactly likely to make him want to listen to
discussions about those issues.
If he's thinking that you are just talking about them to get a sense of
superiority, chances are he isn't going to take your words seriously.
> He probably doesn't even
> have the foggiest clue about how his opinions are media-manipulated and
> pre-propagandized to confer this limited, parochial view in the first
> place!
Right here is a good example. How do you know that his opinions are simply
media-manipuated "brainwashing"? Just because they don't agree with yours?
How do you know that he hasn't spent time researching and logically
discovering his opinions? Simply because he didn't research what you
thought he should, or hasn't told you what he researched?
>
> As they say, you can 'lead the horse to water, but you can't make him
> drink. '
However, you might like to try actually LEADING the horse to water, instead
of trying to drag him there while continually asserting how much smarter
you are than the horse because you know where the water is and he doesn't,
even if he ALSO knows where another water hole is that he likes better.
--
Allan Cybulskie
" 'Do you suffer from long-term memory loss?'
'I don't remember' "
- From "Amnesia" by Chumbawamba
Allan Cybulskie
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<7krbij$fl5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <7kr471$cem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > 1) Read every post you've ever made.
> > 2) Read every book you've referenced.
>
> Not true at all. You can get a realitively accurate perspective just by
> reading the Corporatocracy series. But you even admitted that you read
> part of the series, and were convinced you didn't want to read anymore.
One of the problems, though, is that even after doing that you have to do a
lot of filling in the blanks to draw the link between them and shyness, and
if you miss even one step along the way you aren't likely to find the
connection.
For example, in one or more of yours and Daeron's articles I didn't agree
that shyness was primarily caused by "selfish" issues, or an excessive
focus on yourself. I thought that it could be, and it also could be an
excessive focus on OTHERS and ensuring that THEY were happy at the expense
of your own happiness. Right there, you start to lose the link that you
were drawing between the Corporatocracy and shyness, which means that
people will still, even after the reading, wonder what all of this has to
do with shyness.
Personally, I thought that one interesting thing about social issues with
respect to shyness was the argument that the opinions of society mattered
to us and so we ended up "faking" being part of society. The response was
to make society more responsive (I think, it has been a while). My
thought, though, was that really what we needed was to encourage people to
care LESS what society thought in certain areas so that a shy person felt
free to be shy (if they so desired) without feeling that there was
something wrong with them. Then again, I feel that shyness isn't
necessarily an undesirable trait, so this fits in with that.
(If you're wondering why I didn't reply, I meant to, but didn't find the
time at the time).
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> I have heard complaint after complaint from my customers over the prices
> of gas, and many other people think they're being ripped off as well.
This seems incredible to me, because in the UK we pay twice as much as the
highest prices you quoted. And over 80% of this is tax. The government
think (or at least claim) they are trying to encourage people to use
public transport, but all that happens is the public transport prices keep
going up as well, and it all stays in equilibrium but with all the prices
higher than they were before.
Practically everything costs more in the UK than in the US (although
petrol is an extreme example). It's cheaper to buy books and CDs from the
US via Amazon, for example, even after shipping costs have been added.
Also, average wages tend to be higher in America. Higher wages, cheaper
goods. And you guys *complain*? Jeez!
Ollie
Mr. Steve
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Exactly, and speaking of that - take a gander at this revolting story
of
> image-dominated teens that appeared in The Washington Post. It almost
> made my stomach turn, to read how these youngsters - many only in
> mid-teen years, were pressured by the marketing maniacs, their
> advertising lackeys and brainwashed peers into 'going under the knife'
> to improve their appearance.
>
> Totally and absolutely revolting. See it at:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/june99/plastic23.htm
Saw it, and this article got me shaking my head.
Looking at it not only from a cultural perspective, but from my faith as
well, it just makes me sick how people can buy into this body image
bullshit in order to meet some perfectionistic ideal. I'll admit I have
a bit of a problem with perfectionism myself, and am working on
alleviating it through some self-help books on how to deal with anxiety
- but knowing that this perfectionism is fueled by living in an
image-obsessed culture helps greatly in my getting past this stage.
What I found most striking in the article was how young teenagers and
adolescents, who still don't know their authentic selves well enough,
are selling out their life saving to have liposuctions and breast
implants done.
In my opinion, during the critical age of 15-25, when both the body and
mind are developing so much - it is a fundamental mistake to make these
kind of surgical changes which will leave scars for a lifetime.
What these kids need to be doing is first becoming aware of how much
they are being suckered and controlled by the corporate media, and then
working on developing their authentic selves - to get to know themselves
better, and develop more genuine relationships with others. And this
includes honing social skills and trying out as many new experiences as
possible - much more than those which cater to the media bloodhounds.
> The sad truth is that this 'plastic' (as in image-obsessed, plastic
> surgery) society is now churning out false personalities - based on
> superficial disguises and 'rehearsed acting', with a frequency 100-150
> times greater than authentic personalities, self-aware and motivated
by
> inner authority, as opposed to external pressures, agents.
Yes - and I had first-hand experience of that when I applied to a job
that was offered at my campus for students to work in sales selling
knives. This was a US-based corporation (Vector) setting up shop in
Canada to expand their market. The employer there was superb in his
communication skills as he demonstrated to the group on how the products
worked. He was excellent in selling the product - but I saw absolutely
zippo in terms of genuine character. I declined the job, obviously.
> A nation of fakes, governed by fakes.
>
> All image- no substance.
Got that right.
Mr. Steve
"Allan Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> One of the problems, though, is that even after doing that you have to
do a
> lot of filling in the blanks to draw the link between them and
shyness, and
> if you miss even one step along the way you aren't likely to find the
> connection.
True - it's not easy to make these kinds of connections - it took me a
long time and a lot of effort to do so myself.
I attribute part of that to my temperament, and how I naturally am
attracted to the 'trees' and their wonderful detail - and it takes
effort for me to see the forest. However, having had experience in
university taking three psychology courses taught by a professor who
focused on larger social issues helped "awaken" the part of my
temperament that likes to see things integrated into a larger whole.
Plus reading the articles by Daeron here, and talking to friends who
already saw things from a larger perspective - that helped me see the
connections.
As Charles Reich notes in his book, "Opposing the System", it takes a
considerable amount of time, effort, stretching to 'see'.
The larger social issues we speak of are difficult to grasp at first -
and it takes experience reading them to see how they apply to shyness.
The connection is not immediately obvious, given how complex the
Corporatocracy is.
It's a lot like finding your way around a new city. You can become
familiar with certain places and districts, and familiarize yourself
with them - but it takes effort to integrate all those places and get
familiar with the whole city.
Similarily to reading these issues - you may become very familiar with
how the educational system works, and/or also how specific corporations
operate, as well as other elements - but it takes effort to bring them
all together.
I attempted in my 'What does all this political stuff ..... ' article to
explain how shyness is affected by the Corporatocracy, and did so in a
way that was informative and conversational, as that's the style I
prefer. It's the same style I use in making speeches for Toastmasters
and writing in general. Basically, I write and make speeches the same
way I talk to people face-to-face.
In 'Opposing the System' however, Reich does quite a bang-up job of
integrating the different aspect of the Corporatocracy together, in an
easy-to-read style. It's a good book to check out, plus there are
references for further reading as well.
> For example, in one or more of yours and Daeron's articles I didn't
agree
> that shyness was primarily caused by "selfish" issues, or an excessive
> focus on yourself. I thought that it could be, and it also could be
an
> excessive focus on OTHERS and ensuring that THEY were happy at the
expense
> of your own happiness.
This is quite an interesting paradox, and Marc and I are discussing it
in another thread.
The way I look at what you referenced - i.e. excessive accomodation for
others, is a form of people-pleasing behavior. That is, ironically,
when you go *too far* out of your way to please others it is for selfish
reasons because you want their approval. Ideally, you should have a
solid grasp on yourself, but do so for the purposes of serving and
helping others. Self for others, basically.
The other extreme to an excessive need for approval (people-pleasing) is
excessive selfishness, of course. I am working on taking care of myself
more, as people-pleasing is an issue for me.
However, I can say with some certainty that shyness does focus too much
no oneself - even if for people-pleasing purposes. Always concerned
with what others think. That is, why making a genuine striving to look
outward - and focus on others (not necessarily pleasing them) is a
hallmark of breaking out of your shell and overcoming shyness.
Even if it means just examining the culture and your place in it - this
is a good step, and is what we are attempting to do with our articles of
communication.
> Personally, I thought that one interesting thing about social issues
with
> respect to shyness was the argument that the opinions of society
mattered
> to us and so we ended up "faking" being part of society.
And this is in fact what many shy people do - although not always
consciously aware of it. Those 'covertly shy' have enough skills to put
on a false persona to match that of society's expecations - even if this
persona is not their genuine self.
I've done it many times in the past - and I'm working on phasing out
this faking, and coming across more naturally.
Although I have social skills and have learned the ability to extrovert
- since I like talking to people - I'm still by and large an introvert,
and I find that there are periods when I am quiet for awhile. What I
find is that when I feel comfortable with people I can talk up a storm
and naturally exude the part of myself that is extroverted (and that may
be evinced in my writing too, as I feel comfortable here, and I write
like I talk).
However, this kind of 'extroversion' on my part does not come on demand.
I absolutely detest it when I have to smile on demand, especially
around people whom I don't feel comfortable with. This is where the
faking part comes in (in order to produce an image compatible with
society) and I feel like a phony doing it, even if it grants me over 90%
on customer service sneak inspection reports.
> Then again, I feel that shyness isn't
> necessarily an undesirable trait, so this fits in with that.
I don't think it's undesirable either - but try telling that to the
marketing-image 'PR' buffs of our culture who just love to discriminate
against those temperament types. David Letterman, especially, is
notorious for humiliating shy people who are guests on his show. His
behavior comes across as practically fascist, disguised in humor.
> (If you're wondering why I didn't reply, I meant to, but didn't find
the
> time at the time).
No worries.
Allan Cybulskie
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<7ksl6o$u13$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bebe2b$cb7eab60$35fd...@test.carleton.ca>,
> "Allan Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
> > One of the problems, though, is that even after doing that you have to
> do a
> > lot of filling in the blanks to draw the link between them and
> shyness, and
> > if you miss even one step along the way you aren't likely to find the
> > connection.
>
> True - it's not easy to make these kinds of connections - it took me a
> long time and a lot of effort to do so myself.
Part of the reason it's hard to make some of those connections is that if
you don't agree that one of those steps is true you won't agree with the
link.
> > For example, in one or more of yours and Daeron's articles I didn't
> agree
> > that shyness was primarily caused by "selfish" issues, or an excessive
> > focus on yourself. I thought that it could be, and it also could be
> an
> > excessive focus on OTHERS and ensuring that THEY were happy at the
> expense
> > of your own happiness.
>
> This is quite an interesting paradox, and Marc and I are discussing it
> in another thread.
I actually never asserted that it was a paradox -- I simply argued for
different causes for the same "problem" (shyness). Some people's shyness
is caused by their worrying about other people's opinion, and for some
people it's caused by their concern for other people's feelings, and not
wanting to impose.
>
> The way I look at what you referenced - i.e. excessive accomodation for
> others, is a form of people-pleasing behavior. That is, ironically,
> when you go *too far* out of your way to please others it is for selfish
> reasons because you want their approval. Ideally, you should have a
> solid grasp on yourself, but do so for the purposes of serving and
> helping others. Self for others, basically.
I disagree that this is necessarily the case. For example, a lot of times
when I'm too polite it isn't because I'm worried about that specific
person's approval or "like". I'm worried about their feelings and that
I'll annoy them or worry them. Certainly, I suppose, there's always a bit
of a concern what they think, but I don't think that's the main focus of
it. I mean, I don't not do things because I'm worried that they'll get a
bad impression of me, but because I'm worried that they'll be upset or
offended and I don't want to upset or offend people.
As an example, I won't approach people because I worry that they are busy
and won't appreciate the intrusion, not because I'm worried that they'll
not like me because I approached them.
> However, I can say with some certainty that shyness does focus too much
> no oneself - even if for people-pleasing purposes. Always concerned
> with what others think.
This can be focusing on yourself (for approval) or on others (I don't want
to bother them).
> > Personally, I thought that one interesting thing about social issues
> with
> > respect to shyness was the argument that the opinions of society
> mattered
> > to us and so we ended up "faking" being part of society.
>
> And this is in fact what many shy people do - although not always
> consciously aware of it. Those 'covertly shy' have enough skills to put
> on a false persona to match that of society's expecations - even if this
> persona is not their genuine self.
>
> I've done it many times in the past - and I'm working on phasing out
> this faking, and coming across more naturally.
>
> Although I have social skills and have learned the ability to extrovert
> - since I like talking to people - I'm still by and large an introvert,
> and I find that there are periods when I am quiet for awhile. What I
> find is that when I feel comfortable with people I can talk up a storm
> and naturally exude the part of myself that is extroverted (and that may
> be evinced in my writing too, as I feel comfortable here, and I write
> like I talk).
>
> However, this kind of 'extroversion' on my part does not come on demand.
> I absolutely detest it when I have to smile on demand, especially
> around people whom I don't feel comfortable with. This is where the
> faking part comes in (in order to produce an image compatible with
> society) and I feel like a phony doing it, even if it grants me over 90%
> on customer service sneak inspection reports.
As I said, then, to me the solution isn't to work towards being able to do
that, and having society help you, naturally, but instead being able to say
"I don't care about doing that" and being accepted for that. In short, a
more extreme form of INDIVIDUALISM, and a weakening of societal based
standards that people feel obliged to follow.
It actually seems to me in this society that we obligate what we should and
don't obligate what we should, which could explain why we are in such rough
shape (morally).
>
> > Then again, I feel that shyness isn't
> > necessarily an undesirable trait, so this fits in with that.
>
> I don't think it's undesirable either - but try telling that to the
> marketing-image 'PR' buffs of our culture who just love to discriminate
> against those temperament types. David Letterman, especially, is
> notorious for humiliating shy people who are guests on his show. His
> behavior comes across as practically fascist, disguised in humor.
In extroverted areas (like TV) shy people will look far out of place and
get picked on in our society. It is nice to know, though, that many other
areas (including business) are starting to welcome introverts. I mean,
from a corporate POV, isn't an introvert designer (with no outside life)
the perfect worker?
Then again, right now I'm in a group with a lot of extroverts, so ...
DAERON
>
> Also, average wages tend to be higher in America. Higher wages, cheaper
> goods. And you guys *complain*? Jeez!
>
We complain because there are many public costs which are now
privatized. For example, in the UK you get free medical care, do you
not? Well, over here we have to pay for it all, at very high rates.
There are now 44 million *workers* uninusured in this country. One
single accident, or medical calamity can therefore wipe them out. One
step away from being homeless you could say.
You may have lower paychecks (though with globalization, the
'protelaraianization' of professionals is continuing at record pace) but
your total benefits come to more than the average American receives,
when all is taken into account.
As for the 'cheaper goods' they come at the price of lost jobs. Since,
in order to keep those 'cheap prices' manufacturers must farm jobs out
to low labor markets, like Mexico. This is what 'Chainsaw' Al Dunlap did
at Sunbeam, in order to keep its product costs low. Farmed some 10,000
decent paying, respectable American jobs to Mexico, where the pay rate
is $1/hr or less and NO benefits.
So, be careful what you wish for, you may not want it to come true.
DAERON
> Not obviously that answer, actually. What I think he means is that the
> quotes he listed above really, really don't do anything to help him
> understand those larger social issues and how they relate to him and the
> world around him, and aren't exactly likely to make him want to listen to
> discussions about those issues.
As I said, this is because his mind has been pre-emptively turned off
those issues, by virtue of being a 'hostage' to corporate-media
brainwashing and censorship as I noted (from Michael Parenti's book) in
a previous post.
Insisting that one isn't fodder for the corporate mind thieves, doesn't
cut it. Getting outside their swill orbit, of controlled and
pre-fabricated deceptions and omissions, does.
> If he's thinking that you are just talking about them to get a sense of
> superiority, chances are he isn't going to take your words seriously.
Of course, but I don't believe Steve or me has any sense of this
'superiority', despite how we may come across. Sometimes, telling the
truth makes one appear a certain way. And some don't like it. That's
regrettable, but it doesn't mean we'll stop anytime soon.
> Right here is a good example. How do you know that his opinions are simply
> media-manipuated "brainwashing"?
If he's one of the 233 million in N. America getting their news and info
from exclusively network, corporate sources, I'd say rather high in
probability. Say like 99%. See Parenti's book 'America Beseiged' -
specifically the section 'Methods of Media Manipulation'.
The most manipulated minds are the ones thoroughly unaware of their
manipulation.
>Just because they don't agree with yours?
The disagreement isn't the issue, it's the basis of the disagreement.
It's the background info he has and used, to make that disagreement.
If it emanates exclusively from corporate sources, than as I said, the
odds are it's merely the corporate voice being 're-enunciated'.
> How do you know that he hasn't spent time researching and logically
> discovering his opinions? Simply because he didn't research what you
> thought he should, or hasn't told you what he researched?
You could say that. I assume he hasn't because it's a fairly good
assumption (99% probability), certainly for most on the ng. It's not
exactly easy to get news from extra-corporate sources, that's another
reason. And, when people don't offer information on where they came by
their opinions, it's usually because they don't want others (like me) to
know it's from sources like PEOPLE, Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street
Journal and MSNBC's various pundit shows.
> However, you might like to try actually LEADING the horse to water, instead
> of trying to drag him there while continually asserting how much smarter
> you are than the horse because you know where the water is and he doesn't,
Newsflash! Most horses don't 'know' where the water is. They have to be
led to it, paricularly in some of the more arid regions of Colorado.
The analogy carries over to an environment which is 'arid' in terms of
alternative news sources, and full disclosure of information.
> even if he ALSO knows where another water hole is that he likes better.
Then it's up to him to make that clear. But, if it's any of the sources
listed above, I'm afraid he's a brainwashed puppet of the corporate
controlled mass media, whether he acknowledges it or not.
DAERON
>
> What I found most striking in the article was how young teenagers and
> adolescents, who still don't know their authentic selves well enough,
> are selling out their life saving to have liposuctions and breast
> implants done.
>
> In my opinion, during the critical age of 15-25, when both the body and
> mind are developing so much - it is a fundamental mistake to make these
> kind of surgical changes which will leave scars for a lifetime.
Exactly and that was noted in the article. For ex. it was noted that
oftentimes - in doing the breast implant surgery, the nipples had to be
removed, then replaced. The repercussions of this are appalling: a)
damage to the nerve endings (making them essentially unresponsive to
sexual intimacy later, when married say) and b) severe damage to the
milk ducts (making them unable to nurse, and therefore develop that
critical bond of intimacy with their children, which promotes healthy
brain and personality development).
In other words, by going into these surgeries, these girls are paving
the way for a new generation of even more alienated people.
More brain-damaged and devoid of capacity for emotional bonding at any
genuine level.
> What these kids need to be doing is first becoming aware of how much
> they are being suckered and controlled by the corporate media, and then
> working on developing their authentic selves - to get to know themselves
> better, and develop more genuine relationships with others.
True, but since most of them don't even read (the 18-25 age group is
documented as the lowest group of readers, least material covered
whether in newspapers or elsewhere) they can't cross check what the
corporate media drones are sending out. It gets subliminally absorbed,
as the 'truth' or 'the best truth' and then reflected in their pathetic,
limited lives - that revolve exclusively around visual perceptions and
material toys.
I shudder to think that this lot will be the 'leaders' in another 30-40
years. And it wouldn't surprise me if we had a society like that
depicted in 'Logan's Run'.
Mr. Steve
"Allan Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> I'm worried about their feelings and
that
> I'll annoy them or worry them.
I'm worried that they'll be upset or
> offended and I don't want to upset or offend people.
It's great that you care about other people's feelings - and this ties
into my posts on selflessness, but what you're describing does go beyond
selflessness and touches on people-pleasing behaviour or "nice guy"
syndrome.
For instance, you may be worried about annoying, offending, upsetting,
or insulting people because of the fear that they would give you a
negative evaluation because of that.
Consider the following continuum:
SELFLESS -------------------------------------- SELFISH
At the far left end of this, you deal exclusively with pleasing others,
and going out of your way to make others comfortable. In other words
being a "nice" guy.
At the far right, you are fully conscious of your own needs and desire,
to the point you put them above everybody else's.
Paradoxically there is a swinging involved, similarily to that on the
political spectrum, when extreme selflessness and people-pleasing
behavior is actually done for selfless reasons.
The kind of selflessness that I'm describing in my posts is towards the
left end of the continuum, say a 4, where you develop yourself and your
own confidence for the purposes of helping and serving others. You
don't let others walk all over you - but at the same time you respect
their needs and help them out. I used to be a 2 or 3 but I'm moving a
bit more to the right on this scale. I used to be a "nice" guy, but I'm
learning to be a bit more "selfish" now.
>
> In extroverted areas (like TV) shy people will look far out of place
and
> get picked on in our society.
You have it right.
It is nice to know, though, that many
other
> areas (including business) are starting to welcome introverts.
A good sign.
Steve
Mr. Steve
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I shudder to think that this lot will be the 'leaders' in another
> 30-40
> years. And it wouldn't surprise me if we had a society like that
> depicted in 'Logan's Run'.
Oh yes, I remember that movie - saw it when I was around 12 or so.
Unfortunately I missed the ending where the lead character (can't
remember his name) was about to escape and he had just made his way
outside the confines of the society - because my VCR cut off.
I found it to be quite an interesting movie at the time, even though I
didn't understand much of the politics and stuff - I thought the plot
and setting were fantastic. Very similar dynamics to the series Earth 2
which was on a few years ago, missed that show as well.
Do you know any places where I'd be able to re-order Logan's Run and
watch it again? Unfortunately Blockbuster and Rogers don't carry it, as
I checked a while back.
the paper chase guy
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> In article <7kr471$cem$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I read part of them, enough to convince me that I didn't need to
read
> > any more of them.
>
> Then I can't figure out, for the life of me, why you are continuing to
> read and reply to this post.
Because you're posting to a newsgroup I used to enjoy. I used to read
every article but this place is really going to shit.
> > 1) Read every post you've ever made.
> > 2) Read every book you've referenced.
>
> Not true at all.
I was exaggerating, but only slightly. Almost every paragraph in your
previous reply was saying I should read this post or that book.
> > 3) Become a member of Mensa.
> > 4) Get two master's degrees.
>
> More strawmen.
Both of which Daeron has brought up as his superior qualifications to
try and quash objections. Along with bringing up my age, where I lived,
and accusing me of having a hidden agenda. He's used "overpaid unix
jockey" before, though not to me. I'm sure he would describe me that
way if he knew what I did and how much money I made. It would make me
chuckle.
It actually embarrasses me when I do agree with you, because you make
such poor cases for your views, or you say something completely obvious
("The mass media is full of propaganda!") and pat yourselves on the back
for it.
> > No, partially because there would only be another hoop to jump
> through,
> > but mostly because your and Daeron's arguments (relying heavily on
> > quotes from the books you suggest) are unconvincing.
>
> And what, pray tell, books have you referenced to support your point
of
> view?
I should point out you've been more than willing to break the rules of
this Scholastic Game when it suits you. For instance, you use proof by
assertion a lot. I don't do that game, because I'm not impressed by
elaborate documentation of somebody else's opinions. [1]
Besides, it does not seem that you are at all interested in finding out
my point of view or what I think, you are more interested in *telling*
me what I think, and in telling me what I *should* think.
paperchaseguy
[1] Pepke, Eric. 5/11/99, alt.support.shyness.
myevi...@my-deja.com
> > Then I can't figure out, for the life of me, why you are continuing to
> > read and reply to this post.
>
> Because you're posting to a newsgroup I used to enjoy. I used to read
> every article but this place is really going to shit.
Thank you very much! <bows> :)
> Besides, it does not seem that you are at all interested in finding out
> my point of view or what I think, you are more interested in *telling*
> me what I think, and in telling me what I *should* think.
Actually, you make a good point here. When people are presenting
new and different ideas, why not ask others what they think? Or
present in smaller more easily digestible segments that are
clearly applicable to the ng? These long dry posts are like
walking into a lecture of a course you didn't sign up for.
DAERON
>
> Do you know any places where I'd be able to re-order Logan's Run and
> watch it again? Unfortunately Blockbuster and Rogers don't carry it, as
> I checked a while back.
Best bet is to keep an eye out for TNT listings (assume you get TNT in
Canada) as they sometimes show it, in both regular and 'letterbox'
versions. You may also be able to catch the (uncut) version - which
has some frontal nudity not shown in the TNT version, on HBO or 'Max'.
the paper chase guy
think than actually find out what I think.
Apparently I'm a People reading, MSNBC watching, Rush Limbaugh
listening, oil company supporting, corporate media brainwashed puppet.
(You can be one, too! Just dare to say "I think this is off topic," and
watch the accusations fly!)
This entire straw man falls down on account of I don't watch TV.
(College football and basketball notwithstanding. I don't even have
cable right now because it's not sports season.)
But it's a REAL easy way to win: assume your opponent harbors a bunch of
negative characteristics, then attack them for it! It's one of Daeron's
favorite things to do -- try it yourself sometime, it's fun! You should
also cite someone elses opinion and pretend it makes you smart to do so!
Probably no one will call you on it!
paperchaseguy
In article <377200...@ix.netcom.com>,
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
> > Not obviously that answer, actually. What I think he means is that
the
> > quotes he listed above really, really don't do anything to help him
> > understand those larger social issues and how they relate to him and
the
> > world around him, and aren't exactly likely to make him want to
listen to
> > discussions about those issues.
>
> As I said, this is because his mind has been pre-emptively turned off
> those issues, by virtue of being a 'hostage' to corporate-media
> brainwashing and censorship as I noted (from Michael Parenti's book)
in
> a previous post.
>
> Insisting that one isn't fodder for the corporate mind thieves,
doesn't
> cut it. Getting outside their swill orbit, of controlled and
> pre-fabricated deceptions and omissions, does.
>
> > If he's thinking that you are just talking about them to get a sense
> --
> "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save
> the few who are rich."
>
> - John Fitzgerald Kennedy, from his Inaugural speech, January 20,
1961.
>
>
DAERON
> Both of which Daeron has brought up as his superior qualifications to
> try and quash objections.
I never, ever brought those up as 'qualifications' - that is your
flatus superposed onto what I said. The point I made (I believe it was
to 'JerryO') was that being a member of Mensa, or havin two Masters'
degrees, does one no good unless s/he is also able to think critically
and *use* that brainpower (which looks great on paper).
True, I am a member of Mensa, and do have a Masters degree (Physics) but
that doesn't make me 'qualified' to argue one way or the other. However,
doing a wide range of research, outside a known co-opted, compromised
orbit or matrix does.
That was the point.
> Along with bringing up my age, where I lived,
> and accusing me of having a hidden agenda.
Age may be relevant. The younger a person, the less experience they are
liable to have with the real world, and also the more generally gullible
they're likely to be in terms of imbibing media dross (which is why
advertisers like to target 18-25 yr. olds as the prime group).
Where you live may also be germaine. If outside the U.S. (and Canada)
it's less likely you'll be intimately familiar with the corporate
order's agendas.
As for 'hidden agendas'- given my encounters with numerous 'disinfo
assets' in many ngs (i.e. alt.politics.economics, a.c.jfk - a number of
whom have *followed* me into THIS one) that is always the first
assumption I make unless the person actively disproves it in the course
of discussion.
> He's used "overpaid unix
> jockey" before, though not to me.
I used it to Eric Pepke after a fulsome, self-righteous post he made to
me that got my hackles up. Very up. I believe he made some remark about
menot knowing anything about real life battles with the system or some
such, and I had to 'read him the riot act' on his presumptions.
In general, I do not attack, unless attacked first. But, if 'first
blood' is drawn on me, I do not usually fall prey to the 'nice guy'
syndrome. Or, 'turn the other cheek'.
> I'm sure he would describe me that
> way if he knew what I did and how much money I made. It would make me
> chuckle.
Doesn't make any difference what you do - or what you make. Once you
have a decent argument to make, and can back it up with something
besides opinions. As I said, my remarks to Eric were purely out of
anger, after a snide initial remark he made about me. (Besides, I am
aware that nearly 40% of those on the net are 'unix jockeys' - or the
C++ version)
>
> It actually embarrasses me when I do agree with you, because you make
> such poor cases for your views,
I think, on the contrary - that we make very cogent cases. I think your
contaminated brain, mind in perceiving otherwise is the problem. You're
way too accustomed to corporate pandering, and brainwashing to recognize
a compelling argument.
>or you say something completely obvious
> ("The mass media is full of propaganda!") and pat yourselves on the back
> for it.
But it's a fact, and it isn't 'obvious' so long as 233 million 'victims'
are blissfully unaware. Just because you *may* be aware of it, is no
basis to generalize that assumption to everyone. Hence, the assumption
of being 'obvious' on your part is flawed.
> > > No, partially because there would only be another hoop to jump
> > through,
> > And what, pray tell, books have you referenced to support your point
> of
> > view?
>
> I should point out you've been more than willing to break the rules of
> this Scholastic Game when it suits you. For instance, you use proof by
> assertion a lot. I don't do that game, because I'm not impressed by
> elaborate documentation of somebody else's opinions. [1]
In other words, you don't read, and don't care to. You believe that your
opinions, of a 'unix jockey' 'C++ jockey' or whatever, are sufficiently
equal to those of a person (say like Joel Bleifuss, or Michael
Parenti)who've done over three decades' of research on corporate media
tactics.
You've just given us every reason not to take you seriously. As for
'proof by assertion' hardly. I for one, don't play the 'proof' game. As
a scientist (at least former one) I recognize that it's quality
assurance criteria for *adequate evidence* that counts. That's what
scientific researchers strive for. 'Proof' as such, is mostly only
applicable in the rarefied realm of pure mathematics.
> Besides, it does not seem that you are at all interested in finding out
> my point of view or what I think, you are more interested in *telling*
> me what I think, and in telling me what I *should* think.
Probably because you've made no convincing effort up to now to tell us
what you think.
Tell us, and give your reasons- without snide attacks on either of us.
Mr. Steve
the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Just more evidence that Daeron and Steve would rather tell me what I
> think than actually find out what I think.
So what *do* you think, Paperchaseguy?
What are your opinions on these issues? Where do you stand? I want you
to prove that you are capable of independent thought by demonstrating to
us your research skills and to show us the sources by which you've
formed your view on these issues. That is my challenge to you.
> This entire straw man falls down on account of I don't watch TV.
> (College football and basketball notwithstanding. I don't even have
> cable right now because it's not sports season.)
But the question remains - what are your sources? Who has influenced
your own independent opinions? I for one will give you the benefit of
the doubt that you do have your own opinions and aren't "brainwashed" in
that sense - but I and others would like to see proof of your own
thinking - by citing the sources that have led you to your conclusions.
Steve
Mr. Steve
the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It actually embarrasses me when I do agree with you, because you make
> such poor cases for your views, or you say something completely
obvious
> ("The mass media is full of propaganda!") and pat yourselves on the
back
> for it.
For starters, please address your criticism to the right person. You
first start by criticizing me - given by the second person singular
"you" and then you change it to include the second person plural
"yourselves" to address both me and Daeron. Get it right, please.
As for myself, I tend to avoid using words like "propaganda" and
"false consciousness" as they are too strong for my case. Also I come
from the 'love the sinner, hate the sin' mindset with this - it is the
Corporatocracy which I am fighting against, and the injustices therein -
not so much the individuals even though I find it hard to restrain
myself sometimes.
And for making poor cases for my views - not at all. In my post 'What
does .... Political Stuff .....' I've used ample citations to back up my
opinions.
> I should point out you've been more than willing to break the rules of
> this Scholastic Game when it suits you. For instance, you use proof
by
> assertion a lot. I don't do that game, because I'm not impressed by
> elaborate documentation of somebody else's opinions. [1]
I see now that Eric Pepke has influenced your opinions a great deal, not
surprisingly, but why did you wait until now to declare this instead of
earlier?
You see, now I have a clearer idea of where you stand - and the sources
which have led you to your own view - namely Eric's posts. Had I known
this earlier, it would have cleared the air up quite nicely.
> Besides, it does not seem that you are at all interested in finding
out
> my point of view or what I think, you are more interested in *telling*
> me what I think, and in telling me what I *should* think.
Unfortunately, I suspect that your point of view reflects that of the
mainstream culture. Maybe it doesn't, but going by your writing style
and your general attitudes of "everything is relative, live life now for
the moment, the econonmy has never been better, technology is the saving
grace, etc.." I would suspect that it does.
Jason B.
> Age may be relevant. The younger a person, the less experience they are
> liable to have with the real world, and also the more generally gullible
> they're likely to be in terms of imbibing media dross (which is why
> advertisers like to target 18-25 yr. olds as the prime group).
>
Just curious, but doesnt Reich say time and again in the 'Greening of
America' that the 'revolution' was going to be a youth revolution?
-J...
Martin
> Oh yes, I remember that movie - saw it when I was around 12 or so.
> Unfortunately I missed the ending where the lead character (can't
> remember his name) was about to escape and he had just made his way
> outside the confines of the society - because my VCR cut off.
That wasn't the end - there's quite a bit happens after they start
running. I'd call it "interesting" rather than precisely good.
> Do you know any places where I'd be able to re-order Logan's Run and
> watch it again? Unfortunately Blockbuster and Rogers don't carry it, as
> I checked a while back.
Check the IMDB. It may well turn up on TV too.
--
For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
Sven Coolson
Mr. Steve wrote:
>
> In article <7ku0rp$f0f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > It actually embarrasses me when I do agree with you, because you make
> > such poor cases for your views, or you say something completely
> obvious
> > ("The mass media is full of propaganda!") and pat yourselves on the
> back
> > for it.
>
> For starters, please address your criticism to the right person. You
> first start by criticizing me - given by the second person singular
> "you" and then you change it to include the second person plural
> "yourselves" to address both me and Daeron. Get it right, please.
?????? "You" is second person plural as well! Actually, it's the only
thing it was originally, "thou/thee" being the singular form. You should
know that, it's in the bible!
> And for making poor cases for my views - not at all. In my post 'What
> does .... Political Stuff .....' I've used ample citations to back up my
> opinions.
Sorry, but ample citations don't equate making good cases for one's
views. If it were that simple, then one could make a good case for the
Earth being flat, or Nazism being good.
DAERON
That was in 1970 (when 'Greening' was first published- reprinted in
1995). Unfortunately, the youth have changed significantly since then.
For an excellent insight see 'The Berkeley Years' when it next comes to
Bravo. It shows with documentary footage how youth then were a different
species from (most) of those we behold today.
DAERON
>
> Just more evidence that Daeron and Steve would rather tell me what I
> think than actually find out what I think.
>
> listening, oil company supporting, corporate media brainwashed puppet.
If the paradigm fits, which one or more parts do for over 233 million
hapless folk (making the assumption a pretty good applicable
probability) then 'wear it'. Thus far, I've seen no disclaimers, or any
info where you *do* get your sources.
> (You can be one, too! Just dare to say "I think this is off topic," and
> watch the accusations fly!)
Why not? We've been down this road before - addressed it before. Showed
why it's NOT off topic, and why those who say it is are using
pre-emptive tactics. In numerous posts I've recited evidence, and
documented from whence this mindset came. (The media). There's nothing
more I can do, if your mind is parochial and closed, thanks to you know
what.
> This entire straw man falls down on account of I don't watch TV.
OK, but as I said the assumption was on the basis of the probability
that most (of that 233 million mass cross section do).
So you're off the hook there. BUT, you still must read, SOMETHING!
And you haven't told us what. The WSJ perhaps, the bastion of some of
the most reactionary propagandized, censored thought (they refused to
run counter articles to their pro-religious fluff published last year,
saying they were 'opposed to offering a smorgasbord of opinion' see,
e.g. 'The Wall Street Journal Gets Religion', Free Inquiry, SPring,
1999, p. 13).
If you don't wish us to assume anything, then tell us what you *do*
read. Or where you obtain your news, information. Unless you're ashamed
to. (Including that you're unread, and therefore totally uninformed
about current events other than perhaps software development).
> (College football and basketball notwithstanding. I don't even have
> cable right now because it's not sports season.)
Then what do you READ? Or, do you read? Even USAToday?
Or, The National Enquirer?
> But it's a REAL easy way to win: assume your opponent harbors a bunch of
> negative characteristics, then attack them for it!
Up to now, you haven't disabused us of anything. What do you think this
is a game of twenty questions that we have to ask? Or, are we exepcted
to play process of elimination?
We're assuming based on the general trend -pattern. If you happen to
diverge, fine. Tell us where you do fit in the informational universe.
Unless you're ashamed to.
> It's one of Daeron's
> favorite things to do -- try it yourself sometime, it's fun!
At least I don't egg people on and waste time with 'twenty questions'.
Then, when they're wrong (because of NO information provided) castigate
them for it.
> You should
> also cite someone elses opinion and pretend it makes you smart to do so!
I cite others *research* - often based on years of work, and their own
excavation of hundreds of sources- because it provides a basis to my own
arguments, and also gives others a convenient set of sources to find
these arguments - in much more depth than I could ever give, even in a
million posts.
You -on the other hand, appear to believe all opinions, from whomever,
are created equal. Still, opinions must come from somewhere. WHERE do
yours emanate from? From what soil, of experience or other reading? Let
us know.
The ball is in your court, paperchaseguy.
> Probably no one will call you on it!
They have, or thought they have (as 'JerryO' once or twice in the past)
and I disabused them as I do you now.
Now, pcg - we can either keep playing this game, or you can deliver.
WHERE do you obtain your information from, the basis for all exercise of
facts, logic? (Which can't be exercised in vacuo)
OR, are you information-less?
I think that's a pretty simple question/.
Allan Cybulskie
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<7ktl56$9rc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bebe8e$d142c500$197c...@test.carleton.ca>,
> "Allan Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
> > I'm worried about their feelings and
> that
> > I'll annoy them or worry them.
>
> I'm worried that they'll be upset or
> > offended and I don't want to upset or offend people.
>
> It's great that you care about other people's feelings - and this ties
> into my posts on selflessness, but what you're describing does go beyond
> selflessness and touches on people-pleasing behaviour or "nice guy"
> syndrome.
>
> For instance, you may be worried about annoying, offending, upsetting,
> or insulting people because of the fear that they would give you a
> negative evaluation because of that.
May is the proper word from you, but that isn't my overarching concern.
Only in some cases do I really care about people giving me a "negative
evaluation", and mostly that's because I worry that I've done something bad
to them so that they got mad at me. If I knew that what I did was either
not normally offensive or was justified then I really don't care if they
get mad at me -- and if they do, I tend to simply react negatively to them,
as well. If they are JUSTIFIEd in being mad at me, though, I feel bad --
not because I'm upset that they don't like me, but because I'm upset that I
didn't treat them properly.
>
> Consider the following continuum:
>
> SELFLESS -------------------------------------- SELFISH
>
> At the far left end of this, you deal exclusively with pleasing others,
> and going out of your way to make others comfortable. In other words
> being a "nice" guy.
>
> At the far right, you are fully conscious of your own needs and desire,
> to the point you put them above everybody else's.
>
> Paradoxically there is a swinging involved, similarily to that on the
> political spectrum, when extreme selflessness and people-pleasing
> behavior is actually done for selfless reasons.
I think you mean selfish reasons.
>
> The kind of selflessness that I'm describing in my posts is towards the
> left end of the continuum, say a 4, where you develop yourself and your
> own confidence for the purposes of helping and serving others. You
> don't let others walk all over you - but at the same time you respect
> their needs and help them out. I used to be a 2 or 3 but I'm moving a
> bit more to the right on this scale. I used to be a "nice" guy, but I'm
> learning to be a bit more "selfish" now.
I think I'm already there, because I certainly don't let people walk all
over me.
It's interesting. I took one of those Personality tests at a course
through work, and when things were going well I was predominantly Green
(thinking), and my score put me above average in thinking. The next one
was Blue (feeling, average) and then Red (doing or aggressive, low). When
things were going badly my thinking went up by one, and my aggressive went
up to average, but only because my feeling dropped quite a bit (a bit below
average). What this means, I think, is exactly what you are talking about
here: I consider other people's feelings, but don't let them push me
around.
Jim F.
That is most interesting since by most accounts David Letterman
(like many comics) is reportedly quite shy when he is "not on."
In his case I get the impression that he has managed to learn to
project his own self-loathing against others in the form of verbal
aggression. I would suggest that here we are seeing what is merely
a promonent illustration of a larger dynamic involving the way shy
people relate to the larger society.
Jim F.
ste...@nomail.msu.edu
: What I find irritating with you is that your "disagreements" don't deal
: directly with the content, but rather you act to play some sort of
: Usenet cop and tell me that what I'm posting doesn't have anything to do
: with shyness.
Steve, gas prices do not have anything to do with shyness. Argue all
you will, but I doubt you could ever convince me that shyness and
the price of gas are linked. And this is a shyness newsgroup. That is
why most people do not want to discuss the content of your posts, which
have little if anything to do with shyness.
Most of this stuff really is off topic for this newsgroup. I cannot stop
you from posting what and where you want to, but maybe I can convince you to
respect the spirit of Usenet.
Suppose someone started posting their criticism of "The Patriarchy"
here in alt.support.shyness. It is a fact that we live in a
male dominated society, and that in the name of "The Patriarchy" women are
treated as second class citizens.
What does this have to do with shyness? The fact is that women are
repeatedly victims of harassment, rape, domestic abuse and even murder
in our society. These injustices create mistrust and tension between the
sexes, making it all that much harder to find and meet people. Shy people
are the least capable of overcoming these added obstacles, and thus
are victims of "The Patriarchy". This group is inundated with messages
from lonely shy guys, all victims of society. So obviously "The Patriarchy"
is on topic, right? But of course that is just the tip of the iceberg.
There are all the larger issues, like Equal Work for Equal Pay, Corporate
Glass Ceilings, Abortion, Pornography, Female Genital Mutilation,
Prostitution, etc. And there is also the long list of books you need
to read to escape the brainwashing of "The Patriarchy", because obviously
we've all been brainwashed.
But wait, maybe the real problem with our society is "Racial Imperialism".
It is a fact that Western society is dominated by Caucasians and that
there is a long and bloody history of discrimination and even out right
genocide against other races. Obviously this affects shy people. Shy
people tend to be very sensitive. The culture of violence fostered
by "Racial Imperialism" is too much for shy people to cope with. But
what is really important is understanding the larger issues, like
Affirmative Action, Ethnic Diversity, Ebonics, Compensation for Slavery,
etc. And again, we need to read books and overcome our brainwashing.
But wait, there's more. There are the Libertarians, and the Communists,
and the Animal Rights Activists, and the Environmentalists, etc. all who
have a vision for a better future, and who could all argue that in some
way shy people are affected. If your posts are on topic, then I do
not see how you could argue that their posts were not.
And in the end, alt.support.shyness looks like alt.talk.politics and
we've lost a nice newsgroup where shy could talk about their problems.
Not likely you say? True. But you are permitting it to happen, and
even in a sense willing it to happen.
So lets go back to talking about shyness. There are plenty of other
places on Usenet to discuss politics and social reform.
Stephen
Mr. Steve
"Allan Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> I think you mean selfish reasons.
Yes, I did. That was a Freudian slip there :-)
> I think I'm already there, because I certainly don't let people walk
all
> over me.
This is a good sign. One of the problems of shyness is that of adopting
'nice guy' behaviour - in which one is allowed to be treated like a
doormat, and lets others dictate one's own actions.
There is nothing wrong with being a nice, friendly, and selfless person
- in fact this is precisely what I'm advocating - but when it goes too
far it can turn into being treated like a doormat.
This problem, as well as repression of anger, are common for shy people
in general - but this is especially so for those of my temperament type
(ISFJ) and is something that I'm continuously working on. One of the
descriptions of my type says:
'Experiencing frequent bouts of anger is a common problem for the ISFJ,
because those of this type habitually repress their anger in order to
please others and avoid conflict. Although they are excellent at
taking care of the needs of others, those of this type need to work on
asserting their own needs more.'
or something along those lines.
You can check this out, as well as descriptions of the other 16 types
at:
What this means, I think, is exactly what you are talking
about
> here: I consider other people's feelings, but don't let them push me
> around.
This is a good sign, a very good sign.
Mr. Steve
deb...@gis.net wrote:
> That is most interesting since by most accounts David Letterman
> (like many comics) is reportedly quite shy when he is "not on."
Indeed you're right - and I also read that in some magazine a while
back.
One rarely hears about Letterman's personal life on the air. About all
I know is that he lives in Connecticut.
> In his case I get the impression that he has managed to learn to
> project his own self-loathing against others in the form of verbal
> aggression.
True - and if you think he's bad now you should've seen him when he had
his show on NBC back in the late 80's. He would verbally abuse his
guests and the people he worked with - to the point where some of them
broke down into tears.
When he made the deal with CBS, he was instructed to cut down on the
abuse and treat the guests more kindly, which he has followed through
somewhat. But he still has a lot to learn in terms of respect and
decency for his guests - but maybe he won't because that sort of
meanness "sells" in our agressive culture.
I enjoyed watching him occasionally back in '95 or so as his material
was humorous and he always had things going on outside the studio - such
as talking to that Rupert guy in the deli - but right now I think his
show is going down the toilet.
> I would suggest that here we are seeing what is merely
> a promonent illustration of a larger dynamic involving the way shy
> people relate to the larger society.
You have it exactly right. What we are seeing with Letterman's
overcoming of shyness - is a classic illustration of those who used to
be victimized in our society turn the tables around and become the
victors - thus attacking those "below" them aftering clawing their way
to the "top".
By doing whatever he did to overcome his own shyness, Letterman is now
in the position to project his own hostilities onto others, as some kind
of sweet revenge. A similar process occurs when those who get
mistreated at large corporations "rise to the top" and then mistreat
their subordinates for delayed revenge afterwards. Leslie Miller
documents case after case of this in her book, "Corporate Abuse"
On a more general scale, this kind of stuff happens frequently in our
macho culture. Shy people are quite often victimized in the larger
society. Many suffer and continue to blame themselves for their own
failures to match up to society's expecations. Others manage to claw
their way out of their shyness, through a painful process, and then take
it out on others later on, thus repeating the process.
None of these things are admirable, and comparatively fewer shy people
overcome their shyness to the point of desiring to help others do the
same thing, and change the way society works, to cut back on this
aggresive nonsense.
Mr. Steve
anon-...@anon.twwells.com (Sven Coolson) wrote:
> ?????? "You" is second person plural as well! Actually, it's the only
> thing it was originally, "thou/thee" being the singular form. You
should
> know that, it's in the bible!
I know, but that was in the days when the distinction between singular
and plural was more clear (old English). Same goes for the French
language which makes a point to disinguish between these forms - i.e.
'tu' vs. 'vous'
PCG could have cleared the air by saying 'you two' or 'you guys' as I
assumed his 'you' was in the singular sense - adressing me.
> Sorry, but ample citations don't equate making good cases for one's
> views. If it were that simple, then one could make a good case for the
> Earth being flat, or Nazism being good.
I refuse to buy into this relativism argument, and that 'all opinions
are created equal' which is now the norm in our postmodern PR culture.
The citations I make, and the people I quote all have years of
experience underneath their belt documenting, researching, and
interviewing people to form and solidify their own opinions. For the
most part, they are also older than me, and have many more years of
experience than I do - so I respect that and weigh their opinions more
heavily than, say, somebody who hasn't done the equivalent background.
On a similar note - it is this 'my opinion is just as worthwhile as
someobdy's who is 30 years older than me' which is partly to blame for
the lack of respect for authority figures in our culture.
Before I quit my job two weeks ago at the service station I worked at -
I was training an older gentleman on the register, as he was taking over
me. He could not believe how much lip the kid customers gave him, and
how utterly rude they were. He was shaking his head wondering what the
hell had happened to a society that respected older folks and their
knowledge and experience - to a society that considers every tom, dick,
and harry to be supreme, including those younger than him.
And I'm saying all this stuff, as a young person (21), when the norm for
those in my cohort is practically the exact oppposite.
So I'm sorry, but whether you like it or not, I'll continue posting my
views and making citations to support them.
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> We complain because there are many public costs which are now
> privatized. For example, in the UK you get free medical care, do you
> not? Well, over here we have to pay for it all, at very high rates.
> There are now 44 million *workers* uninusured in this country. One
> single accident, or medical calamity can therefore wipe them out. One
> step away from being homeless you could say.
Yes, we have free medical care, for what it's worth. For anything other
than the most routine cases, GPs (the "family doctor") aren't really
qualified to know how to treat it. And to see a specialist you often have
to wait months, and that's just for a diagnosis, you can wait years
sometimes for actual treatment. But, yes, we do have free medical care.
(I happen to think it's a lot easier to keep healthy than to have to use
it.)
> As for the 'cheaper goods' they come at the price of lost jobs.
What is the rate of unemployment in the US? (i.e., what percentage of the
available-for-work population are out of work at any one time?)
On the subject of the cheaper goods, in many cases the goods are
deliberately overpriced in the UK because the companies selling them know
that most people have no option but to pay the higher prices (and will pay
them, because they don't realise how overpriced the goods are). The
difference is not just due to cheap labour, because often the same goods,
manufactured in the same place, are between 1.5 and 2 times as expensive
in the UK. The usual rate of conversion, for example, with computer
equipment, is $1 = £1 (as opposed to the currency exchange rate of $1 =
roughly 60-65p). When you're talking about hundreds of pounds the cost of
importing the goods does not account for a 60% price hike.
The situation is even worse with software and CDs.
Ollie
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> Best bet is to keep an eye out for TNT listings (assume you get TNT in
> Canada) as they sometimes show it, in both regular and 'letterbox'
> versions. You may also be able to catch the (uncut) version - which
> has some frontal nudity not shown in the TNT version, on HBO or 'Max'.
They cut the nudity? Aw, jeez! The damn film doesn't make any sense
without it!
Ollie
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> Age may be relevant. The younger a person, the less experience they are
> liable to have with the real world, and also the more generally gullible
> they're likely to be in terms of imbibing media dross (which is why
> advertisers like to target 18-25 yr. olds as the prime group).
On the other hand, the older a person, the longer they have been subject
to whatever influence the "media dross" may have over them. In my
experience, younger people are *more* likely, not less, to question
establishment ideas than older people.
Ollie
Jason B.
> someobdy's who is 30 years older than me' which is partly to blame for
> the lack of respect for authority figures in our culture.
>
Arguments from authority are perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric.
-Basically from Carl Sagan...
> He could not believe how much lip the kid customers gave him, and
> how utterly rude they were. He was shaking his head wondering what the
> hell had happened to a society that respected older folks and their
> knowledge and experience - to a society that considers every tom, dick,
> and harry to be supreme, including those younger than him.
From my experience, Ive found younger customers (18-30) to be the most
polite group of customers. They havent become bitter with age.
J...
Pet
> On a similar note - it is this 'my opinion is just as worthwhile as
> someobdy's who is 30 years older than me' which is partly to blame for
> the lack of respect for authority figures in our culture.
>
> Before I quit my job two weeks ago at the service station I worked at -
> I was training an older gentleman on the register, as he was taking over
> me. He could not believe how much lip the kid customers gave him, and
> how utterly rude they were. He was shaking his head wondering what the
> hell had happened to a society that respected older folks and their
> knowledge and experience - to a society that considers every tom, dick,
> and harry to be supreme, including those younger than him.
>
> And I'm saying all this stuff, as a young person (21), when the norm for
> those in my cohort is practically the exact oppposite.
Here you are, a 21 year old, telling many of the older people in here
how to live there lives. To add insult to injury you don't respect
their life experiences, their backgrounds, or their choice of reading
material once you realize they are in disagreement with you.
James G
>
> On a similar note - it is this 'my opinion is just as worthwhile as
> someobdy's who is 30 years older than me' which is partly to blame for
> the lack of respect for authority figures in our culture.
Not all authority figures should be respected. It's just this
sort of thing that Daeron even pushes for when he talks about
breaking the corporatocracy. After all, aren't the CEOs, lobbyists
and politicians all significantly older than you? Does that
mean you automatically respect their opinion? Young people can
have valid opinions, too. Too much respect for authority figures
causes a totalitarian society.
Interestingly enough, I find that one of the places I am very shy
is with dealing with authority figures, including policemen or
my research advisor. Still, I should be allowed to have opinions
and explain my side of the story. Just because my research advisor
has researched our topic for many years does not mean that he
can't be wrong about something.
And I'm 26. You're 21. Does that mean my extra 5 years of living
makes my life and opinions count more than yours? No. I've been
lurking here for ~10 months and I have drawn ideas from this group
from many people (including you) that are younger than me.
If you just cite somebody and say he's correct because he's
older and experienced you get what I call the Linus Pauling
problem. Pauling did many good things in the field of science.
However, he was wrong about Vitamin C being a cure all. Just
because he said it does not mean that we have to believe it.
DAERON
> Yes, we have free medical care, for what it's worth.
Well, the point is you have it - 'for what it's worth'. We don't. That's
one less cost you need to worry yourselves about.
> (I happen to think it's a lot easier to keep healthy than to have to use
> it.)
Of course it is. But I am more thinking about the uninvited disease or
calamity, or injury - say in a car accident. Here in the U.S., without
any medical support system via insurance, one can be wiped out
overnight. (Though I understand now, in a new law, provisions are being
considered for corporations to 'buy off massive debt' - i.e. medical
debt, of certain persons, who've recovered but incurred large medical
costs. So, they will be 'bonded' to the corporations as indentured
servants for the rest of their days)
> > As for the 'cheaper goods' they come at the price of lost jobs.
>
> What is the rate of unemployment in the US? (i.e., what percentage of the
> available-for-work population are out of work at any one time?)
As Colamosca and Wolman note ('The Judas Economy - The Triumph of
Capital and the Betrayal of Work', Addison -Wesley, p. 58) the key
statistic is really the *underemployment* figure, not the unemployment
figure. The reason is that the former (now at 10.1%) unlike the latter,
includes 'disheartened workers' - those who've tried for over two years
but can't find work, as well as those who want permanent jobs but can
find only part time.
> On the subject of the cheaper goods, in many cases the goods are
> deliberately overpriced in the UK because the companies selling them know
> that most people have no option but to pay the higher prices (and will pay
> them, because they don't realise how overpriced the goods are). The
> difference is not just due to cheap labour, because often the same goods,
> manufactured in the same place, are between 1.5 and 2 times as expensive
> in the UK. The usual rate of conversion, for example, with computer
> equipment, is $1 = £1 (as opposed to the currency exchange rate of $1 =
> roughly 60-65p). When you're talking about hundreds of pounds the cost of
> importing the goods does not account for a 60% price hike.
Well, I know all that - having seen it in B'dos when I lived there too
(compliments of their import duty and value added taxes). Thus, what
would usually retail as a $150 VCR becomes something like a $500 VCR. A
$10,000 motorcar translates into a $40,000 motorcar. But, these
permutations are independent of the cost factors at work in the U.S.
(Where maintaining low costs for products has more to do with radically
downsized labor forces, that labor moved to low, or least wage markets,
i.e. to Mexico or the Phillippines)
> The situation is even worse with software and CDs.
I know, believe me I know. But, to tell you the truth, looking back now-
I think my wife and I might have reconsidered moving here(to the U.S.),
had we known the 'hidden costs' at work. I mean we had a paid off home
in Barbados, NO mortgage, and we had state-provided medical care.
Granted we were saving little (with astronomical grocery -food costs)
but we were happy in many other ways, plus the sea was 5 minutes away.
Here we have grocery expenses roughly half what they were in B'dos, not
to mention significantly lower fuel costs, CD costs, VCRs etc etc/. But,
with our nearing retirement -in two more years, it worries me that we'll
both be 'medically exposed' with no protections.(Medicare doesn't start
until 65) Sure, we try to keep healthy, exercise and all, but medical
costs are only an injury, or whatever away.
The most we can do is keep fingers crossed, and hope to avert an
untoward medical 'calamity'.
DAERON
>
> In article <37729A...@ix.netcom.com>, sta...@ix.netcom.com (DAERON)
> wrote:
>
> > Age may be relevant. The younger a person, the less experience they are
> > liable to have with the real world, and also the more generally gullible
> > they're likely to be in terms of imbibing media dross (which is why
> > advertisers like to target 18-25 yr. olds as the prime group).
>
> On the other hand, the older a person, the longer they have been subject
> to whatever influence the "media dross" may have over them.
Of course, this is true, but often depends on the older person. What
I've found - and was more referring to- was older people that live in
university towns. They appear far more educated, and 'in the know' as
well as sceptical- not taking everything politicians say at face value,
for example. They are also more likely to write critical letters to
their (newspaper) editors about everything from their county councils,
to developers, to congress.
On the other hand, I've seen 'oldsters' in little southern hamlets (I
won't name names) that were retrogressive, hyper-conservative and overly
trusting in authority. They would often express rage at a letter writer
(to their local paper, say) that complained about local politics, or
opposed the efforts to outlaw flag burning as a constitutional
amendment.
> In my
> experience, younger people are *more* likely, not less, to question
> establishment ideas than older people.
In mine too, *provided* they are 'in tune', and widely read, not merely
repositories for corporate tripe and pabulum. In other words, assuming
they've cultivated and developed a thoroughgoing sceptic mindset. The
problem- as Carl Sagan notes in his excellent 'The Demon Haunted World',
is that most authority figures are terrified by scepticism (since after
all, people that start off sceptical about 'little green men' or 'crop
circles' may translate that to the social, economic or ambient religious
systems as well. That's why U.S. school boards are politicized, and
most stacked with conservatives that censor all texts beforehand.)
So, the brainwashing - as I noted - starts in the schools.
Often, the corporate media put on the 'finishing touches'.
Sylvain Van der Walde
Are we Being Ripped Off?
<< snipped >>
> So lets go back to talking about shyness. There are plenty of other
> places on Usenet to discuss politics and social reform.
This newsgroup would become *boring,* without some OT stuff. There is, and has
always been, *enough* talk on shyness in this group.
A long time lurker.
> Stephen
Regards.
Sylvain Van der Walde (Mr).
swa...@swalde.u-net.com
(London, England, UK).
JerryO
> > me what I think, and in telling me what I *should* think.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect that your point of view reflects that of the
> mainstream culture. Maybe it doesn't, but going by your writing style
> and your general attitudes of "everything is relative, live life now for
> the moment, the econonmy has never been better, technology is the saving
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> grace, etc.." I would suspect that it does.
^^^^^^^^^^
I just 'love it' when you surreptitiously insert your own words and put it
together with the other more general stuff. HAving a good outlook on life,
which I think you do (why work towards change if you believe you cant
change?) does in no way have direct correlation with the economy, or one's
views on technology, but having them listedall out in one sentence makes
them look like they are all related.
Bad Steve, Bad Steve. Given your general attitude and your writing style
about 'the economy is run by the corporations, there is no democracy, God
is the only savior, everyone's as sinner if you dont worship God or if you
worship money', no wonder you sound like a cultist. Get it?:)
Martin
> Practically everything costs more in the UK than in the US (although
> petrol is an extreme example). It's cheaper to buy books and CDs from the
> US via Amazon, for example, even after shipping costs have been added.
That's generally true for CDs, but IME a lot of American books are not
so well produced as those in Britian - lower quality paper & covers
and denser type.
> Also, average wages tend to be higher in America. Higher wages, cheaper
> goods. And you guys *complain*? Jeez!
Cost of living can still be higher - salaries in places like SoCal
look astonishing, until you look at what you need to spend to live
there.
Allan Cybulskie
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<7l0bne$92r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> In article <01bebf5f$5d950c40$27f8...@test.carleton.ca>,
> "Allan Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with being a nice, friendly, and selfless person
> - in fact this is precisely what I'm advocating - but when it goes too
> far it can turn into being treated like a doormat.
>
> This problem, as well as repression of anger, are common for shy people
> in general - but this is especially so for those of my temperament type
> (ISFJ) and is something that I'm continuously working on. One of the
> descriptions of my type says:
I think the description that fits me best is the ISTJ.
> What this means, I think, is exactly what you are talking
> about
> > here: I consider other people's feelings, but don't let them push me
> > around.
>
> This is a good sign, a very good sign.
I thjnk my introversion and perhaps thinking are what really help me do
this -- I don't really care all that much about what others think of me
because I don't think that I really need people that much. Obviously, I
like having friends and the like, but I'm not willing to sacrifice what's
right just because my friends want me to, and I'm not willing to let people
do whatever they want to me just to get them to talk to me. I'm better off
on my own in those cases.
Of course, this makes it really hard to overcome shyness, because the
instant things don't go well the motivation drops off because the "logical"
thing to do is do the thing that I can enjoy more -- on my own.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<377200...@ix.netcom.com>...
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
> > Not obviously that answer, actually. What I think he means is that the
> > quotes he listed above really, really don't do anything to help him
> > understand those larger social issues and how they relate to him and
the
> > world around him, and aren't exactly likely to make him want to listen
to
> > discussions about those issues.
>
> As I said, this is because his mind has been pre-emptively turned off
> those issues, by virtue of being a 'hostage' to corporate-media
> brainwashing and censorship as I noted (from Michael Parenti's book) in
> a previous post.
But you don't KNOW that that's the reason. He may indeed, even if he has
been "brainwashed" by the "corporate-media" be trying to sit down and learn
and understand what exactly it is you are telling him and trying to relate
it to his own personal experience, but the types of statements that he
quoted (and you snipped) aren't doing ANYTHING to help him understand, and
for the most part only make him LESS likely to understand or believe what
you are trying to say. People generally don't listen to people who are
simply telling them that they don't know anything without explaining why
they don't know anything.
>
> Insisting that one isn't fodder for the corporate mind thieves, doesn't
> cut it. Getting outside their swill orbit, of controlled and
> pre-fabricated deceptions and omissions, does.
What concerns me is trading on set of controlled and pre-fabricated
deceptions and omissions for another. I mean, look at you. You refuse to
accept ANY source that you consider to be "corporate" as having any
validity. Do you really believe that the people in the books you source
are really telling the whole story? They have their own agendas, just as
the "Corporatocracy" does. What are they not telling us because it won't
make their agenda look good?
My rule of thumb has always been that if you have two opposing accounts of
anything, the best thing to do is believe the story that's almost half-way
in-between the two accounts, because it's the one that's most likely to be
correct (barring credibility of one party or another, of course).
>
>
> > If he's thinking that you are just talking about them to get a sense of
> > superiority, chances are he isn't going to take your words seriously.
>
>
> Of course, but I don't believe Steve or me has any sense of this
> 'superiority', despite how we may come across.
As I learned from 6 years of university debating, whether or not you
actually have that sense is not as important as the impression you give.
If you are giving the impression that you are talking about these things to
get a sense of superiority, that's what most people will believe until you
show otherwise (and reasonably so). If you don't want people to believe
that, then it is in your best interest to try to change the impression that
you are giving to the "audience". If it doesn't bother you, then continue
the way you are -- and accept that people will take that impression and
react accordingly.
> Sometimes, telling the
> truth makes one appear a certain way. And some don't like it. That's
> regrettable, but it doesn't mean we'll stop anytime soon.
This is a very good example of what I'm talking about. You assume that the
people that think that you are "putting on airs" simply don't like the fact
that you are telling the truth. Well, a) how do you know that it is the
truth and b) how do you know that they aren't reacting to your tone instead
of the content? If someone says that you are putting on a superior air,
chances are it isn't the content they are critisizing, but the
presentation, and so whether or not you are telling the truth or not is
irrelevant, since they'd react the same way regardless.
>
>
> > Right here is a good example. How do you know that his opinions are
simply
> > media-manipuated "brainwashing"?
>
> If he's one of the 233 million in N. America getting their news and info
> from exclusively network, corporate sources, I'd say rather high in
> probability. Say like 99%. See Parenti's book 'America Beseiged' -
> specifically the section 'Methods of Media Manipulation'.
Well, you know what they say: "85% of all statistics are made up on the
spot" (and this is one of them).
However, let's say I get all of my information from corporate sources, but
am completely cynical and choose to either not believe any of them or even
choose to believe the exact opposite of them. Have I been brainwashed? If
I look at all of that information and take each bit and use reason to
determine if it seems to make sense or not, and only believe that which
makes logical sense when compared against my own personal experience, have
I been brainwashed? What if I take an extreme empiricist stance and only
completely believe that which I have personally experienced repeatedly,
have I been brainwashed, no matter what news sources I read?
>
> The most manipulated minds are the ones thoroughly unaware of their
> manipulation.
Ah, this lovely totalistic argument. If I say I'm not brainwashed, then
that's just evidence that I've been brainwashed. Colour me unimpressed
with this argument.
(Not that it can't be true in some cases, mind you, but it's a meaningless
argument.)
>
> >Just because they don't agree with yours?
>
> The disagreement isn't the issue, it's the basis of the disagreement.
> It's the background info he has and used, to make that disagreement.
> If it emanates exclusively from corporate sources, than as I said, the
> odds are it's merely the corporate voice being 're-enunciated'.
However, you don't know that. If someone forms their opinions on reason
(no matter how impractical it might be on occasion) and their own
experience, it is quite possible for them to come up with corporate like
opinions without being brainwashed by the Corporatocracy into doing so.
>
> > How do you know that he hasn't spent time researching and logically
> > discovering his opinions? Simply because he didn't research what you
> > thought he should, or hasn't told you what he researched?
>
> You could say that. I assume he hasn't because it's a fairly good
> assumption (99% probability), certainly for most on the ng. It's not
> exactly easy to get news from extra-corporate sources, that's another
> reason. And, when people don't offer information on where they came by
> their opinions, it's usually because they don't want others (like me) to
> know it's from sources like PEOPLE, Rush Limbaugh, The Wall Street
> Journal and MSNBC's various pundit shows.
So if someone doesn't get their information from these sources, are they
safe?
Most of the sources I actually listen to tend to run a fair amount of "big,
bad business" stories, which gets sickening after a while. Continual
badmouthing of any one group gets tedious after a while.
>
> > However, you might like to try actually LEADING the horse to water,
instead
> > of trying to drag him there while continually asserting how much
smarter
> > you are than the horse because you know where the water is and he
doesn't,
>
> Newsflash! Most horses don't 'know' where the water is. They have to be
> led to it, paricularly in some of the more arid regions of Colorado.
This has nothing to do with this particular sub-section. Even if you know
where the water is and he doesn't, dragging him there while berating him
for being stupid isn't going to make him want to get there any more.
> > even if he ALSO knows where another water hole is that he likes better.
>
> Then it's up to him to make that clear.
And up to you to not drag him there and berate him until he has a chance to
get there.
> But, if it's any of the sources
> listed above, I'm afraid he's a brainwashed puppet of the corporate
> controlled mass media, whether he acknowledges it or not.
In all honesty, I'd be surprised if there was a significant amount of
people that only get their news from those sources. One would expect that
most people would get most of their information from local sources.
And again, it isn't the sources that determine brainwashing, but what you
do with them that counts.
Ulrich.Schreglmann
>Oliver Broadway wrote:
>> In my
>> experience, younger people are *more* likely, not less, to question
>> establishment ideas than older people.
>In mine too, *provided* they are 'in tune', and widely read, not merely
>repositories for corporate tripe and pabulum. In other words, assuming
>they've cultivated and developed a thoroughgoing sceptic mindset. The
>problem- as Carl Sagan notes in his excellent 'The Demon Haunted World',
>is that most authority figures are terrified by scepticism (since after
>all, people that start off sceptical about 'little green men' or 'crop
>circles' may translate that to the social, economic or ambient religious
>systems as well. That's why U.S. school boards are politicized, and
>most stacked with conservatives that censor all texts beforehand.)
>So, the brainwashing - as I noted - starts in the schools.
Yeah, but it should also be noted why such tendencies as conservativ-
ism exist. While individualism and skepticism are fashionable words
and certainly have their merits in a changing world they can be also
inefficient and dangerous.
They're inefficient because if everybody starts questioning values
which have been proven to work in the past they might occasionally
come to the conclusion of their being outdated or plain wrong. Most
of the time however, the laws of probability suggest, they'll find
the values to be a sound basis of society, thereby having expended en-
ergy and resources they could have, had they known the result in ad-
vance, spent on productive work within that system of values. They
could have used the wheel instead of trying to re-invent it, coming up
with nothing.
They're dangerous because if you question your elders' warnings and
constraints you might find some of them to be superstitious tabus.
You will in all likelyhood, however, also fall into a lot of pitfalls
they may have discovered eons ago and avoided since. The addictive-
ness of drugs is a prime example there.
Go off the beaten path and you might discover something excitingly
new. You might also fall off an uncharted cliff and die. Or both.
--
©OOL mcmxcix
"There's nothing good--unless you do't." (Erich Kästner)
the paper chase guy
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> the paper chase guy wrote:
> If you don't wish us to assume anything, then tell us what you *do*
> read. Or where you obtain your news, information.
I read the Washington Post.
> Unless you're ashamed to.
You included this sentence twice. I *really* hate it when someone
attempts to use shame to get me to do something. Out of sheer spite I
don't want to answer your questions. I'll ask nicely: please don't do
that again.
> > (College football and basketball notwithstanding. I don't even have
> > cable right now because it's not sports season.)
>
> Then what do you READ? Or, do you read? Even USAToday?
>
> Or, The National Enquirer?
I was gonna say that, but you beat me to it.
> > But it's a REAL easy way to win: assume your opponent harbors a
bunch of
> > negative characteristics, then attack them for it!
>
> Up to now, you haven't disabused us of anything.
Your logic goes like this:
1) Shy people are oppressed.
2) Corporations are oppressive.
3) Therefore shy people should rebel against corporations!
My counterpoints are (obviously) that shy people are not necessarily
oppressed by corporations, and corporations do not specifically oppress
shy people.
That shy people may be more affected by oppression has nothing to do
with oppressive corporations. I, too, have problems with the way
corporations operate. These problems are not on topic in this
newsgroup. I would be more than happy to share them with you on another
newsgroup, or even private email.
I believe shy people are sometimes oppressed, but jumping up and down
about how unfair competitiveness is the exact wrong way to compete (and
yes, that is a form of competing, aka the "lose-lose" game).
The thing that bewilders me the most is that you think your message is
topical *only* here in a.s.s.
> > It's one of Daeron's
> > favorite things to do -- try it yourself sometime, it's fun!
>
> At least I don't egg people on and waste time with 'twenty questions'.
> Then, when they're wrong (because of NO information provided)
castigate
> them for it.
You made unfounded false assumptions about me for the sole purpose of
making me look bad. I don't think you can complain if I return fire.
You didn't bother to ask a single question, much less twenty, before
going on and on in multiple posts about how brainwashed I was.
> You -on the other hand, appear to believe all opinions, from whomever,
> are created equal.
You, on the other hand, appear to believe that my opinion is invalid
before even learning a single thing about my opinion.
From that information it doesn't sound at all like you want a society
where the individual is valued, as you've claimed. You obviously place
no value on me or what I might think, or any of 233 million others, so I
wouldn't want to hand you any power over them.
paperchaseguy
the paper chase guy
Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> In article <7ku0rp$f0f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> the paper chase guy <paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> And for making poor cases for my views - not at all. In my post 'What
> does .... Political Stuff .....' I've used ample citations to back up
my
> opinions.
Going by the quotes you've excerpted here, the cites make poor cases,
too.
> > I should point out you've been more than willing to break the rules
of
> > this Scholastic Game when it suits you. For instance, you use proof
> by
> > assertion a lot. I don't do that game, because I'm not impressed by
> > elaborate documentation of somebody else's opinions. [1]
>
> I see now that Eric Pepke has influenced your opinions a great deal,
not
> surprisingly, but why did you wait until now to declare this instead
of
> earlier?
Because you were trying to draw me into a game of Who Has the Most
Footnotes/Biggest Bibliography.
> > Besides, it does not seem that you are at all interested in finding
> out
> > my point of view or what I think, you are more interested in
*telling*
> > me what I think, and in telling me what I *should* think.
>
> Unfortunately, I suspect that your point of view reflects that of the
> mainstream culture. Maybe it doesn't, but going by your writing style
> and your general attitudes of "everything is relative, live life now
for
> the moment, the econonmy has never been better, technology is the
saving
> grace, etc.." I would suspect that it does.
This is another thing the two of you do quite often, I guess the proper
term is mud-slinging. (Or maybe Make Him Deny It: The LBJ Game.) You
attach negative traits (the stuff in quotes) to someone who already
disagrees with you. This distracts the topic to whether they harbor
those traits or not.
You're trying to set me up so that either a) I disagree that I have
those attitudes and you say "good, I'm glad you see it my way", or b) I
disagree that I have those attitudes and you insist I have something to
hide.
I'm not gonna play.
paperchaseguy
PS -- did anyone *else* get that "mainstream" impression from my posts?
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> Unfortunately, I suspect that your point of view reflects that of the
> mainstream culture. Maybe it doesn't, but going by your writing style
> and your general attitudes of "everything is relative, live life now for
> the moment, the econonmy has never been better, technology is the saving
> grace, etc.." I would suspect that it does.
Where has paperchaseguy expressed any of these attitudes?
Ollie
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> I want you
> to prove that you are capable of independent thought by demonstrating to
> us your research skills and to show us the sources by which you've
> formed your view on these issues.
and
> But the question remains - what are your sources? Who has influenced
> your own independent opinions?
Steve, do you understand the word "independent"? I don't understand how
paperchaseguy can prove to you that his opinions are independent, by
citing sources that they depend upon.
By "independent", do you mean "influenced only by sources which I consider
to be reliable"?
Ollie
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> I know, but that was in the days when the distinction between singular
> and plural was more clear (old English). Same goes for the French
> language which makes a point to disinguish between these forms - i.e.
> 'tu' vs. 'vous'
The tu/vous distinction is not singular/plural, it is more like
familiar/formal.
Ollie
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> As Colamosca and Wolman note ('The Judas Economy - The Triumph of
> Capital and the Betrayal of Work', Addison -Wesley, p. 58) the key
> statistic is really the *underemployment* figure, not the unemployment
> figure. The reason is that the former (now at 10.1%) unlike the latter,
> includes 'disheartened workers' - those who've tried for over two years
> but can't find work, as well as those who want permanent jobs but can
> find only part time.
Well, I don't know what the underemployment figure is, I just know that
there are as many different ways of measuring unemployment as there are
people, groups, or political parties who see an opportunity to use the
figures to their advantage. In politics especially, the rule seems to be,
if you don't like the result, make up a new way of calculating it to get
the result you want.
Ollie
yakima
Cybulskie" <acyb...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> Most of the sources I actually listen to tend to run a fair amount of "big,
> bad business" stories
Yup. Anyone watching the national and local "corporate media" around here
would hear stories about
1) Doctors forming a union to counteract the deleterious effects on
health care from HMOs.
2) Insurance companies refusing to pay for drugs and therapy for kids
with anxiety disorders, thus causing great financial hardship on their
families
3) A construction company whose failure to follow safety regulations
resulted in the death of a 17-year-old kid
4) The maquiladores in Mexico, and the pitifully small amounts workers
get paid there.
5) A local fast-food chain's knowingly and deliberately hiring illegal
aliens.
Anyone who gets the impression from the "corporate news" that corporations
are holy, blameless creatures just isn't paying attention.
-yakima
DAERON
>
> I read the Washington Post.
I hope that's not all. Kathryn S. Olmstead ('Challenging the Secret
Government', Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1996, pp. 21-22) has noted
the Post's history of links with CIA officials, including Cord Meyer, as
well as covert operations chief Frank Wisner. The Post, has also
evidently exploited these links to either censor stories (like about
conspiracies - see, e.g.:
http://www.copi.com/articles/Holmes1.htm
or, re-cast stories using the methods already noted by Parenti
('framing' etc.)
In other words, if *all* you read is the Post, without any means of
cross-checking, you will get a distorted view of the world.
> You included this sentence twice. I *really* hate it when someone
> attempts to use shame to get me to do something. Out of sheer spite I
> don't want to answer your questions. I'll ask nicely: please don't do
> that again.
At least it had the intended effect, and we're finished with the game of
20 questions.
> > Then what do you READ? Or, do you read? Even USAToday?
> >
> > Or, The National Enquirer?
>
> I was gonna say that, but you beat me to it.
Sheeesh.
>
> Your logic goes like this:
>
> 1) Shy people are oppressed.
> 2) Corporations are oppressive.
> 3) Therefore shy people should rebel against corporations!
Not quite.
Shy people lack social self-knowledge.
Social self-knowledge conveys and embodies the larger 'organism' or
'structure' (i.e. society) of which we are all a part.
If we fail to understand the larger strcuture (b/c information about it
is withheld or distorted) then we lack insight into how and why it acts
as it does - how and why it treats us as it does, what it cares about,
what it's hidden rules are.
Thus, the *LACK* of social self-knowledge keeps shy-people (and many
other disadvantaged minorities of temperament or other) 'groping in the
dark' and mainly attacking each other, b/c they are unable to perceive
the true oppressor.
Corporations - which control most of the print, electronic media,
contribute to this oppression, to the extent they censor stories which
would convey the information, news that touches on all the above.
Moreover, this suppression has been rigorously *documented* over time
(cf. The Joel Bleifuss Media Reports, Project Censored's Yearbooks 1990-
1998 etc) so it is not a mere phantasm.
Hence, corporations contribute to the problem of keeping shy folk and
others 'in the dark' which makes it easier to exploit them for various
reasons. (Including the fact of disempowering them, since a confused
populace cannot unite effectively against its common oppressor).
> My counterpoints are (obviously) that shy people are not necessarily
> oppressed by corporations, and corporations do not specifically oppress
> shy people.
Your counterpoints are based on a fundamentally naive and
oversimplified view of the world - as well as a gross oversimplification
of my own arguments. (See above)
> That shy people may be more affected by oppression has nothing to do
> with oppressive corporations.
See above, related to social self-knowledge and how corporate media have
the power to distort it, or censor information about it.
>I, too, have problems with the way
> corporations operate. These problems are not on topic in this
> newsgroup. I would be more than happy to share them with you on another
> newsgroup, or even private email.
I'm sorry, but to the extent that social self-knowledge shapes the
personal self and personal self knowledge, they *are* on topic. By
exlucding them, in fact, we naively play directly into the corporate
media controllers' hands - becoming de facto 'censors' and purveyors of
half truth (excluding social self knowledge for personal self knolwedge
only)in our own ng.
You may wish to do the corporate media overlords' bidding, but I don't.
> I believe shy people are sometimes oppressed, but jumping up and down
> about how unfair competitiveness is the exact wrong way to compete (and
> yes, that is a form of competing, aka the "lose-lose" game).
See again, my arguments referenced above- and do try to apprehend their
subtlety.
> The thing that bewilders me the most is that you think your message is
> topical *only* here in a.s.s.
I don't. Which is why I also post on the social phobia ng, and
alt.politics.economics. My responese here - as in the past, are elicited
by questions or 'attacks', challenges that were initiated by others. I
merely join them. If you somehow believe them not relevant to you, you
are at liberty to skip them, or even 'killfile' me.
> You made unfounded false assumptions about me for the sole purpose of
> making me look bad. I don't think you can complain if I return fire.
> You didn't bother to ask a single question, much less twenty, before
> going on and on in multiple posts about how brainwashed I was.
Your posts betrayed a good bit of implicit brainwashing and your reading
material, *The Washington Post* (a known conspiracy censor - which means
they suppress how things really work) confirms it. What more can I say?
You have merely proven my contention.
>
> You, on the other hand, appear to believe that my opinion is invalid
> before even learning a single thing about my opinion.
No, I inferred your opinion was *probably* invalidated by echoing what
the corporate media empire continuously belches out. Your citing of The
Washington Post as your primary reading material, pretty well confirms
that. (See the url referenced above, on the Post's suppression and
outright censoring of conspiracy news, documents)
> From that information it doesn't sound at all like you want a society
> where the individual is valued, as you've claimed.
I do, but first individuals must be liberated from their mind slavery to
the corporations. They must be taught to think (critically) on their
own, rather than re-cycle the many corporate dogmas now afoot. You
cannot make a genuinely free society out of slaves.
>You obviously place
> no value on me or what I might think, or any of 233 million others, so I
> wouldn't want to hand you any power over them.
See above. On the contrary, I place an extremely high value on you- the
mind behind the person. Else, I wouldn't be consuming time here trying
to save it. I'd basically say 'let the corporate brainwashee drown in
his ignorance'. And go plonck!
But I don't.
I don't because I believe there's a mind there worth preserving,
rescuing.
Obviously, you don't.
DAERON
>
> But you don't KNOW that that's the reason.
I do. He finally gave his primary reading source as The Washington Post,
one of the most notorious corporate media entities, with previous
documented links to the CIA, which includes 'debunking' any and all
conspiracies - already fully verified. (CIA 'freelance' staffers were
responsible for that) See, Kethryn S. Olmstead's book 'Challenging the
Secret Government', University of North Carolina Pres, 1996, pp 22-23.
> People generally don't listen to people who are
> simply telling them that they don't know anything without explaining why
> they don't know anything.
I have explained, and at considerable length and in painstaking detail
(in my 'Elements of the Corporatocracy'. I see no reason to re-type in
what has already been written at length, when this can easily be
accessed)
> What concerns me is trading on set of controlled and pre-fabricated
> deceptions and omissions for another.
There is no 'trade -off'. There is the truth, then there are deceptions,
suppression of it, on the other side.
I am sorry you don't see that.
>I mean, look at you. You refuse to
> accept ANY source that you consider to be "corporate" as having any
> validity.
Not at all. I have often used *corporate sources* including references
from TIME (Time-Warner Corp.) as well as The Washington Post (see e.g.
my 'Elements of the Corporatocracy') WHEN I have confirmed the
information therein, by cross-checking outside sources, independent
sources.
Indeed, the TIME issue of Nov. 9. 1998 was a special one on corporate
welfare. It carried all the truths, facts which also appear in the
indepedent press ('The Nation', 'In These Times', Project Censored
Yearbook, etc.). The article even conceded that TIME Inc. itself was a
beneficiary of this corporate largesse, which it probably didn't
deserve/.
So, I DO use corporate sources, in those odd times when they are honest
and it can be confirmed.
I don't advocate the in toto exclusion of such sources, but their
*total* acceptance as the ONLY sources. With no critical cross-checks,
or confirmations.
>Do you really believe that the people in the books you source
> are really telling the whole story?
To the extent cross-checks, i.e. from GAO (Goverment Accounting Office),
BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and other gov't documents disclose they
are, of course.
Again, cross-checking of any source is the rule.
> They have their own agendas, just as
> the "Corporatocracy" does.
They must have an 'agenda' to oppose the corporate one in the first
place. The agenda- as the Project Censored editors make clear, is to
disclose what the corporate media mavens don't.
> What are they not telling us because it won't
> make their agenda look good?
What the corporate sources have *already* said.
In other words, they eschew redundancy. Why waste space recycling the
news the corporate press has already given? What we need to know is
what they have *not* given.
> My rule of thumb has always been that if you have two opposing accounts of
> anything, the best thing to do is believe the story that's almost half-way
> in-between the two accounts, because it's the one that's most likely to be
> correct (barring credibility of one party or another, of course).
That's a generally sound rule, but alas only applicable *IF* the other
story, or the other side, appears at all. If it doesn't then you cannot
know where or how to take the 'mean'.
> As I learned from 6 years of university debating, whether or not you
> actually have that sense is not as important as the impression you give.
Well, in my HS debating I was never concerned with 'impressions', i.e.
'form' as opposed to substance. Bro. Dominic demanded I concentrate on
the substance and I always did. 'Imagery' and 'PR' ain't my game,
thought I suppose I could lure 'more flies to the honey' if I employed
it. :)
> If it doesn't bother you, then continue
> the way you are -- and accept that people will take that impression and
> react accordingly.
Well, I guess. I mean I've done it for so many years, it's hard to
change. (Though I did promise Marc at some point I'd try to interject
some NLP devices, so I suppose I should at least try)
> Well, a) how do you know that it is the
> truth
See above remarks.
> and b) how do you know that they aren't reacting to your tone instead
> of the content?
They might be, but I already recommended not 'throwing away the package'
because of the wrapper. Try to get inside the wrapper first. A good way
is to begin with reading 'The Elements of the Corporatocracy.' I spent
over 50 hours writing it, and I'd like to believe it wasn't for naught.
>If someone says that you are putting on a superior air,
> chances are it isn't the content they are critisizing, but the
> presentation, and so whether or not you are telling the truth or not is
> irrelevant, since they'd react the same way regardless.
See above, re: distinguishing the 'wrapper' from the 'package.'
> However, let's say I get all of my information from corporate sources, but
> am completely cynical and choose to either not believe any of them or even
> choose to believe the exact opposite of them. Have I been brainwashed?
See my earlier response, in which I note I'm not advocating forsaking
ALL corporate sources (I've used TIME myself on occasion) but rather the
exclusive reliance on such.
> Ah, this lovely totalistic argument. If I say I'm not brainwashed, then
> that's just evidence that I've been brainwashed. Colour me unimpressed
> with this argument.
As I noted, it only applies (with high probability ) if you confine
yourself exclusively to corporate sources (which omit 90%+ of the
critical news, information that citizens in this country need to know,
to understand how the country functions)
> (Not that it can't be true in some cases, mind you, but it's a meaningless
> argument.)
Not when based on *probablities* which is what it is.
>
> However, you don't know that. If someone forms their opinions on reason
> (no matter how impractical it might be on occasion) and their own
> experience, it is quite possible for them to come up with corporate like
> opinions without being brainwashed by the Corporatocracy into doing so.
I do know that now. As he's given his primary reading material as The
Washington Post. See my previous remarks. And the url referenced.
> So if someone doesn't get their information from these sources, are they
> safe?
If exclusively - NO.
> Most of the sources I actually listen to tend to run a fair amount of "big,
> bad business" stories, which gets sickening after a while. Continual
> badmouthing of any one group gets tedious after a while.
Then you're free to tune out. But, in any case you should always
cross-check sources wherever they're from, to get the truth. We may not
like the truth, but denying it won't make it go away.
It should be a call to action.
> This has nothing to do with this particular sub-section. Even if you know
> where the water is and he doesn't, dragging him there while berating him
> for being stupid
I never berated him for being 'stupid'. I indicated he was brainwashed,
if he confined himself to corporate sources, as he appears now to be
doing. (From his latest post)
> And up to you to not drag him there and berate him until he has a chance to
> get there.
OK, well maybe a bit overzealous, perhaps. (Like Steve in his more
fanatical Christian posts). But, I hate to see the potential of a fine
mind going to 'seed' because it absorbs all or nearly all of its
information on the world from a corporate source (especially the Post).
Condemn me for my overzealousness if you must, but not for caring enough
to engage discussion in the first place, to try and salvage a fine mind.
>
>
> In all honesty, I'd be surprised if there was a significant amount of
> people that only get their news from those sources. One would expect that
> most people would get most of their information from local sources.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. most 'local' sources use national wire
service that originate within the main corporate HQ. (Like the
Associated Press, AP.)
> And again, it isn't the sources that determine brainwashing, but what you
> do with them that counts.
Yes, but also - if they are exclusive sources. Since, if they are they
can wreak subliminal havoc on the unsuspecting mind, in shaping its
unconcious opinions. These can later manifest, and 'appear' as if they
are one's own, when they aren't. They are merely an 'echo' of say, The
Washington Post, and its 'anti-conspiracy phobias'.
DAERON
>
> Well, I don't know what the underemployment figure is, I just know that
> there are as many different ways of measuring unemployment as there are
> people, groups, or political parties who see an opportunity to use the
> figures to their advantage. In politics especially, the rule seems to be,
> if you don't like the result, make up a new way of calculating it to get
> the result you want.
Well, the underemployment figure I cited, is not really a 'new way' of
calcualting any result. It is rather a *more comprehensive* statistic,
than the unemployment figure (which omits such data as the number of
'discouraged workers' who've stopped looking for work). But, numbers
represent real people and cannot be just washed away as if by magic
(which the unemployment figure does).
Another reason pols prefer to cite the usual 'unemployment figure' - of
4.1%, is that it bolsters their mythology that we are in a 'great
economy' . And indeed, this mythology can be justified if the more
distressing stats, such as the number of 'discouraged workers' nolonger
seeking work, are torpedoed.
The point is, the use of the 'under-stat', distorts the picture of the
way things really are. Politicians can get away with it, because most
people like the distortions, and really want to believe we are living in
a 'great economy' and not in the midst of a hidden holocaust, as Michael
Parenti documents (Ch. 1, of 'America Beseiged')
DAERON
> Yeah, but it should also be noted why such tendencies as conservativ-
> ism exist. While individualism and skepticism are fashionable words
> and certainly have their merits in a changing world they can be also
> inefficient and dangerous.
Scepticism is not merely a 'fashionable word' but ought to be a way of
life. It is the pre-requisite for any coherent form of critical
thinking. I think I first became a skeptic (sceptic) at the age of 17,
when I did my science fair project on 'The Structure of the Universe'
and haven't looked back since.
The nature of the project forced me to adopt a larger perspective. That
perspective was largely at odds with the religious and moral dogmas I'd
been indoctrinated with hitherto. For the first time, I re-assessed
everything and genuinely began thinking on my own, outside of the
'norm'. And - in terms of society, I began 'norming' it, instead of the
other way round.
Without exercising scepticism, as Sagan notes, we become merely ready
fodder for an authoritarian or totalitarian state. As happened tothe
Germans, when Hitler rose to power, and brought a whole people under
his iron thumb. My German friends today, in Frankfurt -Am-Main, Dissen,
and Bielfeld, remain very bitter about what he did, BUT they blame
themselves in the first instance, for not cultiviating a mindset and
outlook that would have led them to question him much earlier.
Regrets are painful, and not much use. What we can do, by teaching the
practice of effective scepticism, is prevent a repeat of what befell
Germany from 1933-45.
Allan Cybulskie
Oliver Broadway <t...@metronet.co.uk> wrote in article
<memo.19990626...@tup.metronet.co.uk>...
It's both, actually. Russian is exactly the same way (twi and vwi,
phonetic translations).
For example, if I was speaking to one friend in French I'd say "Tu". To a
group of friends I'd say "Vous". And to my grandmother I'd say "Vous" as
well (respect for elders, don't you know).
Looks like those 10 years of French were actually useful -- once <grin>.
Allan Cybulskie
Oliver Broadway <t...@metronet.co.uk> wrote in article
<memo.19990626...@tup.metronet.co.uk>...
> In article <7kue2d$k3a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, sr...@vcn.bc.ca (Mr. Steve)
> wrote:
>
> > I want you
> > to prove that you are capable of independent thought by demonstrating
to
> > us your research skills and to show us the sources by which you've
> > formed your view on these issues.
>
> and
>
> > But the question remains - what are your sources? Who has influenced
> > your own independent opinions?
>
> Steve, do you understand the word "independent"? I don't understand how
> paperchaseguy can prove to you that his opinions are independent, by
> citing sources that they depend upon.
You know, I was wondering the same thing. Really, the only truly
independent views are those that are spawned in complete and utter
ignorance beyond one's own experiences -- which most people would consider
to be a foolish way to get views.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > But you don't KNOW that that's the reason.
>
> I do.
You didn't when I responded, so as of that point in time my comment stands.
> > People generally don't listen to people who are
> > simply telling them that they don't know anything without explaining
why
> > they don't know anything.
>
> I have explained, and at considerable length and in painstaking detail
> (in my 'Elements of the Corporatocracy'. I see no reason to re-type in
> what has already been written at length, when this can easily be
> accessed)
I actually read or glanced at this (I think it was mainly glanced at, since
I was reading it between compiles at work). The problem still stands,
though, as it's fairly general, and since you don't know my or
paperchaseguy's personal experiences you couldn't have written it so that
it would relate to it. This, of course, cannot be expected of you in a
general work like your "Elements". However, this means that when you are
trying to convince any specific person or group of people that it relates
to them, you have to draw on specifics from their experience to show how it
relates to them BEFORE telling them that they are simply unaware of what's
going on.
Truthfully, my problem with the "Elements" and the shyness one (which was
more interesting) was not the relevance, since I could (and in fact had
already) see how it could relate to my personal experience, but that some
parts of it conflicting with my own personal experience. And, although I'm
not a true empiricist, if things don't agree with my own personal
experience I tend to dismiss them as either not being relevant or not being
universal (and so not helpful in general).
>
> > What concerns me is trading on set of controlled and pre-fabricated
> > deceptions and omissions for another.
>
>
> There is no 'trade -off'. There is the truth, then there are deceptions,
> suppression of it, on the other side.
>
> I am sorry you don't see that.
Perhaps it's just my scepticism (you did say that was a good thing, right
<grin>).
My view on the matter is simply this -- that there are usually many sides
to the story, and then the truth, and it's not likely that any one person,
unless they are uninvolved and don't really have a benefit from telling
their story, is going to tell you the whole truth. In fact, your division
is quite naive, since I'd wager there's some truth in the corporate
version, and some skew in your sources.
> >Do you really believe that the people in the books you source
> > are really telling the whole story?
>
> To the extent cross-checks, i.e. from GAO (Goverment Accounting Office),
> BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and other gov't documents disclose they
> are, of course.
>
> Again, cross-checking of any source is the rule.
Even so, there's no guarantee that their conclusions follow from the
information or that their information is correct and not skewed.
Do you check every single bit of information down to the very original (raw
data) source? If not, there's a chance that some of what you base your
opinions are are also deceptions put forward to convert people to a
specific point of view.
Then, of course, there's the matter of what they are not telling you ...
I rarely consider anyone who wants to convert me to a specific point of
view to be objective about it.
>
> > They have their own agendas, just as
> > the "Corporatocracy" does.
>
> They must have an 'agenda' to oppose the corporate one in the first
> place. The agenda- as the Project Censored editors make clear, is to
> disclose what the corporate media mavens don't.
And what about their hidden agenda -- or do you think the Corporatocracy
has the market on that?
Ask yourself this: WHY do they want to disclose what the corporate media
mavens won't? What's their reasoning behind doing that? Knowing that gets
your their skew, and will set-up flags as to what they may be hiding
themselves.
>
> > What are they not telling us because it won't
> > make their agenda look good?
>
>
> What the corporate sources have *already* said.
>
> In other words, they eschew redundancy. Why waste space recycling the
> news the corporate press has already given? What we need to know is
> what they have *not* given.
I just have to wonder what the corporate sources don't tell us (probably
because they just don't think it is important or valid) that your sources
are ALSO not telling us because it'll make their points weaker. I'm not
prepared to believe that they're willing to tell us everything, including
every point that could make their viewpoints invalid, while they are trying
to convince us to accept their viewpoint. Some people do this, but they
are exceedingly rare.
>
> > My rule of thumb has always been that if you have two opposing accounts
of
> > anything, the best thing to do is believe the story that's almost
half-way
> > in-between the two accounts, because it's the one that's most likely to
be
> > correct (barring credibility of one party or another, of course).
>
> That's a generally sound rule, but alas only applicable *IF* the other
> story, or the other side, appears at all. If it doesn't then you cannot
> know where or how to take the 'mean'.
True. Then, of course, one is free to either invent the other side of the
story (not terribly rational) or recognize that there is a skew and give
the information the weight it deserves based on the credibility of the
source. Currently the only unimpeachable source _I_ can think of is the
combination of experience and reason.
>
> > As I learned from 6 years of university debating, whether or not you
> > actually have that sense is not as important as the impression you
give.
>
> Well, in my HS debating I was never concerned with 'impressions', i.e.
> 'form' as opposed to substance. Bro. Dominic demanded I concentrate on
> the substance and I always did. 'Imagery' and 'PR' ain't my game,
> thought I suppose I could lure 'more flies to the honey' if I employed
> it. :)
The problem is that if your presentation gives off impression X people WILL
believe impression X, so you ignore presentation to your detriment if that
impression is not what you want people to get from you.
In university debating, style and content were given equal weight, and I
was the toughest person on content in the club. If you have great content,
but your style is terrible, no one will be able to understand or be willing
to listen to what you have to say; if you have great style but no content
no one will care about what you say. In order to be effective at "saving
minds", you really do need both. If you don't care about how effective
your words are, you can ignore style -- but if you do, style and
presentation are indeed important.
> > and b) how do you know that they aren't reacting to your tone instead
> > of the content?
>
> They might be, but I already recommended not 'throwing away the package'
> because of the wrapper. Try to get inside the wrapper first. A good way
> is to begin with reading 'The Elements of the Corporatocracy.' I spent
> over 50 hours writing it, and I'd like to believe it wasn't for naught.
The wrapper, at least, has to be interesting enough to make people WANT to
find out what's inside -- or at least, to not make them want to NOT find
out what's inside. If your wrapper is so repulsive that it makes people
want to turn away from it, only rare, strong-minded people will try to look
inside -- and they'll either already believe you or will be very hard to
convince.
>
>
> >If someone says that you are putting on a superior air,
> > chances are it isn't the content they are critisizing, but the
> > presentation, and so whether or not you are telling the truth or not is
> > irrelevant, since they'd react the same way regardless.
>
> See above, re: distinguishing the 'wrapper' from the 'package.'
But, again, it's irrelevant whether or not what you say is true, if they
are reacting to it the same way they would if it was not true.
>
> > However, let's say I get all of my information from corporate sources,
but
> > am completely cynical and choose to either not believe any of them or
even
> > choose to believe the exact opposite of them. Have I been brainwashed?
>
> See my earlier response, in which I note I'm not advocating forsaking
> ALL corporate sources (I've used TIME myself on occasion) but rather the
> exclusive reliance on such.
Ah, but here I wasn't accusing you of that. I was asking an honest
question. Would the above person have been brainwashed? If you answer
yes, I disagree. If you answer no, then it isn't the sources that
determine brainwashing, but what you do with those sources that's
important.
>
> > Ah, this lovely totalistic argument. If I say I'm not brainwashed,
then
> > that's just evidence that I've been brainwashed. Colour me unimpressed
> > with this argument.
>
> As I noted, it only applies (with high probability ) if you confine
> yourself exclusively to corporate sources (which omit 90%+ of the
> critical news, information that citizens in this country need to know,
> to understand how the country functions)
>
> > (Not that it can't be true in some cases, mind you, but it's a
meaningless
> > argument.)
>
> Not when based on *probablities* which is what it is.
Nope, it's still meaningless. Claiming not to be brainwashed can never be
used as evidence that you have been, or else no one can ever NOT be
brainwashed because if they are, it's evidence of brainwashing. Your real
argument here is that one who does not only have corporate sources as input
cannot be brainwashed, which is not meaningless (but debatable).
> >
> > However, you don't know that. If someone forms their opinions on
reason
> > (no matter how impractical it might be on occasion) and their own
> > experience, it is quite possible for them to come up with corporate
like
> > opinions without being brainwashed by the Corporatocracy into doing so.
>
> I do know that now. As he's given his primary reading material as The
> Washington Post. See my previous remarks. And the url referenced.
And what about the rest of the paragraph above? Can such a person exist,
in your opinion?
>
> > So if someone doesn't get their information from these sources, are
they
> > safe?
>
> If exclusively - NO.
So, if someone doesn't get their information from corporate sources
exclusively (meaning, I suppose, that they get their informaton strictly
from non-corporate sources) then they are not safe?
>
> > Most of the sources I actually listen to tend to run a fair amount of
"big,
> > bad business" stories, which gets sickening after a while. Continual
> > badmouthing of any one group gets tedious after a while.
>
> Then you're free to tune out. But, in any case you should always
> cross-check sources wherever they're from, to get the truth. We may not
> like the truth, but denying it won't make it go away.
>
> It should be a call to action.
I tend to verify information when the absolute truth of it is important to
me. If not, I class it according to the reliability of the source, check
it against reason and experience, and move on. Reason, actually, is the
more important check.
> OK, well maybe a bit overzealous, perhaps. (Like Steve in his more
> fanatical Christian posts). But, I hate to see the potential of a fine
> mind going to 'seed' because it absorbs all or nearly all of its
> information on the world from a corporate source (especially the Post).
>
> Condemn me for my overzealousness if you must, but not for caring enough
> to engage discussion in the first place, to try and salvage a fine mind.
Did I ever condemn you for that? Where?
> > And again, it isn't the sources that determine brainwashing, but what
you
> > do with them that counts.
>
> Yes, but also - if they are exclusive sources. Since, if they are they
> can wreak subliminal havoc on the unsuspecting mind, in shaping its
> unconcious opinions. These can later manifest, and 'appear' as if they
> are one's own, when they aren't. They are merely an 'echo' of say, The
> Washington Post, and its 'anti-conspiracy phobias'.
However, if one evaluates them critically, even if they are the sole
sources one can avoid being brainwashed. In my opinion, of course.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> the paper chase guy wrote:
> >
> > Your logic goes like this:
> >
> > 1) Shy people are oppressed.
> > 2) Corporations are oppressive.
> > 3) Therefore shy people should rebel against corporations!
>
> Not quite.
>
> Shy people lack social self-knowledge.
>
> Social self-knowledge conveys and embodies the larger 'organism' or
> 'structure' (i.e. society) of which we are all a part.
>
> If we fail to understand the larger strcuture (b/c information about it
> is withheld or distorted) then we lack insight into how and why it acts
> as it does - how and why it treats us as it does, what it cares about,
> what it's hidden rules are.
>
> Thus, the *LACK* of social self-knowledge keeps shy-people (and many
> other disadvantaged minorities of temperament or other) 'groping in the
> dark' and mainly attacking each other, b/c they are unable to perceive
> the true oppressor.
>
> Corporations - which control most of the print, electronic media,
> contribute to this oppression, to the extent they censor stories which
> would convey the information, news that touches on all the above.
This actually starts to highlight the large divergence in our thinking.
I'm not certain that the LACK of social self-knowledge hurts shy people
more than their caring about society (and what it tells them to do). I'm
not certain how far you go in this, but one of my problems with Steve is
that even though I blame individualism for a lot of the problems in
society, I believe that a more radical version of individualism might help
shy people more than an attempt to integrate them into society. If shy
people didn't have to care about following extroverted rules to feel like
they are respected and part of society, they'd probably be a lot more
comfortable and happier. Thus, if we moved to a greater acceptance of
individual personality foibles, shy people could be happier (but I do think
there'd be worse problems because of that).
> >I, too, have problems with the way
> > corporations operate. These problems are not on topic in this
> > newsgroup. I would be more than happy to share them with you on
another
> > newsgroup, or even private email.
>
> I'm sorry, but to the extent that social self-knowledge shapes the
> personal self and personal self knowledge, they *are* on topic. By
> exlucding them, in fact, we naively play directly into the corporate
> media controllers' hands - becoming de facto 'censors' and purveyors of
> half truth (excluding social self knowledge for personal self knolwedge
> only)in our own ng.
>
> You may wish to do the corporate media overlords' bidding, but I don't.
Isn't this a contradiction with your point above that the corporate side is
only CONTRIBUTING to it?
This is the second big divergence in our ideas. I believe that society
spawned the corporatocracy and individualism, and the things that hurt shy
people, and now the corporatocracy is, really, simply taking advantage of
that. The Corporatocracy, following the materialism OF our society,
fosters those ideas because it thinks that's what we want, and so it will
make them money. The instant we suggest otherwise, they'll at least TRY to
look like they are doing so (note how fast they came out with
"Enviro-friendly" products when people started demanding them). If we
could convince them that not being materialistic would make them more money
(which you've got to admit would be tough), they'd push non-materialism.
Thus, in my opinion, the Corportocracy isn't really the enemy and isn't
really driving this thing -- we are. And they'll help us drive it there
because it makes them money.
Therefore, as you can tell, I blame society for the problems (including
shyness). As an example, I find that the dating rituals of our culture
favour the aggressive, which leads to the aggressive people getting all the
success, being emulated (because they are successful) and propogating that
aggression into the next wave of dating and dating rituals. Media sources
use this in their shows and programs and spread it around because it's what
society thinks is "normal" and so sells. But the problem is not caused by
the media, but by society. We need to change society, not the media. If
we change society, the media will follow, because it'll make them money.
Granted, the media image does make it harder ...
DAERON
> > Not quite.
> >
> > Shy people lack social self-knowledge.
> >
> > Social self-knowledge conveys and embodies the larger 'organism' or
> > 'structure' (i.e. society) of which we are all a part.
> >
> > If we fail to understand the larger strcuture (b/c information about it
> > is withheld or distorted) then we lack insight into how and why it acts
> > as it does - how and why it treats us as it does, what it cares about,
> > what it's hidden rules are.
> >
> > Thus, the *LACK* of social self-knowledge keeps shy-people (and many
> > other disadvantaged minorities of temperament or other) 'groping in the
> > dark' and mainly attacking each other, b/c they are unable to perceive
> > the true oppressor.
> >
> > Corporations - which control most of the print, electronic media,
> > contribute to this oppression, to the extent they censor stories which
> > would convey the information, news that touches on all the above.
>
> This actually starts to highlight the large divergence in our thinking.
> I'm not certain that the LACK of social self-knowledge hurts shy people
> more than their caring about society (and what it tells them to do). I'm
> not certain how far you go in this, but one of my problems with Steve is
> that even though I blame individualism for a lot of the problems in
> society, I believe that a more radical version of individualism might help
> shy people more than an attempt to integrate them into society.
Nope. I think that's exactly the wrong way to go. I think the shy
person, or any socially disaffected, or 'disadvantaged' person, needs to
learn the basic arts of cooperation, and working together in common
cause - especially to assist and support *each other*.
The very problem with modern, western society is its unhealthy
over-emphasis on individualism which basically keeps people in separate
'cubbyholes' when they could be gaining much more strength and support
from each other.
Having said that, I DO believe that before this cooperative mindset can
flourish, the individual mind does have to be liberated from the false
matrix that entraps it, and the sort of corporate sources - exclusive
attention to such, that I've referenced.
> If shy
> people didn't have to care about following extroverted rules to feel like
> they are respected and part of society, they'd probably be a lot more
> comfortable and happier.
True, but they'd feel that way by virtue of 'unionizing' themselves for
strength, not trying to each 'go it alone' - as the sort of
individualism you seem to be advocating. The strength is in the unity of
common cause, not one million different 'causes' often at odds with each
other.
> Thus, if we moved to a greater acceptance of
> individual personality foibles, shy people could be happier (but I do think
> there'd be worse problems because of that).
That goes along with what I call tolerance, which - yes, the individual
needs to develop (as well as informational liberation) before he is
ready to unit in common cause with others.
>
>
> Isn't this a contradiction with your point above that the corporate side is
> only CONTRIBUTING to it?
No, not at all.
> This is the second big divergence in our ideas. I believe that society
> spawned the corporatocracy and individualism, and the things that hurt shy
> people, and now the corporatocracy is, really, simply taking advantage of
> that.
Not merely taking advantage - but consolidating, and reinforcing it, by
continuing to not present the full disclosure of information about how
the larger society works.
> The Corporatocracy, following the materialism OF our society,
> fosters those ideas because it thinks that's what we want, and so it will
> make them money.
What about its active *censorship* of news, various other critical
aspects, and issues? That is more than mere passive exploitation, that
is cynical manipulation.
> The instant we suggest otherwise, they'll at least TRY to
> look like they are doing so (note how fast they came out with
> "Enviro-friendly" products when people started demanding them).
That take is contradicted by the fact that corporate conspiracies have
occurred which have deliberately eliminated 'enviro-friendly' products,
including less polluting fuels and engines. Also, documented cases
where their agents have actively sabotaged efforts to implement
alternative energy sources, or enviro-firendly products in different
communities.
> If we
> could convince them that not being materialistic would make them more money
> (which you've got to admit would be tough), they'd push non-materialism.
They would push materialism irrespective of what we want or do, by
always having their lobbyists override the popular sentiment in any
given area. For example, in our area, people want NO more malls, etc.
But developers are going ahead, after being granted an 'exception'
anyway. This shows they don't care what we want. They're bound and
determined to do what they want, anyway they can, to churn profits.
> Thus, in my opinion, the Corportocracy isn't really the enemy and isn't
> really driving this thing -- we are.
It is - you just don't recognize it. And WE are, to the extent we remain
blinded to their manipulations and deviancy.
> And they'll help us drive it there
> because it makes them money.
See above.
> Therefore, as you can tell, I blame society for the problems (including
> shyness). As an example, I find that the dating rituals of our culture
> favour the aggressive, which leads to the aggressive people getting all the
> success, being emulated (because they are successful) and propogating that
> aggression into the next wave of dating and dating rituals.
This is true, but the corporate electronic media do their part by
keeping these images circulating, while suppressing others- say that
have been produced, and which show cooperation.
> Media sources
> use this in their shows and programs and spread it around because it's what
> society thinks is "normal" and so sells.
Of course, because what the majority *thinks* has been pre-programmed by
the brainwashers. Which came first, chicken or egg?
> But the problem is not caused by
> the media, but by society. We need to change society, not the media.
They are interwoven, one integral dynamic entity. The media often shapes
society and vice versa. See above.
> If
> we change society, the media will follow, because it'll make them money.
But, my point is we cannot change society unless we first make people
aware of social self-knowledge. Social conscious. We can't do that until
we first have a responsible media.
> Granted, the media image does make it harder ...
That's my point, and why it must be changed before the society can.
What we need is a radical alteration of consciousness. We can't get
there if the corporatocracy impedes us with its distortions and
censorship of what is going on.
DAERON
> You didn't when I responded, so as of that point in time my comment stands.
I suspected it, and he confirmed it, that was the point.
> I actually read or glanced at this (I think it was mainly glanced at, since
> I was reading it between compiles at work). The problem still stands,
> though, as it's fairly general, and since you don't know my or
> paperchaseguy's personal experiences you couldn't have written it so that
> it would relate to it.
But, I couldn't do that anyway, since neither of you have given it in
any depth to make it possible. In any case, the Elements series is
intended to deal not from the individual side of the ledger, but from
the corporate side, and what is wrong with that - and how it *generally*
affects society.
> This, of course, cannot be expected of you in a
> general work like your "Elements".
True, see above.
> However, this means that when you are
> trying to convince any specific person or group of people that it relates
> to them, you have to draw on specifics from their experience to show how it
> relates to them BEFORE telling them that they are simply unaware of what's
> going on.
I disagree with that. I believe one can draw on 'societally standard'
experiences, i.e. that have a high degree of probability of being common
to all members of a society.
> Truthfully, my problem with the "Elements" and the shyness one (which was
> more interesting) was not the relevance, since I could (and in fact had
> already) see how it could relate to my personal experience, but that some
> parts of it conflicting with my own personal experience.
Again, I suspect it's because you're Canadian and not American, so there
are bound to be such conflicts.
> And, although I'm
> not a true empiricist, if things don't agree with my own personal
> experience I tend to dismiss them as either not being relevant or not being
> universal (and so not helpful in general).
I suspected that. The 'personal filters' approach.
> My view on the matter is simply this -- that there are usually many sides
> to the story, and then the truth, and it's not likely that any one person,
> unless they are uninvolved and don't really have a benefit from telling
> their story, is going to tell you the whole truth. In fact, your division
> is quite naive, since I'd wager there's some truth in the corporate
> version, and some skew in your sources.
The 'truth' in the corporate versions are usually only enough to support
the general brainwash rubric that 'all the best lies have a kernel of
truth'. As far as the independent sources, the only 'skew' is that they
refrain from recycling what the corporate sources have already
published. But, I don't regard that as skew.
> Even so, there's no guarantee that their conclusions follow from the
> information or that their information is correct and not skewed.
The first part is true, but I pride myself as a researcher, able to
spot mis-applied conclusions. While I have seen some- as in a few JFK
conspiracy books, the vast majority are not. They are objective, and
also comprehensive evalutions. Much of the 'skew' as you put it, also
arises from choice of statistics. For example, most of the authors I
cite use the *underemployment* figure rather than the unemployment
figure. They do so, however, not to mislead- but because it is a more
comprehensive index. It includes for example 'disocuraged workers' who
have stopped seeking work. Now, because they stopped seeking work, imho,
does not mean you just write them off the unemployment rolls! If they're
not working, they ARE unemployed, no matter the reason.
> Do you check every single bit of information down to the very original (raw
> data) source?
I usually do, particularly since (as a former quality analyst,
statistician for a corporation) I am quite comfortable with numbers. So,
for example, I will check their figures, charts vs. those published in
'The Economist' on the same issue, or one of more of the publications by
the American Institute for Economic Research (i.e. 'A Monetary
Chronology of the United States')
> If not, there's a chance that some of what you base your
> opinions are are also deceptions put forward to convert people to a
> specific point of view.
True, up to a point.
> Then, of course, there's the matter of what they are not telling you
But, if you check enough sources you can find that out. And, in most
cases it pales in comparison to what the corporate press isn't telling
you.
> I rarely consider anyone who wants to convert me to a specific point of
> view to be objective about it.
I suspect that is because of your personal filters bias.
> And what about their hidden agenda -- or do you think the Corporatocracy
> has the market on that?
Pretty much - since it all has to do with P-R-O-F-I-T.
The groups - like Project Censored, Public Citizen, aren't making any
kind of profit. They aren't really getting much for their efforts,
except the chance to inform the citizenry to assume more responsibility,
instead of allowing the corporations carte blanche.
> Ask yourself this: WHY do they want to disclose what the corporate media
> mavens won't? What's their reasoning behind doing that?
To get the people informed, so they can exercise their civic
responsibilities with knowledge, not out of ignorance. An uninformed, or
misinformed public, cannot be a responsible one. As Carl Jensen notes in
his Introduction to the (1995) Project Censored Yearbook, p. 12:
"Despite the quantity of news and information being disseminated around
the clock, you and some 250 million other Americans are not being told
everything you have a need and a right to know. And, without full
information about the affairs of our society, we cannot function as good
citizens."
> Knowing that gets
> your their skew, and will set-up flags as to what they may be hiding
> themselves.
See above, I do not believe there is any 'skew' other than the desire to
provide people with the news, information they are NOT getting from the
corporations.
> I just have to wonder what the corporate sources don't tell us (probably
> because they just don't think it is important or valid) that your sources
> are ALSO not telling us because it'll make their points weaker.
I've not seen any intersection between these two 'sets' of 'not telling'
>I'm not
> prepared to believe that they're willing to tell us everything, including
> every point that could make their viewpoints invalid, while they are trying
> to convince us to accept their viewpoint. Some people do this, but they
> are exceedingly rare.
See above remarks made, about reasons.
>
> >
> True. Then, of course, one is free to either invent the other side of the
> story (not terribly rational) or recognize that there is a skew and give
> the information the weight it deserves based on the credibility of the
> source.
And what if the credibility of the source is excellent? As in
documents? Say, even gov't documents? What if it is a momentous event-
already recorded (like the Telegraph story on the London riots against
global capitalism) but suppressed largely in this country.
>Currently the only unimpeachable source _I_ can think of is the
> combination of experience and reason.
That is ideal. But, one cannot be everywhere at once, or reason about
only experience. At some point, in order to form a coherent view of the
world, one must being to assemble a 'database' from accumulated
knowledge and information. We do this from books, sources outside
ourselves. As Carl Sagan observes ('The Demon Haunted WOrld', 1996, p.
357):
"For 99% of the tenure of humans on earth, nobody could reat or write.
.......Books changed all that. Books, purchasable at low cost, permit us
to interrogate the past with high accuracy, to tap the wisdom of our
species, to understand the point of view of others, and not just those
in power, to contemplate, with the best teachers- the insights painfully
extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds there ever were drawn from
the entire planet and from all of our history."
Your 'unimpeachable' source ideal, would have us forego all of the
above.
And that is exactly why it's wrongheaded, and unrealistic. Like it or
not, at some stage we must step in an evaluate knowledge, and
information. My point is that the more exhaustively we do this, the
better the odds we will arrive at the truth, or what approaches it,.
>
> The problem is that if your presentation gives off impression X people WILL
> believe impression X, so you ignore presentation to your detriment if that
> impression is not what you want people to get from you.
The trouble is - in a faceless environment (i.e. 'cyberspace'),
controlling any impressons is nearly impossible. People - especially
like you, with pre-filters, will form their own impressions - say based
on the fact the given experience doesn't comport with their own.
> In university debating, style and content were given equal weight, and I
> was the toughest person on content in the club. If you have great content,
> but your style is terrible, no one will be able to understand or be willing
> to listen to what you have to say; if you have great style but no content
> no one will care about what you say. In order to be effective at "saving
> minds", you really do need both. If you don't care about how effective
> your words are, you can ignore style -- but if you do, style and
> presentation are indeed important.
Well, let's just say that my 'style' will be one of the things I intend
to work on in the next millenium :)
> If your wrapper is so repulsive that it makes people
> want to turn away from it, only rare, strong-minded people will try to look
> inside --
Well, given the responses I've been getting, it's not clear to me that
my posts are all that 'repulsive'. Seems people still want to read them
and argue. And, in the end, that's mostly what I'm after. To get people
to back up a bit and re-think positions. I'm not so unrealistic to
believe I can just wave a wand and change minds.
> But, again, it's irrelevant whether or not what you say is true, if they
> are reacting to it the same way they would if it was not true.
So, in other words, become a corporate PR person.
> Ah, but here I wasn't accusing you of that. I was asking an honest
> question. Would the above person have been brainwashed? If you answer
> yes, I disagree. If you answer no, then it isn't the sources that
> determine brainwashing, but what you do with those sources that's
> important.
Of course what you do with them is important. My point was they can have
an effect even if you do nothing. When brains absorb information it
doesn't simply vanish, but remains ensconced in some neurons. For future
use. If nearly all that info was absorbed from the Washington Post, the
chances are the delaayed thoughts -opinions, will embody many
distortions, because of the Post's distortions.
> Your real
> argument here is that one who does not only have corporate sources as input
> cannot be brainwashed, which is not meaningless (but debatable).
No, that's not my argument at all. All the sources in the world, of
whatever combination - are of little use, unless the critical thinking
component also factors in, to evaluate the information.
But, my other point, is that (assuming the above) one that uses both
types of sources is less likely to be brainwashed than one that
exclusively uses corporate sources. Because of all the information
(often critical) that the corporate press expunges. Also, the
distortions that undergo constant repetition. As Jensen notes (ibid. p.
12):
"The next step in the information control process in America is to use
this control (of the media) to effectively exploit our minds. This,
also, it seems, has been accomplished. The mind manipulators are well
aware of the first principle of successful mind control- repetition."
> And what about the rest of the paragraph above? Can such a person exist,
> in your opinion?
A non-brainwashed person can, if alert and aware to how the corporate
media are controlling and manipulating the news (using the PArenti
indicators)
>
> So, if someone doesn't get their information from corporate sources
> exclusively (meaning, I suppose, that they get their informaton strictly
> from non-corporate sources) then they are not safe?
No, the converse.
> I tend to verify information when the absolute truth of it is important to
> me.
Again, bias of personal filters: 'Is it important to me'.
Somewhat solipsist, no?
>If not, I class it according to the reliability of the source, check
> it against reason and experience, and move on. Reason, actually, is the
> more important check.
And, how pray tell do you evaluate the 'reliability' of the source?
> Did I ever condemn you for that? Where?
I was being rhetorical.
> However, if one evaluates them critically, even if they are the sole
> sources one can avoid being brainwashed. In my opinion, of course.
Not from the neurological theory of 'total neuronal absorption' of
information. In that context, if one is unaware, the info may be
recycled and called one's own. And the imbiber won't be the wiser.
DAERON
> Well, I don't know what the underemployment figure is,
>From Colamosca and Wolman ('The Judas Economy- The Triumph of Capital
and the Betrayal of Work', 1997, p. 57:
" 'Underemployment', a broader measure of the lack of employment success
in the labor market, measured 10.1 percenmt for 1995 according to the
Economic Policy Institute... This much more troubling statistic take
into account part-time workers who could not find full time jobs and
'discouraged workers' who wanted jobs but had been discouraged by their
lack of success and consequently ...were no longer counted in the labor
rolls."
As a point of reference, I am one of those discouraged workers, who have
not been able to find anything since 11/96. Hence, I am no longer on any
employment rolls. To quote Horace Deets (President of AARP), I am one of
those older (>50) workers "who have encountered the ultimate
overqualification: over- age."
Nor is this surprising when one considers that the Fortune 500 companies
have a white paper report that pointed to age 43.4 as the year in which
'diminishing productivity returns' set in for American workers.
Hence, it is a useful 'guide' for them to use, to begin downsizing.
Particularly after a merger, as in my case.
Anyway, I may no longer have paid work, but I have finished two novels,
for which I'm now actively seeking literary agents. I've also entered
another literary contest (short novel competition, deadline 8/31/99) for
which I can hopefully bring in some 'coppers'.
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> the individual mind does have to be liberated from the false
> matrix that entraps it
I think Daeron may just have let slip one of his sources that he's
embarrassed to mention ;)
Ollie
Oliver Broadway
> They would push materialism irrespective of what we want or do, by
> always having their lobbyists override the popular sentiment in any
> given area. For example, in our area, people want NO more malls, etc.
> But developers are going ahead, after being granted an 'exception'
> anyway. This shows they don't care what we want. They're bound and
> determined to do what they want, anyway they can, to churn profits.
What this point highlights is surely the hypocrisy of the people. If they
really did want no more malls, they wouldn't use them. If they didn't use
them, the developers wouldn't build them, because there would be no profit
in it. The developers are providing what the people want, because that's
how they make profit. If the people *say* they don't want it, but then go
out and use it anyway, that's not the developers' fault.
Ollie
DAERON
>
> In article <377528...@ix.netcom.com>, sta...@ix.netcom.com (DAERON)
> wrote:
>
> > always having their lobbyists override the popular sentiment in any
> > given area. For example, in our area, people want NO more malls, etc.
> > But developers are going ahead, after being granted an 'exception'
> > anyway. This shows they don't care what we want. They're bound and
> > determined to do what they want, anyway they can, to churn profits.
>
> really did want no more malls, they wouldn't use them. If they didn't use
> them, the developers wouldn't build them, because there would be no profit
> in it. The developers are providing what the people want, because that's
> how they make profit. If the people *say* they don't want it, but then go
> out and use it anyway, that's not the developers' fault.
NO, the developers are not providing what the (native, local) populace
wants, but what a 'market' of *outsiders* wants. (I.e. who live in DCbut
want to move here).
My point is that any given community has a specific 'carrying capacity'-
in terms of water supply,services, roads, schools etc. When that
capacity begins to be exceeded or passed (as it is in our area) then
curbs on growth need to be respected. The people here (in last year's
election) showed their seriousness by electing a board of largely
pro-growth representatives.
However, using various schemes and subterfuges (like legal 'zoning
exception' loopholes) the developers have been able to get round much
of this - many impediments. In fact, by deft use of such devices,
they've been able to get almost as much *unwanted* development (by the
people living here) done as before.
Even when the people briefly 'win' - as a few months ago when they
banded together to stop a new Chic-Fil-A from building in Ellicot City,
that is no guarantee of permanent success. In this case, C-Fil-A merely
returned and managed to get its hat in the ring again- thanks to some
adept moves. So now, they may well build after all.
In other case, people in Laurel (south of us) loudly registered their
objections to a new set of townhouse devleopments coming in, but they
were overidden by their local zoning board.
Numerous other cases - of course, not related to this, abound, in which
the people's interests are not being served - rather special interests.
- People want lower ATM, bank charged but banker lobbies keep this off
the table
- People want protection from the excesses of HMOs (health maintenance
organizations which ration health care) - but lobbies from the medical
insurance industry continually kill it. The latest attempt, in a
'Patient's Bill of Rights' (proposed by Clinton) will also likely end up
stillborn.
- People want and demand - they've made it clear often enough in
surveys, polls- a living wage, rather than a minimum wage- by which they
can barely survive. But corporate interests and their lobbies keep that
legislation out of the halls of congress, overriding it with their own
(minimal wage) versions.
- People demand a safe environment in which to raise children, free of
chemical toxic waste and pollutants. But no one's told them about legal
loopholes- in the national environmental laws, that permit chemical and
waste companies to 'buy waste credits' and exceed their normal dumping
thresholds (cf. "Buying and Selling Permits to Pollute', in Project
Censored Yearbook (ed. Carl Jensen), 1996, p. 106).
- People - older folk, demand and want medical prescrption drugs to be
part of their medicare. But lobbies for the pharmaceutical companies
have kept that off the table.
In all these cases, and more, what the people want is not being
delivered/. WHY? Because the money power of corporate interests and
lobbies speaks more loudly than 'one man-one vote'.
This is what now passes for democracy, a 'lobbyocracy'. Or democracy for
the few.
And so it goes, on and on, the people's voice is overridden and drowned
out, by special interests such as lobbyists.
Pet
> PS -- did anyone *else* get that "mainstream" impression from my posts?
Nope, there wasn't enough info to conclude that.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
> > You didn't when I responded, so as of that point in time my comment
stands.
>
> I suspected it, and he confirmed it, that was the point.
No, actually, that wasn't the point of what _I_ was talking about, which
was that you condemned him as being brainwashed before knowing what he
actually used as his sources.
> > However, this means that when you are
> > trying to convince any specific person or group of people that it
relates
> > to them, you have to draw on specifics from their experience to show
how it
> > relates to them BEFORE telling them that they are simply unaware of
what's
> > going on.
>
> I disagree with that. I believe one can draw on 'societally standard'
> experiences, i.e. that have a high degree of probability of being common
> to all members of a society.
However, if someone does NOT have those experiences, you can't simply say
"Well, learn them" -- you have to find other common experiences. As an
example, in this newsgroup (alt.support.shyness) it would be fairly safe to
assume that everyone here has shyness in common, and so it would seem
logical that one of the first things you would try to use as a common
example to show a link between your views and real-life experience would be
social situations and especially those dealing with shyness -- but you
don't. I know you've argued that you've covered it before in another long
post, but that's no reason NOT to use such examples to make it easier to
draw a link between your comments and real-life experiences. This could be
one reason why you are accused so often of posting things that are
off-topic -- even though it is on-topic, since you don't bother to even
mention how it is in your posts, people fail to see the relevance.
>
> > Truthfully, my problem with the "Elements" and the shyness one (which
was
> > more interesting) was not the relevance, since I could (and in fact had
> > already) see how it could relate to my personal experience, but that
some
> > parts of it conflicting with my own personal experience.
>
> Again, I suspect it's because you're Canadian and not American, so there
> are bound to be such conflicts.
The shyness parts?
You cannot assume that all Americans will share all of the personal
experiences that you have that you used to come to your conclusions, and so
your comment that "It's just because you're Canadian" isn't good enough.
>
> > And, although I'm
> > not a true empiricist, if things don't agree with my own personal
> > experience I tend to dismiss them as either not being relevant or not
being
> > universal (and so not helpful in general).
>
> I suspected that. The 'personal filters' approach.
And what's wrong with that? If you tell me something that conflicts with
what I have personally experienced, is it not logical for me to place a
higher credibility on my own experiences than that which you have told me?
But, to clarify, I do not say that it is not true, and accept that it could
be true FOR YOU. However, I cannot accept it as being universally true.
If I have repeatedly experienced the contradictory experience, then I will
be more likely to conclude that the statement is not relevant to my own
personal experience. If I have not, then I may accept that it may be
relevant, but not universal, and so no universally applicable conclusions
can be drawn from it.
>
> > My view on the matter is simply this -- that there are usually many
sides
> > to the story, and then the truth, and it's not likely that any one
person,
> > unless they are uninvolved and don't really have a benefit from telling
> > their story, is going to tell you the whole truth. In fact, your
division
> > is quite naive, since I'd wager there's some truth in the corporate
> > version, and some skew in your sources.
>
> The 'truth' in the corporate versions are usually only enough to support
> the general brainwash rubric that 'all the best lies have a kernel of
> truth'. As far as the independent sources, the only 'skew' is that they
> refrain from recycling what the corporate sources have already
> published. But, I don't regard that as skew.
And if that's the only skew you believe they have ...
>
> > Even so, there's no guarantee that their conclusions follow from the
> > information or that their information is correct and not skewed.
>
> The first part is true, but I pride myself as a researcher, able to
> spot mis-applied conclusions. While I have seen some- as in a few JFK
> conspiracy books, the vast majority are not. They are objective, and
> also comprehensive evalutions. Much of the 'skew' as you put it, also
> arises from choice of statistics. For example, most of the authors I
> cite use the *underemployment* figure rather than the unemployment
> figure. They do so, however, not to mislead- but because it is a more
> comprehensive index. It includes for example 'disocuraged workers' who
> have stopped seeking work. Now, because they stopped seeking work, imho,
> does not mean you just write them off the unemployment rolls! If they're
> not working, they ARE unemployed, no matter the reason.
Even if it includes some people who just don't want to find work? And even
if what you are trying to show is the difference between those people who
are actively seeking work and the number of jobs available, or simply the
number of people who are actively seeking work who cannot find any?
Depending on what you are trying to show, it makes perfect sense to use
unemployement or underemployment or vice versa. And the selection of this
statistic, and others, will show the skew of the authors, and I'd bet it's
more than simply trying to inform us.
>
>
> > Do you check every single bit of information down to the very original
(raw
> > data) source?
>
> I usually do, particularly since (as a former quality analyst,
> statistician for a corporation) I am quite comfortable with numbers. So,
> for example, I will check their figures, charts vs. those published in
> 'The Economist' on the same issue, or one of more of the publications by
> the American Institute for Economic Research (i.e. 'A Monetary
> Chronology of the United States')
This isn't checking the information, since you have no idea if the got the
information from the same source and if that source has gotten it wrong or
has skewed the results. For example, there was a statistic bandied about
on several news sources about how more birth defects were caused by
domestic abuse than anything else. It was supposedly from a March of Dimes
survey, but there was no such survey. So simply looking in several media
sources isn't the answer. There have also been a few instances where the
raw data was simply wrong (I think this applied to a survey of relative
standard of living of men and women after a divorce).
Even how they chose to present the numbers can affect the results. For
example, you must have heard about the "1 in 4 women will be raped in their
lifetime" statistic, right? Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Well, except
that 1 in 4 is 25%, which means that the VAST majority of women will NOT be
raped any time in their lifetime, which certainly should make one feel
better about rape rates (although, yes, it's too high). And this is only
if we ignore that what they did (I think) was take the rape rates for a
year and multiply it by the average lifespan of a woman.
Unless you go to the original, raw data, and look up the research
techniques they used to get it, you cannot be certain that the information
you have is correct and not skewed. Looking it up in different
publications does not help if they get their original data from the same
sources.
> > I rarely consider anyone who wants to convert me to a specific point of
> > view to be objective about it.
>
> I suspect that is because of your personal filters bias.
Actually, it's a rational stance. If someone is trying to convince me of
something, they are going to play up the things that make their story
convincing and downplay that which does not, and so they WON'T be
completely objective, because they AREN'T objective about their stance.
>
> > And what about their hidden agenda -- or do you think the
Corporatocracy
> > has the market on that?
>
> Pretty much - since it all has to do with P-R-O-F-I-T.
There are more hidden agendas than simply profit. As an example, sometimes
I'll try to arrange to be in a certain place to try to hit on an attractive
woman. I have a professed and a hidden agenda to be in that place -- but
the hidden agenda has nothing to do with profit.
>
> The groups - like Project Censored, Public Citizen, aren't making any
> kind of profit. They aren't really getting much for their efforts,
> except the chance to inform the citizenry to assume more responsibility,
> instead of allowing the corporations carte blanche.
And, of course, the chance to get some respect, influence and perhaps even
power out of it when they get to stand at the head of the organization
against corporatocracy. If you want an example of how this happens, I
think the feminist movement is a good example.
>
> > Ask yourself this: WHY do they want to disclose what the corporate
media
> > mavens won't? What's their reasoning behind doing that?
>
> To get the people informed, so they can exercise their civic
> responsibilities with knowledge, not out of ignorance. An uninformed, or
> misinformed public, cannot be a responsible one.
Forgive me if I'm suspicious of professed completely altruistic motives,
since most people are not completely altruistic.
BTW, you might do well to remember that a lot of corporate sources ALSO
claim that their intention is to help and serve us, and to give us the
information we need to be responsible.
> > I just have to wonder what the corporate sources don't tell us
(probably
> > because they just don't think it is important or valid) that your
sources
> > are ALSO not telling us because it'll make their points weaker.
>
> I've not seen any intersection between these two 'sets' of 'not telling'
If no one ever tells you it, how would you know?
>
> > True. Then, of course, one is free to either invent the other side of
the
> > story (not terribly rational) or recognize that there is a skew and
give
> > the information the weight it deserves based on the credibility of the
> > source.
>
> And what if the credibility of the source is excellent? As in
> documents? Say, even gov't documents?
Um, do you really think that the government never lies, and never hides
things from the people?
> >Currently the only unimpeachable source _I_ can think of is the
> > combination of experience and reason.
>
> That is ideal. But, one cannot be everywhere at once, or reason about
> only experience. At some point, in order to form a coherent view of the
> world, one must being to assemble a 'database' from accumulated
> knowledge and information. We do this from books, sources outside
> ourselves. As Carl Sagan observes ('The Demon Haunted WOrld', 1996, p.
> 357):
>
> "For 99% of the tenure of humans on earth, nobody could reat or write.
> .......Books changed all that. Books, purchasable at low cost, permit us
> to interrogate the past with high accuracy, to tap the wisdom of our
> species, to understand the point of view of others, and not just those
> in power, to contemplate, with the best teachers- the insights painfully
> extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds there ever were drawn from
> the entire planet and from all of our history."
>
> Your 'unimpeachable' source ideal, would have us forego all of the
> above.
Um, I never, ever, claimed that we should only ever USE that
"unimpeachable" source. All I claimed is that the only things that I
cannot doubt are empiricism and reason (the combination). Everything else
must have some amount of doubt attached to it, and the degree of doubt
varies as per the credibility of the source.
> > The problem is that if your presentation gives off impression X people
WILL
> > believe impression X, so you ignore presentation to your detriment if
that
> > impression is not what you want people to get from you.
>
>
> The trouble is - in a faceless environment (i.e. 'cyberspace'),
> controlling any impressons is nearly impossible. People - especially
> like you, with pre-filters, will form their own impressions - say based
> on the fact the given experience doesn't comport with their own.
A lot of people seem to have better success with it than you do (and also
people have given suggestions as to how you can improve the impression you
give). And why is it that you seem to be claiming that if you give us the
wrong impression, WE'RE the ones that are wrong, and not you for not making
it clear what you want us to take away? In your case, less "brainwashing"
comments would do a world of good for your impression.
> > But, again, it's irrelevant whether or not what you say is true, if
they
> > are reacting to it the same way they would if it was not true.
>
> So, in other words, become a corporate PR person.
I never said that. I said that it is irrelevant to the impression you are
giving that you are telling the "truth", since you would get the same
reaction whether you were lying or telling the truth. The problem is not
in what you are saying, but how you are saying it.
>
> > Ah, but here I wasn't accusing you of that. I was asking an honest
> > question. Would the above person have been brainwashed? If you answer
> > yes, I disagree. If you answer no, then it isn't the sources that
> > determine brainwashing, but what you do with those sources that's
> > important.
>
> Of course what you do with them is important. My point was they can have
> an effect even if you do nothing. When brains absorb information it
> doesn't simply vanish, but remains ensconced in some neurons. For future
> use. If nearly all that info was absorbed from the Washington Post, the
> chances are the delaayed thoughts -opinions, will embody many
> distortions, because of the Post's distortions.
And the same thing applies to your external sources. Even if you research
many different sources on an issue, you cannot be certain that when you
regurgitate an idea it didn't simply come from one of those books.
> > I tend to verify information when the absolute truth of it is important
to
> > me.
>
> Again, bias of personal filters: 'Is it important to me'.
>
> Somewhat solipsist, no?
If the truth value of the statement is irrelevant to my life, why is it not
logical to put off verifying it until I need to know it, so long as I do
not assume any particular value?
>
> >If not, I class it according to the reliability of the source, check
> > it against reason and experience, and move on. Reason, actually, is
the
> > more important check.
>
> And, how pray tell do you evaluate the 'reliability' of the source?
I'd say in about the same way you do, but with different criteria. For the
most part, things like how often they've been right in the past, the level
of personal interest they have in one answer being accepted, and so on ...
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
> > This actually starts to highlight the large divergence in our thinking.
> > I'm not certain that the LACK of social self-knowledge hurts shy people
> > more than their caring about society (and what it tells them to do).
I'm
> > not certain how far you go in this, but one of my problems with Steve
is
> > that even though I blame individualism for a lot of the problems in
> > society, I believe that a more radical version of individualism might
help
> > shy people more than an attempt to integrate them into society.
>
> Nope. I think that's exactly the wrong way to go. I think the shy
> person, or any socially disaffected, or 'disadvantaged' person, needs to
> learn the basic arts of cooperation, and working together in common
> cause - especially to assist and support *each other*.
But there's no reason to believe that shy people DON'T know that. Many of
them do, and in fact one of their problems IS that they realize that and
everyone else does. For some shy people, being shy (in places like the
workplace) is simply a matter of not being competitive or aggressive enough
to push their way over other people and be able to do things like talk over
people to get their points across or go up and introduce themselves to
people.
>
> The very problem with modern, western society is its unhealthy
> over-emphasis on individualism which basically keeps people in separate
> 'cubbyholes' when they could be gaining much more strength and support
> from each other.
Individualism doesn't need to work that way, though, even though ours seems
to. Besides, as I said above I'm not in favour of individualism -- just
that a more radical form would be better than what Steve suggested (in my
opinion).
> > If shy
> > people didn't have to care about following extroverted rules to feel
like
> > they are respected and part of society, they'd probably be a lot more
> > comfortable and happier.
>
> True, but they'd feel that way by virtue of 'unionizing' themselves for
> strength, not trying to each 'go it alone' - as the sort of
> individualism you seem to be advocating. The strength is in the unity of
> common cause, not one million different 'causes' often at odds with each
> other.
I see. I mention individualism, you assume it means that everyone is
supposed to try to go it alone.
Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that instead of
trying to push everyone into the mold of society and turn shy people into
extroverts what we REALLY need to do is make society so that people who are
shy can BE shy if they want to without feeling inadequate because of it. I
cannot see how Steve's method could accomplish that.
> >
> >
> > Isn't this a contradiction with your point above that the corporate
side is
> > only CONTRIBUTING to it?
>
> No, not at all.
Then please explain why not.
> > The Corporatocracy, following the materialism OF our society,
> > fosters those ideas because it thinks that's what we want, and so it
will
> > make them money.
>
> What about its active *censorship* of news, various other critical
> aspects, and issues? That is more than mere passive exploitation, that
> is cynical manipulation.
What part of "fosters those ideas" is incompatible with your statement
here?
>
> > The instant we suggest otherwise, they'll at least TRY to
> > look like they are doing so (note how fast they came out with
> > "Enviro-friendly" products when people started demanding them).
>
> That take is contradicted by the fact that corporate conspiracies have
> occurred which have deliberately eliminated 'enviro-friendly' products,
> including less polluting fuels and engines. Also, documented cases
> where their agents have actively sabotaged efforts to implement
> alternative energy sources, or enviro-firendly products in different
> communities.
Read the "TRY to look like" again and you should understand how this isn't
really a contradiction. Because society is materialistic, they want to
make money. If we tell them it'll make them money to promote
enviro-friendly products, they'll try to create such products. If certain
enviro-friendly products will cost them money, they'll try to quash them.
>
>
> > If we
> > could convince them that not being materialistic would make them more
money
> > (which you've got to admit would be tough), they'd push
non-materialism.
>
> They would push materialism irrespective of what we want or do, by
> always having their lobbyists override the popular sentiment in any
> given area. For example, in our area, people want NO more malls, etc.
> But developers are going ahead, after being granted an 'exception'
> anyway. This shows they don't care what we want. They're bound and
> determined to do what they want, anyway they can, to churn profits.
If it loses them money, they won't push materialism. If they'll lose money
on those malls, they won't build them. Now, as you said in another post,
the reason they build them is because even though the locals don't like
them, other people do. So, as long as someone will support them with
dollars, they'll build them. If NO ONE supported them with dollars, they
would not build them.
>
> > Thus, in my opinion, the Corportocracy isn't really the enemy and isn't
> > really driving this thing -- we are.
>
> It is - you just don't recognize it. And WE are, to the extent we remain
> blinded to their manipulations and deviancy.
We started it, and we accept it, and we vote for it with our dollars.
We're the ones in charge and we cause all of it, even the Corporatocracy.
> > Media sources
> > use this in their shows and programs and spread it around because it's
what
> > society thinks is "normal" and so sells.
>
>
> Of course, because what the majority *thinks* has been pre-programmed by
> the brainwashers. Which came first, chicken or egg?
Society's views came first, because they created materialism, which created
the Corporatocracy. Now, we are locked in a feedback loop, but make no
mistake. We started it.
> > Granted, the media image does make it harder ...
>
> That's my point, and why it must be changed before the society can.
> What we need is a radical alteration of consciousness. We can't get
> there if the corporatocracy impedes us with its distortions and
> censorship of what is going on.
We can start with society and then work on the media until both are free.
The first thing we have to do is make people want to see things change,
because the media will not change if no one wants to watch the new format.
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
(re: accusing paperchaseguy of having been brainwashed)
> > You didn't when I responded, so as of that point in time my comment
> > stands.
>
> I suspected it, and he confirmed it, that was the point.
No, the point was, you didn't say that you suspected he had been
brainwashed; you said he had been brainwashed. You had a suspicion, on
which you based an assumption, and then presented it as a fact, without
bothering to check it first. Even if it later turned out to be true, that
doesn't excuse this lack of adequate research before presenting your
opinion as fact. It's extraordinarily ironic, really, don't you think?
Now, about that very emotive word which you are so keen on using,
"brainwashing". It is my belief that you are using this word in order to
provoke an emotional reaction. In fact, you are not talking about
brainwashing at all. What you are talking about, rather, is
indoctrination. Please try to use the correct terms, rather than
emotionally charged but factually inaccurate language.
Because of this misuse of words, your assertion, that paperchaseguy has
been "brainwashed", is almost certainly a false one, regardless of what he
has subsequently revealed about his reading matter.
Ollie
yakima
<paperc...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7kuf6e$kfh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Mr. Steve <sr...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I suspect that your point of view reflects that of the
> > mainstream culture. Maybe it doesn't, but going by your writing style
> > and your general attitudes of "everything is relative, live life now
> for
> > the moment, the econonmy has never been better, technology is the
> saving
> > grace, etc.." I would suspect that it does.
(snip)
> PS -- did anyone *else* get that "mainstream" impression from my posts?
No, not at all. The only explanation I can think of (other than wilful
obtuseness) is that Steve has you confused with someone else.
-yakima
James G
>
> But the question remains - what are your sources? Who has influenced
> the doubt that you do have your own opinions and aren't "brainwashed" in
> that sense - but I and others would like to see proof of your own
> thinking - by citing the sources that have led you to your conclusions.
If you think this is so important, I will cite them at the end
of this post. I still maintain that somebody can have independent
thought while reading mainstream sources. I finished Opposing
the System and am 3/4 through Dirty Truths. As I said before,
America Besieged is checked out, so I'll wait to check it out.
Still, the specific points that were made in the books did not
really seem like things I hadn't been exposed to before. I already
knew about East Timor. I already accepted that the CIA was
involved in the plot on JFK (and hadn't seen Oliver Stone's
movie). As I was telling you before, I believe in global warming.
I never bought into the image of the welfare mother. I had bought
into the idea of a liberal press in high school, but changed my
mind in college. An interesting book I read then was called
Taking Sides, where both liberal and conservative views were used
from essays from different people. Later, I'll add a better citation
for you (since I'm writing this from school and the book is in
my apartment). The one thing new to me was the murder of the head
of the UAW. I still say that I can maintain views independent of
the corporate press. Anyway, as I promised my sources. Here is
what I read/watched as my main news sources at different points in
my life:
Newspapers:
Albuquerque Journal: 1991 and prior, web version 1995-present
Los Angeles Times: 1991-1995
Centre Daily Times: 1995-present
Voices of Central Pennsylvania: 1998-present
The Penn State Daily Collegian: 1995-present
Magazines:
The Economist: 1992-1994
Chemical & Engineering News: 1994-present
TV:
CBS + ABC News: 1991 and prior
MTV News: 1989-1994
CNN: 1995 and prior
JerryO
> the paper chase guy wrote:
>
>
> > PS -- did anyone *else* get that "mainstream" impression from my posts?
I'd have to check my independent sources for that.
>
> Nope, there wasn't enough info to conclude that.
>
>
>
>
--
For info about this service, see http://www.twwells.com/anon/ or e-mail:
he...@anon.twwells.com -- for an automatically returned help message
ad...@anon.twwells.com -- for the service's administrator
ano...@anon.twwells.com -- anonymous mail to the administrator
DAERON
>
> Now, about that very emotive word which you are so keen on using,
> "brainwashing". It is my belief that you are using this word in order to
> provoke an emotional reaction. In fact, you are not talking about
> brainwashing at all. What you are talking about, rather, is
> indoctrination. Please try to use the correct terms, rather than
> emotionally charged but factually inaccurate language.
FYI, the Project Censored group (info from their web site of which you
dispatched to me via e-mail) *themselves* use the term BRAINWASHED which
they equate to "successful mind control" (cf. 1995 Project Censored
Yearbook, p. 12). So, it isn't 'inaccurate language' - though it may be
very *forceful* language, perhaps too much so for some, who prefer a
euphemism.
The fact is, as Project Censored notes (ibid.) when information is
manipulated, and repeated over and over, for the purposes of 'mind
control' (*their* term not mine) it becomes 'brainwashing'. That this
word has baggage from previous wars (i.e. Korean War and the Chinese use
of it on captured GI's) does NOT make it irrelevant here, though it may
offend your sensibilities.
> Because of this misuse of words, your assertion, that paperchaseguy has
> been "brainwashed", is almost certainly a false one,
We don't know that it is 'false.'
What we DO know is that he admits reading a newspaper that has a
considerable reputation (since it 'sold out' after Watergate, which is
probably the last story it did do well - for disclosure) for doctoring
news, censoring news, using misinformation and disinformation and
repeating it. All of which can translate to indoctrination, OR
brainwashing - for the extreme case.
Hence, it is possible - to the extent he *believes* what the Post puts
out (which I think he does) that he's 'brainwashed'. And it's 99%
probable he's at least indoctrinated.
DAERON
>
> However, if someone does NOT have those experiences, you can't simply say
> "Well, learn them" -- you have to find other common experiences.
I don't. My point is that the experiences can still be employed as
useful examples - whether another person has had them or not. Now, they
may *mean* more if they are *also* personal to the reader - but the lack
of that particular connection does not invalidate them.
> As an
> example, in this newsgroup (alt.support.shyness) it would be fairly safe to
> assume that everyone here has shyness in common,
I would say it more likely that it's half and half between introverts
and shybies.
>and so it would seem
> logical that one of the first things you would try to use as a common
> example to show a link between your views and real-life experience would be
> social situations and especially those dealing with shyness -- but you
> don't.
I don't because I am trying to escape -emerge from the more limited
contexts, frameworks. I am trying to give *larger* examples, that extend
beyond parties, etc. My reasoning is that even if a person (perhaps
young) has not had them yet, they almost certainly will encounter some
permutation in the future - near or far.
The standard social examples, in most cases, simply have no bearing on
the larger societal issues (like to do with the corporatocracy) I am
trying to address. Tnat doesn't mean they are 'irrelevant' it only means
the person must broaden perspectives to appreciate them.
>I know you've argued that you've covered it before in another long
> post, but that's no reason NOT to use such examples to make it easier to
> draw a link between your comments and real-life experiences.
I try to do that in many cases, but obviously, where the issues purely
to do with the corporatocracy are concerned, they don't really have a
place.
> This could be
> one reason why you are accused so often of posting things that are
> off-topic -- even though it is on-topic, since you don't bother to even
> mention how it is in your posts, people fail to see the relevance.
See above remarks. Those who make the 'off topic' claim are again
thinking in narrow terms, and expecting me to argue, deliver in these
narrow (social, party, self) terms. I do in some instances, but
addressing the corporatocracy - the *larger* social self, demands a
much larger frame of reference that naturally includes examples and life
experiences most in this ng would not have had.
What I am doing is challenging to expand their appreciation beyond what
they know intimately. This is no different from reading historical
documents, say to do with things that no longer exist, like the Third
Reich, and how it devalued human life in concentration camps. Reading
about it can take me from a narrow personal framework - of computers,
TVs etc, to what occurred then. I need not have actually had the
experience (of being in a concentration camp)to appreciate their horror.
In the same way, a denizen of this ng need not actually have had the
experiences, examples, I refer to, for them to be relevant to him or
her. Their very life in a society in which they occurred make them
relevant. Since that same society is shared. (Whether the particular
experience has been or not)
> The shyness parts?
I believe, for one thing, that there is less militance vs. shyness, or
introversion in Canada. I believe this is so because it is a slightly
less dog-eat-dog society than the U.S. Still has more social networks
and supports etc.
There is also less market domination of all aspects of Canadian life,
esepcially in schools. For example, I do not believe the Canadians - in
their schools - have anything like 'Channel One' - which delivers
commercial-laden TV to a captive audience each day, for at least 8
minutes (at taxpayer expense!)
> You cannot assume that all Americans will share all of the personal
> experiences that you have that you used to come to your conclusions,
I don't but then I do not argue that it's necessary that 'sharing' be a
prerequisite for understanding and appreciation. See my previous
remarks.
Ideally, yes - a sharing (shared example) would promote a greater
intimacy and familiarity of the issue. But that is not a necessary
condition for understanding.
>and so
> your comment that "It's just because you're Canadian" isn't good enough.
All I meant by that, is that - because of your personal bias filters,
which you've already conceded- and because you lack at least the
theoretical understanding, many corporatocracy issues would not make a
dent with you one way or the other. You already admitted as much.
Now, what I'm also saying, is that if your personal bias filters (which,
imho border on solipsism) weren't so strong, this might not matter so
much. But it does.
> And what's wrong with that? If you tell me something that conflicts with
> what I have personally experienced, is it not logical for me to place a
> higher credibility on my own experiences than that which you have told me?
It is not necessarily logical, but it is common sense. Since that which
is remote appears not quite as real. However, one's experience teaches
that - over time, that rubric is highly illogical, and personal
experience can be very untrustworthy. Thus, Canadians who become
naturalized citizens of this country, and learn too late their health
care is not covered, as it was in Canada. Rather, it is now an
additional monthly, or yearly expense, which must be budgeted for, like
food, or mortgage. A rude awakening.
The other thing is that your sort of thinking leads down the slippery
slope - or path, toward Kantian idealism of the sort that only the
'self' exists (carried to its final conclusion) and nothing exists
outside of this 'self', or is as 'real'. This is inherent solipsism -
which if accepted (and granted to everyone) leads to logical chaos.
For, what we end up with is six billion beings with six billion
permutations of 'reality'. No common ground, or agreement, since no two
sets of experience will precisley intersect at all times.
This is also approaching the sort of ill-chosen path Jacques Derrida and
Co. have taken unwary college students down, in their
'deconstructionist' phantasms. As E. O. Wilson notes ('Consilience',
Knopf, 1998, p. 41):
"The 'Derrida paradox' is similar to the 'all Cretans are liars'
paradox. He also compares Derrida to Rousseau "self professed enemy of
books and writing." And, in much the same way, you withhold
'unimpeachable' credibility for books, and any sort of writing (which
doesn't at least directly reflect some experience you've had).
> But, to clarify, I do not say that it is not true, and accept that it could
> be true FOR YOU. However, I cannot accept it as being universally true.
The point is not to insist it is 'universally true' -i.e. that all must
experience it to understand the system (corporatocracy) but rather that
it is repeated often enough (in enough diverse personal experience) to
render the system itself questionable. To render its factoids and
propaganda - of how it allegedly 'works' - questionable. This is what
Reich means by amending the 'false map' to arrive at a real map.
> If I have repeatedly experienced the contradictory experience, then I will
> be more likely to conclude that the statement is not relevant to my own
> personal experience.
Of course, but as in the case of health insurance (paid for by the
state)this is more likely to be the case if your Canadian (or British).
So, rigorously adhering to that line of restricted insight, will confer
no new insights into the U.S. corporatocracy.
>If I have not, then I may accept that it may be
> relevant, but not universal, and so no universally applicable conclusions
> can be drawn from it.
Again, unversally applicable conclusions are not necessarily what I am
after. Rather, conclusions that disclose the system as presented, is
falsifying how it works, to its constituents.
Picture the 'system' as an elephant with a red hide. The 'elephant'
insists, however, it has a brown hide. Ten billion billion ants swarm
its surface, and each -in its own experience, can validate this, when
the sum is put together. The false map, of the brown hide, is thereby
dislosed as 'false', when the full matrix is collated. What we are still
in the process of doing, since news of the corporatocracy's workings is
still only relatively recent, is 'collating' experiences about how it
claims to work. And tallying up the divergences.
> Even if it includes some people who just don't want to find work?
They still may be unemployed because the right work is not available.
Let's take my case. I was downsized in 1996. Up to now, there is no work
available that would be worth my while - in terms of tax liabilities
(mainly the 'Alternative Minimum Tax' which kicks in beyond
$45,000/yr)to do. If, for example, I bring in only $8-10,000/year in a
minimum wage job, the added salary, since it incurs the AMT, more than
offsets the benefits. (Since our taxes would significantly expand, in
relation to income increase) Many are in the same position, including my
cousin's wife in Sacramento (who'd love to work, but realizes it's
idiotic if she can't garnish at least a certain minimum rate) .
Ny point is that simply saying, 'well they won't work' misses the larger
point, to wit, that there are an insufficient supply of decent-paying
jobs that make it worth their while- given the current tax structure.
> And even
> if what you are trying to show is the difference between those people who
> are actively seeking work and the number of jobs available, or simply the
> number of people who are actively seeking work who cannot find any?
See my above remarks. 'Actively seeking' is a tricky phrase. When I was
on unemployment insurance, 'actively seeking' meant at least two
contacts per week. Finding two sources, then contacting them, sending
resume etc. Now, two years later, when I go through the classifieds, I
can't even find the jobs(at the rate of two per week) I would back then
- that make a resume contact worthwhile.
I am trying to impress on you that the lack of contact, may not be the
fault of the person. It could be the system which, in its pyramid job
structure, has too few decent remunerating jobs at the top. In this
sense, the *underemployment* statistic, takes all these factors into
account, as Colamosca and Wolman note ('The Judas Economy -The Tirumph
of Capital and the Betrayal of Work')
In effect, as they note, those who now work for a living are being
screwed royally. Those getting ahead are the capitalist speculators, or
rentiers, who earn everything from their dividends, without work. (At
least their own, but they do expropriate the labor of others, in
corporations - which are labor-expropriating devices)
> Depending on what you are trying to show, it makes perfect sense to use
> unemployement or underemployment or vice versa.
If you're trying to show the complete employment picture (or lack of it)
the more comprehensive index is the one to use. That is, the
underemplyment one, which includes also the millions (like UPS workers)
that want full time work, but are given part time only.
>And the selection of this
> statistic, and others, will show the skew of the authors, and I'd bet it's
> more than simply trying to inform us.
I bet not. Rather, the network broadcaster's use of the 'unemployment
stat' with no mention of the other, is trying to *disinform* us, so we
keep up the mantra of 'the great economy, the great economy'..
> This isn't checking the information, since you have no idea if the got the
> information from the same source and if that source has gotten it wrong or
> has skewed the results.
I forgot to mention that I also can get the core, raw data, i.e. from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Again, your solipsist stripes are coming through with this excessive
distrust of books, and information. At some point, you cannot control
everything, all data. Or, experience everything. You have to give up the
control, and allow that data are useful and competently assembled,
portrayed. In any case, as I said, cross checks from differing sources
(albeit secondary) can often reveal discrepancies.
> For example, there was a statistic bandied about
> on several news sources about how more birth defects were caused by
> domestic abuse than anything else.
WHich 'news sources'? If network TV I wouldn't trust them anyway, unless
I could get some confirmation.
> It was supposedly from a March of Dimes
> survey, but there was no such survey. So simply looking in several media
> sources isn't the answer.
Of course not - since the (corporate, broadcast)media can't be trusted
anyway. This is why I always prefer to examine diverse print sources.
Espcially those that have an established name cachet (like the AIER)
who've built their reputations on solid information over decades.
>There have also been a few instances where the
> raw data was simply wrong (I think this applied to a survey of relative
> standard of living of men and women after a divorce).
Again, diverse source checking can often ferret out these instances. One
thing to bear in mind, in an authoritative print medium (say like 'The
Economist' or an AIER journal) there will be meticulous checking and
double checking since these publications live and die by the
reputations they've established. They're not about to thrown them away
by carelessness, or deceit, especially when they know millions of
readeers are checking and double checking (and ready to pull them up,
with letters to the editor).
> Even how they chose to present the numbers can affect the results. For
> example, you must have heard about the "1 in 4 women will be raped in their
> lifetime" statistic, right? Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Well, except
> that 1 in 4 is 25%, which means that the VAST majority of women will NOT be
> raped any time in their lifetime, which certainly should make one feel
> better about rape rates (although, yes, it's too high). And this is only
> if we ignore that what they did (I think) was take the rape rates for a
> year and multiply it by the average lifespan of a woman.
Obviously - part of the problem is to teach people to interpret
statistics. One of the best popular books is 'Use and Abuse of
Statistics'. (Penguin). And, they note that -in the absence of ancillary
information, data, percentages are among the least useful statistical
devices. They can easily be susceptible to distortion.
> Unless you go to the original, raw data, and look up the research
> techniques they used to get it, you cannot be certain that the information
> you have is correct and not skewed.
Fortunately, that can often be done, i.e. by using the 'Journal of the
American Statistical Association'. Failing that, access to good
secondary sources, such as those I've referenced, will still put one in
a high credibility 'ballpark'.
> Looking it up in different
> publications does not help if they get their original data from the same
> sources.
True, but often they don't - which is the beauty of it. For example, the
Economist has its own bunch of researchers, the AIER theirs.
> Actually, it's a rational stance.
I don't think so. See previous remarks on this. It only appears
'rational' at first blush, because it seems 'natural' to you.
So, if anything, I'd call it a 'natural stance'.
> If someone is trying to convince me of
> something, they are going to play up the things that make their story
> convincing and downplay that which does not, and so they WON'T be
> completely objective, because they AREN'T objective about their stance.
But in your solipsist take, you'd do the same. Surely. You emphasize
your personal experience, so there would be a natural tendency when
communicating it, to 'play it up'. (Since, to a solipsist, his
experience is 'real' and others' are more 'unreal'). Only his mind
exists, others do not. At least not to the extent they are equally
credible to him.
> There are more hidden agendas than simply profit.
In terms of the corporatocracy, which is what I'm focusing on, that is
the main one. The overriding one.
> And, of course, the chance to get some respect, influence and perhaps even
> power out of it when they get to stand at the head of the organization
> against corporatocracy. If you want an example of how this happens, I
> think the feminist movement is a good example.
The feminist movement has shot itself in the foot so many times, it's
now barely credible, apart from the fact of the rampant infighting
amongst different feminist factions (i.e. those that support Catherine
MacKinnon, and her 'porn is evil' stance, and those who support Nadine
Stossen (of the ACLU) who wrote the book, can't recall the title right
now, defending porn as a 'liberating influence'.
Right now, by contrast, there is no single group dominating the
anti-corporatocracy forces. All of them: Project Censored, Public
Citizen, Common Cause, etc. are working in tandem, on a more or less
equal footing - which also carries the benefit of lower chances of
infighting. On other fronts, groups like Sierra, battle the
corporatocracy on the environmental front. The great thing is the
corporatocracy is so huge and complex, that there's a niche for everyone
to do battle.
Oh, another point, feminism also blasted itself in the foot by latching
on to the 'postmodernism' bandwagon. See, e.g. 'Why Postmodernism is not
Progressive - If You're Seeking Social Change Don't Go There', by
Barbara Epstein, in 'Free Inquiry', Spring, 1999, p. 43.
> Forgive me if I'm suspicious of professed completely altruistic motives,
> since most people are not completely altruistic.
But you seem to be suspicious of most 'second hand' sources, including
books anyway. So, my take is this is a general reflection of that
'second hand' source mistrust, which also blends in with your evident
solipsism.
You already stated that the only unimpeachable sources are your own
experiences and reason. You don't trust re-published data, since it
isn't the 'raw' data, from the original, original, original source.
You have, a tough road to hoe, finding credibility.
> BTW, you might do well to remember that a lot of corporate sources ALSO
> claim that their intention is to help and serve us, and to give us the
> information we need to be responsible.
Sure, but they'd say that anyway since they are corporate (i.e. for
profit) sources.
Who controls the public airwaves? Who uses tax dollars to do it? Who
also gets corporate welfare? It ain't Project Censored. My advice is the
same simple prescription that 'Deep Throat' gave the Watergate
investigative reporters (Woodward and Bernstein):
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
> Um, do you really think that the government never lies, and never hides
> things from the people?
Of course they do, but I'm referring to the GAO (Government Accounting
Office) documents which keeps oversight on all the other depts, often at
their great annoyance. Often, it is the GAO which shows the 'fleecing
of America' in one or more areas. They are about the only group I'd
trust, with the National Archives probably second. (With the exception
of their not letting people handle and closely examine the alleged rifle
used by Lee Harvey Oswald)
>
> Um, I never, ever, claimed that we should only ever USE that
> "unimpeachable" source. All I claimed is that the only things that I
> cannot doubt are empiricism and reason (the combination).
But, empiricism doesn't just include one's own experience. It encomasses
the verification of any material experience, if even done 'second
hand'. This also means data, in books, can be used. For example, my
M.Phil. Thesis used solar data from 'Solar-Geophysical Data' and three
papers were published from that data - subjected to different
statistical analyses. The referee who 'passed' it for publication by
Solar Physics (journal) wrote:
"One of the most comprehensive *empirical* studies of the flare-sunspot
relationship ever undertaken."
I did not have to directly obtain the data myself for my thesis, or my
papers - to have them called 'empirical'. (WHich is faithful to the
tenets of empiricism)
> Everything else
> must have some amount of doubt attached to it, and the degree of doubt
> varies as per the credibility of the source.
I think if you're going to include that, you have to include your
personal experience as well. For example, to many people's experience,
it appears that the Sun moves around the Earth each day. That is their
personal experience, but it *can't* be trusted. Since, in fact, it is
the Earth rotating about its axis that produces the *apparent* motion of
the Sun moving about the Earth (from east to west).
This is the sort of misperception that led the ancients to develop
models (like the Ptolemaic) that weren't accurate.
They were based exclusively on personal perceptions, experience.
> A lot of people seem to have better success with it than you do (and also
> people have given suggestions as to how you can improve the impression you
> give).
Well, some people that comes naturally. To others it doesn't. It takes 5
to 6 times more effort (and would take me five to six times longer to
reply) if I followed the advice of what does NOT come naturally to me.
> And why is it that you seem to be claiming that if you give us the
> wrong impression, WE'RE the ones that are wrong, and not you for not making
> it clear what you want us to take away?
Because it appears to me -as you even admitted, that you are making
interpretations through personal filters, which automatically distort
what I say. So, in my mind, since you're going to distort my themes
anyway, it's up to you to alter or change (or get rid of) your filters,
not for me to try to get through them. (And I believe most of these
personal bias filters were created by the individual exposure to
corporatocratic indoctrination, subliminal messages)
> In your case, less "brainwashing"
> comments would do a world of good for your impression.
Well, ok I will revise the term to 'mind control' instead.
>The problem is not
> in what you are saying, but how you are saying it.
I know, but my point is don't get distracted by the wrapper, get the
package.
I don't see why people can't simply process out 'noise' and accept the
signal. I do it, so why not others. There are, for example, certain
people who irritate me no end in the way they convey their points, but
whose message is valuable. Michael Kinsley is one them.
But I don't throw the 'baby out with the bathwater'.
> And the same thing applies to your external sources. Even if you research
> many different sources on an issue, you cannot be certain that when you
> regurgitate an idea it didn't simply come from one of those books.
I can be very sure, within excellent limits of quality assurance, that
they did so. I can do this by cross-checking multiple sources, and by
using rigorous processes of logic - which of course served me well when
I did my M.Phil. Thesis in physics.
> If the truth value of the statement is irrelevant to my life, why is it not
> logical to put off verifying it until I need to know it, so long as I do
> not assume any particular value?
I guess you could do that. If that's where you're coming from. I just
don't think a person can do it for too large a data set-and for too long
a time- without being in a permanent state of mind paralysis. Also, the
ever present law of 'unintended consequences' has often shown that in
the corporatocracy, the set of relevant 'truth values' often need to be
expanded, if only for one's self protection.
>
> > And, how pray tell do you evaluate the 'reliability' of the source?
>
> I'd say in about the same way you do, but with different criteria. For the
> most part, things like how often they've been right in the past, the level
> of personal interest they have in one answer being accepted, and so on
I'd agree with most of that. I've also been helped by long term
experience, i.e. 25 years, in being able to recognize shills and
hoaksters. (I use to run a course on critical thinking and scepticism at
The Harry Bayley Observatory in Barbados).
DAERON
>
> > Nope. I think that's exactly the wrong way to go. I think the shy
> > person, or any socially disaffected, or 'disadvantaged' person, needs to
> > learn the basic arts of cooperation, and working together in common
> > cause - especially to assist and support *each other*.
>
> But there's no reason to believe that shy people DON'T know that.
Knowing it and putting it into practice are two very different things.
In addition, in a highly individualistic culture, many impediments would
arise to putting it into practice. After all, when an entire class or
group is scapegoated and branded- then organizing in a group would tend
to reinforce the societal perception. Also, the continual messages
coming out are that individual 'winning' is the way to go. Be a 'victor'
not a victim and all that.
> Many of
> them do, and in fact one of their problems IS that they realize that and
> everyone else does.
As I said, putting it into practice is the key, and they often don't
realize how to expedite that. Particularly with 'roadblocks' in the form
of subtle and not so subtle media brainwashing, indoctrination that
encourages *individual* conquest of 'social liabilities' over
organization as victims.
>For some shy people, being shy (in places like the
> workplace) is simply a matter of not being competitive or aggressive enough
> to push their way over other people and be able to do things like talk over
> people to get their points across or go up and introduce themselves to
> people.
In my own experience, I often found that when a shy person (or even
introvert) attempts that - s/he tends to be disproportionately
ostracized and victimized over others (who are normally aggressive).
It's as if they've sown a particular 'reputation' and now they're
obligated to live by it. Most of the ostracization tends to come from
managers, but also from employees who may be in the most directly
comptetive positions to one's own.
>
> Individualism doesn't need to work that way, though, even though ours seems
> to.
It doesn't have to, but does because the western form- reinforced by
laissez-faire capitalism (but which is actually 'crony' capitalism) is
predicated on Herbert Spencer's postulates of 'social Darwinism', i.e.
only the economic fittest survive in society. Thus, the individual in
western, capitalist societies is expected to make his way, and his mark,
alone - without assistance or support. Hence, the incredible push to
dismantle all social services and 'privatize' them (i.e. make people
pay, when before they received them free)
>Besides, as I said above I'm not in favour of individualism -- just
> that a more radical form would be better than what Steve suggested (in my
> opinion).
Any 'more radical form', imho, must see the individual as a social
'holon' - a concept originally used by Arthur Koestler. (In his book,
'The Ghost in the Machine'). This 'holon' always - at all times, is
cognizant of him-herself, as well as the responsibilities to the larger
'organism'. Koestler describes it as 'Janus-faced' - looking two
directions at once: inward, and outward, and I concur. The current
'individual' tends to be shaped only one way - looking at himself, a
viewpoint predominatly reinforced in posts to this ng, which tends to
support my contentions.
> I see. I mention individualism, you assume it means that everyone is
> supposed to try to go it alone.
That's not your take. That's how our western, capitalist culture,
founded on social Darwinism, ordains it. I've seen no mass
evidence, either in the larger society, or in this ng, to refute that.
> Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that instead of
> trying to push everyone into the mold of society and turn shy people into
> extroverts what we REALLY need to do is make society so that people who are
> shy can BE shy if they want to without feeling inadequate because of it.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. But my point is that western style
individualism will never allow it. Your brand may work, but it will
require a re-thinking of the current (social Darwinist) individualism, I
believe more toward what Koestler had in mind (see above)
> Then please explain why not.
When I say 'contributing' I mean in a serious, often unseen way. By
sowing subliminal, or unconsious messages - and incessantly repeating
them. This begins, btw with the 'Channel One' broadcasts in all U.S.
schools- where each day students must be exposed to so-called 'news'
interlarded with corporate advertising (the advertisers pay up to
$200,000 per minute to 'mind control' their captive audience).
The result, a culture- as in Northern HS of Calvert County MD, almost
entirely governed by corporate creeds and mottos. Where wearing clothes
other than from 'Old Navy' or 'The Gap' can instantly get you branded an
outsider, or social renegade. (I suspect such instances may not have
come to Canada, since they have no 'Channel One')
> What part of "fosters those ideas" is incompatible with your statement
> here?
I think 'fosters these ideas' is far too tame a way to put it. I tend to
more agree with Project Censored's own take (cf. 'Project Censored
Yearbook', 1995, pp 12-13:
"Today's information industry learned this lesson (constant repetition)
well from Adolph Hitler who so successfully used propaganda in his
quest for power. More than a half century ago, Hitler said the masses
take a long time to understand and remember, thus it is necessary to
repeat the message time and time again - the public must be conditioned
to accept the claims that are made...no matter how outrageous or false
those claims may be."
<>
"The Madison Avenue propagandists use the same techniques to sell us
products and services we don't need and can't afford. Repetition is also
the key to success on Madison Avenue."
So, what we have is not merely 'fostering' but *active mind control*.
>
> Read the "TRY to look like" again and you should understand how this isn't
> really a contradiction. Because society is materialistic, they want to
> make money. If we tell them it'll make them money to promote
> enviro-friendly products, they'll try to create such products.
This simply isn't true. For one thing, the enviro-friendly products may
require new industrial processes. (Closed loop systems rather than
'throughput' into the environment) More to the point, the very concept
(say like solar or wind energy generators) can threaten an existing
'constituency' to the point it actively undermines any attempts at
implementing the new 'products'. Why? Because the companies involved do
not wish to disassemble their existing processes, infrastructure, for
something radically different. Also, an existing energy source (like gas
or oil) despite wreaking havoc on the planet, can be supported because
an 'old line' establishment exists to protect it against new
competitors. These old line (i.e. in Texas) oilmen are not about to see
their wells closed up for some new product they don't trust and have no
interest in themselves. In effect, by suppressing research into solar
and wind energy - for self-protection reasons, the Oil companies can
continue to sustain their hammerlock on energy.
>If certain
> enviro-friendly products will cost them money, they'll try to quash them.
See above. My point is that it is invariable (pretty much) that in the
initial stage of establishing the *production process* these products
will cost more. But, over time, and with increasing use and infusion of
new technology- the costs will go down.
> If it loses them money, they won't push materialism. If they'll lose money
> on those malls, they won't build them.
No, they continue to build them, only *hoping* that they'll make money.
Do you have any idea of how many deserted strip malls there are right
now in this country? Malls which became 'extinct' because some new mall
opened, or because developers vastly overestimated their market? Point
is, large tracts of green land have been paved over, and can never be
brought back 'to life'.
In many of these cases, the developers were not interested in doing
their homework or research. Their market studies. They thought there was
scope for large retail outlets, but they were proven totally wrong,
because there was already too much competition.
>Now, as you said in another post,
> the reason they build them is because even though the locals don't like
> them, other people do. So, as long as someone will support them with
> dollars, they'll build them.
My argument - which I should have made more clear- is that LOCAL zoning
regulations should have the final say. If those local regs indicate that
the building will have a stron negative impact on the local ecology,
including water quality, services, then they should not be built.
And, in no case like this, should zoning 'exceptions' be granted.
In other words, those people in charge, doing the governing, ought to
follow the existing laws, instead of finding loopholes for developers
around them.
>If NO ONE supported them with dollars, they
> would not build them.
But, as I noted above, the building can occur when there is no real
evidence that these (additions to retail infrastructure) can withstand
the competition. The developers just think: "mall, yeah...=money." But,
they overplay their hands.
> We started it, and we accept it, and we vote for it with our dollars.
How can you say that? We don't 'vote' for it. No one I know of votes for
corporate lobbies, to rewrite our laws to favor corporations, which is
what we're really talking about. In this sense, the U.S. is not a
genuine democracy. It's a republic- meaning indirect representation
only.
> We're the ones in charge and we cause all of it, even the Corporatocracy.
No, we're not the 'ones in charge'. The owner-elite-banker -corporate
class is in charge, and it's *their* money - used in a legalized form of
bribery we call 'lobbying' that propels it.
My point is that corporate money is what governs the country, not 'one
man -one vote.' The only way to pull the plug is to disempower the
corporate bastions instead of fueling them. The trouble is, the
government agencies charged with doing this are lobbied to do the
opposite. So, laws - with gutless loopholes, end up being enacted,
which transfers power to the lobbies - up to and including writing the
laws.
> Society's views came first, because they created materialism, which created
> the Corporatocracy. Now, we are locked in a feedback loop, but make no
> mistake. We started it.
No, we couldn't have started it. If you read the Elements series, for
example, you'd see the corporate class infrastructure was
implemented long before our present society was even around. The Santa
Clara (1886) decision, in effect, 'started it' by conferring on
corporations the rights of 'persons' - by mutating the 14th Amendment.
This was then reinforced by other addenda, including the Sherman
Anti-Trust Act, and by 1913, the Federal Reserve Act - which James
Livingston notes: "was an episode in -or evidence for - the emergence of
a modern ruling class" ('Origins of the Federal Reserve System-Money,
Class and Corporate Capitalism', Cornell University Press, 1986, p. 233.
He goes on to observe: (ibid.)
"The business elite that organized the movement for banking and monetary
reform was ultimately able to translate its particular view of the world
into institutionalized political authority."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words, the system to co-opt the people's will was in place long
before society as we know it arrived. All the groundwork was basically
laid, or as George Carlin (the comedian) once noted "the country had
long ago sold out."
The society we perceive today, with its materialistic excesses, was a
direct offshoot of that - as well as the JFK assassination (since, as we
now know, JFK attempted to turn back the tide, and buck the powers set
up to serve only the elites)
> We can start with society and then work on the media until both are free.
I think starting with society is putting the cart before the horse. To
effectively alter society's consciousness we need to get control of all
the machinery for information and braodcasting, ALL of it. Not one
percent, not even 40 percent, or 80. The only way to do that is to have
a government in power committed to the public welfare and its
advancement via education. Somewhat like a multi-faceted 'PBS' -but
without the corporate shilling, and conservative think tanks PBS
currently gets most of its stuff from. *(Like the 'Annenberg' Project,
etc)
Corporations can still run their own networks if they want, but they
will have to pay for the use of the public airwaves. That means they can
use their advertising, say for their profits, but commensurate taxes to
pay for their hegemony of one part of the E-M spectrum, plus no more tax
subisidies, or welfare. They stand on their own two feet, or not at all.
No government handouts, period.
Now, before every manjack starts screaming 'socialism' it is well to
recall that the airwaves are already *publicly* owned, or are supposed
to be. Yet, the broadcasting corporations use the airwaves, then get
*tax breaks* to subsidize their viewpoints, not to mention raking in
huge profits from *advertising* on these publicly owned resources. In
effect, we already have a virulent form of *corporate socialism*.
All I'm saying is to make the broadcasting infrastructure work for the
public rather than corporate, elite interests (which are currently
mainly pitched to using our tax dollars for our own mental enslavement
and mind control)
> The first thing we have to do is make people want to see things change,
> because the media will not change if no one wants to watch the new format.
If you read the 'Dumbing Down of America', 1996 (Eds. Katharine
Washburn, John Thornton) you'll see that the various authors note that -
in the past, before the major corporate takeovers, broadcasting always
*directed* the public consciousness to the 'higher ground'. It did not
'follow' public tastes' but sought to uplift and inform them. After the
major takeovers and sellouts of the 80s all this changed, for the worse,
as the authors note. This was because the marketing and sales groups
now had *control* of the content.
It stands to reason that nothing the people indicate will change things.
Or nothing will do (short of perhaps turning their sets off entirely).
Rather the corporate sales-marketing kingpins will continue to call the
shots, in the belief that they are charged with shaping the public mind
toward a venal materialism. Toward getting their advertisers to cough up
more bucks for ads, because of what they've already sold.
The other problem is, so long as the majority population remains largely
mind-controlled, and in a state of false consciousness, the 'ratings'
game (Nielsens etc) will hold sway. The trick is to 'de-mind control'
the masses, but that means getting control of the information machinery.
We have some minuscule machinery available here on the net, to ge thte
word out to a few hundred or so, but nowhere near the tidal wave of
soundbite flow open to NBC, ABC, CBS etc.
Oliver Broadway
wrote:
> FYI, the Project Censored group (info from their web site of which you
> dispatched to me via e-mail) *themselves* use the term BRAINWASHED which
> they equate to "successful mind control" (cf. 1995 Project Censored
> Yearbook, p. 12).
Just because they use the term doesn't make it correct. (Incidentally, I
passed on the URL of that web site because I thought it would interest
you, and as I said in my email, I was not passing judgement on it - which
means that I don't necessarily endorse everything they say. I do not, for
example, endorse their usage of this word in this context.)
Brainwashing does *not* equate to "successful mind control" - although
"brainwashing" certainly and of necessity involves mind control, the
reverse is not necessarily true. The definition of brainwashing is
"subjection to a prolonged process by which ideas other than and at
variance with those already held are implanted in the mind." In most
cases, the ideas which people have picked up from the corporate media et
al are not at variance with ideas which they previously held. Hence they
have not, in any accurate sense of the word, been brainwashed.
> So, it isn't 'inaccurate language' - though it may be
> very *forceful* language, perhaps too much so for some, who prefer a
> euphemism.
"Indoctrination" is not a euphemism; it is the correct term for the
process which you have been referring to as "brainwashing".
> The fact is, as Project Censored notes (ibid.) when information is
> manipulated, and repeated over and over, for the purposes of 'mind
> control' (*their* term not mine) it becomes 'brainwashing'.
No it does not. See the definition above. Brainwashing usually does
involve this kind of process, but this kind of process does not, in and of
itself, constitute brainwashing.
> That this
> word has baggage from previous wars (i.e. Korean War and the Chinese use
> of it on captured GI's) does NOT make it irrelevant here, though it may
> offend your sensibilities.
That the word has this baggage is what makes it so emotive. It is not what
makes the word irrelevant here. What makes the word irrelevant here is
that it is not the correct word for the process that you have been using
it to describe.
> > Because of this misuse of words, your assertion, that paperchaseguy
> > has been "brainwashed", is almost certainly a false one,
>
> We don't know that it is 'false.'
I'd say it's a lot more than 99% certain that paperchaseguy has not been
brainwashed, in the correct sense of the word, by corporate propaganda and
censorship.
> What we DO know is that he admits reading a newspaper that has a
> considerable reputation (since it 'sold out' after Watergate, which is
> probably the last story it did do well - for disclosure) for doctoring
> news, censoring news, using misinformation and disinformation and
> repeating it. All of which can translate to indoctrination, OR
> brainwashing - for the extreme case.
>
> Hence, it is possible - to the extent he *believes* what the Post puts
> out (which I think he does) that he's 'brainwashed'.
If those beliefs are at variance with his previously held beliefs, yes.
But you have *no* knowledge of what his previously held beliefs were, and
I doubt that you would claim that they were probably anti-corporatocratic.
> And it's 99% probable he's at least indoctrinated.
Well, now, this is a different claim, and more worthy of consideration.
What you are saying is that it is probable that he has been taught to
accept certain ideas (those which the corporatocracy want people to
accept) uncritically. I think it is probably true that most people are
indoctrinated in this way, to some extent, although perhaps not to the
same extent as you seem to believe. But I still wouldn't assume it about
an individual until I had more basis for that assumption than merely
"well, most people are like that".
Ollie
James G
> I never bought into the image of the welfare mother. I had bought
> into the idea of a liberal press in high school, but changed my
> mind in college. An interesting book I read then was called
> Taking Sides, where both liberal and conservative views were used
> from essays from different people. Later, I'll add a better citation
> for you (since I'm writing this from school and the book is in
> my apartment).
As promised:
_Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues_
(8th edition), ed: George McKenna and Stanley Feingold, Duhskin
Publishing. Copyright 1993.
If you can grab the book, I think it presents interesting
arguments from both conservatives and liberals. In particular,
the relevant issues are:
1. Is American Government Dominated by Big Business?
Yes: Thomas Byrne Edsall
No: David Vogel
4. Do the News Media Have a Liberal Bias?
Yes: William A. Rusher
No: Edward S. Herman and Naom Chomsky
14. Are the Poor Being Harmed by Welfare?
Yes: Robert Rector
No: Barbara Ehrenreich
16. Does the United States Need Socialized Medicine?
Yes: Nancy Watzman
No: John C. Goodma
-In this argument, Watzman even argues for the Canadian model,
which might be of special interest to you, Steve.
DAERON
> The definition of brainwashing is
> "subjection to a prolonged process by which ideas other than and at
> variance with those already held are implanted in the mind."
>From where did this definition come?
>In most
> cases, the ideas which people have picked up from the corporate media et
> al are not at variance with ideas which they previously held.
What if they previously held no particular, coherent set of ideas? What
would you call it then? What if the (false) but coherent set of ideas
have been assembled (largely unconsciously)from the varied corporate
sources?
>Hence they
> have not, in any accurate sense of the word, been brainwashed.
See above. I think they have - but perhaps a better term can communicate
the process, with less 'baggage'. Shall we say 'mind-rigged'?
>
> That the word has this baggage is what makes it so emotive.
That's why I now offer 'mind-rigged' to describe a mind -which
previously had no coherent 'map of reality', but evolved a false map
from the corporatocracy's media minions.
> If those beliefs are at variance with his previously held beliefs, yes.
Again, what if there were no *coherent* previously held beliefs. What
'beliefs' there were mainly randomly put together, but forming no
structural map. Until the corporatocracy's prolonged messages sunk in
and began the shaping of a 'false map' (to use Charles Reich's term )
> But you have *no* knowledge of what his previously held beliefs were,
If mind -rigging (as defined above)is the applicable term, I don't have
to.
>and
> I doubt that you would claim that they were probably anti-corporatocratic.
No, I would claim the opposite.
> > And it's 99% probable he's at least indoctrinated.
>
> Well, now, this is a different claim, and more worthy of consideration.
Indoctrinated in a 'mind-rigging' sense (see above)
> What you are saying is that it is probable that he has been taught to
> accept certain ideas (those which the corporatocracy want people to
> accept) uncritically.
Yes, but not merely to 'accept' but - after constant repetition of
specific messages, to form them into a coherent *structure* or false map
of the way the system allegedly works.
>I think it is probably true that most people are
> indoctrinated in this way, to some extent, although perhaps not to the
> same extent as you seem to believe.
And that extent, as I noted, is to work with a false map, implanted by
continuously repeated corporate media messages, from radio, TV,
magazines, papers, etc. The person (victim) falsely deducing that the
mere 'convergence' of views reflects an actual reality. The error of
mistaking media synchronicity for truth.
> But I still wouldn't assume it about
> an individual until I had more basis for that assumption than merely
> "well, most people are like that".
I wouldn't assume it absolutely, no. But I don't do that. I assume it
(massive mind-rigging and false maps)on the basis of probability. Also,
on the basis of my own 40+ years experience, since most people so
described (the 'model' for mind-rigging opportunity as it were)*do*
follow and use false maps. Worse, they do so almost unconsciously.
One example: people believing social security means having a special,
separate 'individual account' with your name on it which you pay into.
It doesn't.
Another: that the 'Federal Reserve' is a part of the federal goverment
(it isn't).
Another: that corporations don't receive welfare. (They do).
When the mass of such examples is put together, one may be said to be
operating under a 'false consciousness'. Because the way the system
actually works, diverges in significant ways from their percpetions of
how it is supposed to.
I hope you have no problems with 'false consciousness' as well.
Tom Hopf
> You have it exactly right. What we are seeing with Letterman's
> overcoming of shyness - is a classic illustration of those who used to
> be victimized in our society turn the tables around and become the
> victors - thus attacking those "below" them aftering clawing their way
> to the "top".
>
But not revenge against their original torturers even, or people like
their original torturers. Rather, people in just the vulnerable state
they themselves used to be in. It reminds me of the classic sexually
abused child who later becomes sexually abusive to children himself down
the line. This latter is a far, far more extreme crime of course, but
there is surely a similar pattern in the dynamics of the two.
Tom Hopf
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
>
> >
> > However, if someone does NOT have those experiences, you can't simply
say
> > "Well, learn them" -- you have to find other common experiences.
>
> I don't. My point is that the experiences can still be employed as
> useful examples - whether another person has had them or not. Now, they
> may *mean* more if they are *also* personal to the reader - but the lack
> of that particular connection does not invalidate them.
However, it is possible that because of the examples you use they will be
meaningless to any one particular person -- and so if you want to discuss
the issues with that person, those experiences CANNOT be employed as useful
examples in that part of the discussion. If this is the case, the onus is
then on you to provide other examples or argumentation that better
illustrate your point.
> > As an
> > example, in this newsgroup (alt.support.shyness) it would be fairly
safe to
> > assume that everyone here has shyness in common,
>
> I would say it more likely that it's half and half between introverts
> and shybies.
Most of us, though, would at least have some knowledge of shyness, no?
>
> >and so it would seem
> > logical that one of the first things you would try to use as a common
> > example to show a link between your views and real-life experience
would be
> > social situations and especially those dealing with shyness -- but you
> > don't.
>
> I don't because I am trying to escape -emerge from the more limited
> contexts, frameworks. I am trying to give *larger* examples, that extend
> beyond parties, etc. My reasoning is that even if a person (perhaps
> young) has not had them yet, they almost certainly will encounter some
> permutation in the future - near or far.
This does NOT help people understand your points NOW. Examples are used to
help people understand what you are saying NOW, not at some point in the
indeterminate future. And if you are trying to use examples from a broader
picture than the topic of the group, you very much run the risk of people
not seeing the link between it and the topic, and so lose the relevance of
your words to not only their own personal experiences but to the supposed
collective experiences supported by this group. Perhaps starting FROM the
limited contexts and then moving to the larger examples will make your
points clearer and make more people see the relevance than they do right
now -- and maybe then fewer people will gripe that your posts are
off-topic.
>
> The standard social examples, in most cases, simply have no bearing on
> the larger societal issues (like to do with the corporatocracy) I am
> trying to address.
If the standard social issues have no bearing on what you want to talk
about, then how does that relate to shyness? What is it about what you are
talking about that relates or impacts shyness at all? If what you are
saying has NO bearing on shyness, then I'll dispute the FAQ and say that
your ideas AREN'T relevant to this newsgroup. However, I think that there
is some relevance in the larger issues to this newsgroup, and to fuller
understand that that people may have to "broaden perspectives". I strongly
disagree, though, with STARTING from the broader perspective and not
addressing the smaller but more universal (here) perspective. If you are
looking for common experiences, I can't see how anyone could not have ever
had a conversation with someone.
> >I know you've argued that you've covered it before in another long
> > post, but that's no reason NOT to use such examples to make it easier
to
> > draw a link between your comments and real-life experiences.
>
>
> I try to do that in many cases, but obviously, where the issues purely
> to do with the corporatocracy are concerned, they don't really have a
> place.
Tighter links and examples back to the lower issues would do a world of
good, and could be done in almost all cases. If shyness and social issues
have no place in Corporatocracy issues, then perhaps your points are indeed
off-topic.
>
> > This could be
> > one reason why you are accused so often of posting things that are
> > off-topic -- even though it is on-topic, since you don't bother to even
> > mention how it is in your posts, people fail to see the relevance.
>
> See above remarks. Those who make the 'off topic' claim are again
> thinking in narrow terms, and expecting me to argue, deliver in these
> narrow (social, party, self) terms. I do in some instances, but
> addressing the corporatocracy - the *larger* social self, demands a
> much larger frame of reference that naturally includes examples and life
> experiences most in this ng would not have had.
I guess I can tell you to see my above remarks, BUT all I was saying,
really, is that because you don't make the obvious links back to shyness
sometimes people won't see it, and most people reading a newsgroup called
"alt.support.shyness" will tend to assume that if they can't link a series
of posts back to shyness that it is not relevant to that newsgroup, which
is perfectly logical and valid. Now, your posts DO have some relevance to
shyness BUT YOU DON'T SHOW IT. And what I really fail to understand is why
you would defend not using and insist on not using direct links or direct
examples that relate to shyness if you really want us to understand what
you are talkign about, since most of us here CLEARLY have some knowledge of
shyness (or else, why are we here?). It would seem to me to be by far the
most effective thing to do to use such examples, yet you insist on NOT
using them in an attempt to "broaden their perspective" -- even though you
have to realize that there is a very strong chance that they will not
understand them (perhaps because of different personal experience) and so
will not understand your point.
> In the same way, a denizen of this ng need not actually have had the
> experiences, examples, I refer to, for them to be relevant to him or
> her. Their very life in a society in which they occurred make them
> relevant. Since that same society is shared. (Whether the particular
> experience has been or not)
But if you use them as examples, and they cannot relate to them, your
examples will not help them understand your points, and that's the purpose
of examples, is it not?
>
> > The shyness parts?
>
> I believe, for one thing, that there is less militance vs. shyness, or
> introversion in Canada. I believe this is so because it is a slightly
> less dog-eat-dog society than the U.S. Still has more social networks
> and supports etc.
Um, what I had actually found conflicted with my personal experience was
the "shy people are selfish" line of arguments, as I have pointed out on
several occasions.
> > You cannot assume that all Americans will share all of the personal
> > experiences that you have that you used to come to your conclusions,
>
> I don't but then I do not argue that it's necessary that 'sharing' be a
> prerequisite for understanding and appreciation. See my previous
> remarks.
>
> Ideally, yes - a sharing (shared example) would promote a greater
> intimacy and familiarity of the issue. But that is not a necessary
> condition for understanding.
But if you are TRYING to HELP us understand, it is in your best interest to
promote familiarity and common examples so that it is easier for us to
understand. It makes no sense to try to help me understand by confusing me
more <grin>.
>
> >and so
> > your comment that "It's just because you're Canadian" isn't good
enough.
>
> All I meant by that, is that - because of your personal bias filters,
> which you've already conceded- and because you lack at least the
> theoretical understanding, many corporatocracy issues would not make a
> dent with you one way or the other. You already admitted as much.
>
> Now, what I'm also saying, is that if your personal bias filters (which,
> imho border on solipsism) weren't so strong, this might not matter so
> much. But it does.
This is all based, though, on a misunderstanding of what I've said about
"personal bias filters", so this argument is a little shaky.
>
> > And what's wrong with that? If you tell me something that conflicts
with
> > what I have personally experienced, is it not logical for me to place a
> > higher credibility on my own experiences than that which you have told
me?
>
> It is not necessarily logical, but it is common sense.
Why is it not logical for me to trust my own experiences over what someone
else tells me?
> Since that which
> is remote appears not quite as real.
You misunderstand, though. If what you say conflicts with my own personal
experience, it's not the matter of it being "remote" that's the issue --
it's the matter that I am more likely to believe myself than I am to
believe any external person. And that's logical, since because I know all
of my own thought processes it is harder for me to lie to myself (though
clearly not impossible) than it is for you to lie to me -- since I can't
see the thought process (if you were lying) that says "I'm going to spin
this lie for him".
> However, one's experience teaches
> that - over time, that rubric is highly illogical, and personal
> experience can be very untrustworthy. Thus, Canadians who become
> naturalized citizens of this country, and learn too late their health
> care is not covered, as it was in Canada. Rather, it is now an
> additional monthly, or yearly expense, which must be budgeted for, like
> food, or mortgage. A rude awakening.
And again, this is based on a misunderstanding of my view. You are saying
that personal experience is untrustworthy, but what you are REALLY arguing
is that it is not universal. I don't claim that my personal experience is
universal, nor that it applies to anyone other than myself (necessarily)
nor that it applies in all circumstances that I may be in, now or in the
future. However, if you tell me something and it contradicts my own
personal experience, I am very likely to conclude that, even though that
may be the way it is for you, that is not the way it is for ME. Now, if I
moved to the U.S. it would only be logical for me to realize that my
circumstances have changed and so that my own personal experience may no
longer be relevant to the specific situation, and so my personal experience
may no longer be valid. This has not happened in any of the cases we have
been discussing.
>
> The other thing is that your sort of thinking leads down the slippery
> slope - or path, toward Kantian idealism of the sort that only the
> 'self' exists (carried to its final conclusion) and nothing exists
> outside of this 'self', or is as 'real'. This is inherent solipsism -
> which if accepted (and granted to everyone) leads to logical chaos.
I deny that it does any such thing. Besides, mine is a more empiricist
view and solisistic -- unless you'd like to argue that empiricism leads to
that.
(If you want to learn more about the empiricist philosophical view, read
Locke, Hume, or Berkeley, in case I'm not being clear here).
> > If I have repeatedly experienced the contradictory experience, then I
will
> > be more likely to conclude that the statement is not relevant to my own
> > personal experience.
>
> Of course, but as in the case of health insurance (paid for by the
> state)this is more likely to be the case if your Canadian (or British).
> So, rigorously adhering to that line of restricted insight, will confer
> no new insights into the U.S. corporatocracy.
But the instant, as I said above, that I accept that the situation may be
valid for YOU allows me to discuss the U.S. Corporatocracy. However, I may
start to feel, with more of these things, that the topic isn't really
relevant to me as most of the issues don't apply to my personal situation.
That's the risk. But I never said that I would DISMISS your personal
experience as not being "true" -- just that it is not true from my personal
experience. And if I cannot apply personal experience to your issues, it's
going to be a lot harder for me to understand your own arguments and so
you'll have to put more effort into making them clear.
But I don't rigourously maintain that my views are universal or maintain
that if it is not true for me, then it cannot be true for you.
> > This isn't checking the information, since you have no idea if the got
the
> > information from the same source and if that source has gotten it wrong
or
> > has skewed the results.
>
> I forgot to mention that I also can get the core, raw data, i.e. from
> the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But that's not what you said you DO.
>
> Again, your solipsist stripes are coming through with this excessive
> distrust of books, and information. At some point, you cannot control
> everything, all data. Or, experience everything. You have to give up the
> control, and allow that data are useful and competently assembled,
> portrayed. In any case, as I said, cross checks from differing sources
> (albeit secondary) can often reveal discrepancies.
But this is not what I'm arguing. YOU argued that "you checked your
facts", and when asked how, said that you check in different magazines.
This is not checking your facts sufficiently to show certainty. In order
to check your facts you at least have to go to the ORIGINAL source, not
simply checking several secondary sources to see if they post the same
thing. Checking several differing INDEPENDENT sources can often reveal
discrepancies, but if they all use the same original source it doesn't help
at all.
Besides, I DON'T distrust books and information. That's YOUR line, since
you seem to have claimed that you distrust all network sources (or at least
those that are not confirmed by your more reliable sources). I,
personally, read the sources and use reason to see how much sense it makes
(using personal experience as well). If I find a conflicting view later, I
readjust. And if the absolute truth value if a statement is vital to me, I
verify it to a sufficient level. However, "checking sources" must mean
more than simply reading different magazines if you want to increase
credibility.
>
> > For example, there was a statistic bandied about
> > on several news sources about how more birth defects were caused by
> > domestic abuse than anything else.
>
> WHich 'news sources'? If network TV I wouldn't trust them anyway, unless
> I could get some confirmation.
TV, magazines, books, newspapers ... It was a fairly popular statistic.
> > Actually, it's a rational stance.
>
> I don't think so. See previous remarks on this. It only appears
> 'rational' at first blush, because it seems 'natural' to you.
>
> So, if anything, I'd call it a 'natural stance'.
>
> > If someone is trying to convince me of
> > something, they are going to play up the things that make their story
> > convincing and downplay that which does not, and so they WON'T be
> > completely objective, because they AREN'T objective about their stance.
>
> But in your solipsist take, you'd do the same. Surely. You emphasize
> your personal experience, so there would be a natural tendency when
> communicating it, to 'play it up'. (Since, to a solipsist, his
> experience is 'real' and others' are more 'unreal'). Only his mind
> exists, others do not. At least not to the extent they are equally
> credible to him.
Well, again, I'm not a solipsist, but yes, I agree -- my tendency as a
HUMAN will be to play up those points that support my position and downplay
those that damage it.
And, again, I don't argue that your experience is less "real", but it is
not, I suppose, relevant to my own experiences and situation.
>
> > There are more hidden agendas than simply profit.
>
> In terms of the corporatocracy, which is what I'm focusing on, that is
> the main one. The overriding one.
But I said that your sources likely had a hidden agenda, and asked if you
thought that only the corporatocracy had the market on hidden agendas. You
said they did because they were only interested in profit. I said that
there are more hidden agendas than profit. This response is not relevant
to what I actually said. If you want to ignore everything else in a blind
hatred of the corporatocracy, be my guest -- but forgive me if the more you
claim that only the things that the corporatocracy care about or evil the
more I start to think that your dislike of the corporatocracy may be
blinding you to the problems inside the sources and causes you promote as
being ideal.
>
> > And, of course, the chance to get some respect, influence and perhaps
even
> > power out of it when they get to stand at the head of the organization
> > against corporatocracy. If you want an example of how this happens, I
> > think the feminist movement is a good example.
>
> The feminist movement has shot itself in the foot so many times, it's
> now barely credible, apart from the fact of the rampant infighting
> amongst different feminist factions (i.e. those that support Catherine
> MacKinnon, and her 'porn is evil' stance, and those who support Nadine
> Stossen (of the ACLU) who wrote the book, can't recall the title right
> now, defending porn as a 'liberating influence'.
>
> Right now, by contrast, there is no single group dominating the
> anti-corporatocracy forces.
And which group is dominating feminism? NOW, ACLU, myriad others?
> All of them: Project Censored, Public
> Citizen, Common Cause, etc. are working in tandem, on a more or less
> equal footing - which also carries the benefit of lower chances of
> infighting.
Until one of them decides that they have a clearer vision or get a leader
who wants more power and decides that being on an equal footing is not
working.
Feminism tried the "all people are equal, all issues are equal" route, and
as evidenced by the splintering into "special interest groups" (lesbian,
black, immigrant, abortion, pornography) it did not work very well.
>On other fronts, groups like Sierra, battle the
> corporatocracy on the environmental front. The great thing is the
> corporatocracy is so huge and complex, that there's a niche for everyone
> to do battle.
Hell, there's a niche for everyone in feminism, too -- and that was the
problem.
Right now, I suspect that you don't have problems because you aren't really
unified to one specific cause or fight yet. If you want to "bring down the
Corporatocracy", though, you'll have to all unite to throw your weight and
pool your resources. This will work -- for a while. Then, people will
start thinking that their issues don't
get enough attention, and try to agitate to get more resources assigned to
their pet projects, and things will collapse.
The Corporatocracy is successful because it is ad-hoc -- they don't try to
pool their resources and don't try to agree with each other, and they'll
sell each other out if it'll make money. Your fight could work the same
way, but then your education about the "Corporatocracy" and your attempt to
get people to oppose it is the exact wrong move. What you want to do is
have the Sierra Club argue that the environment is being destroyed and
something must be done, and someone else that social issues aren't going
well, and someone else providing information that is being hidden WITHOUT
trying to link it to some global conspiracy to trying to rouse people
against that cause. This way, people will support the issues naturally,
and no one will try to buck for power over the fight against the
Corporatocracy, and it won't splinter because there's no global fight to
fail and splinter.
> > Forgive me if I'm suspicious of professed completely altruistic
motives,
> > since most people are not completely altruistic.
>
> But you seem to be suspicious of most 'second hand' sources, including
> books anyway. So, my take is this is a general reflection of that
> 'second hand' source mistrust, which also blends in with your evident
> solipsism.
Nope. I'm just saying that if you claim your points are right because you
check them, you aren't really checking them by the methods you used.
>
> You already stated that the only unimpeachable sources are your own
> experiences and reason.
And they are. This does not mean that other sources are necessarily wrong,
but I have to accept that they could be incorrect and that they are more
likely to be incorrect than experience and reason.
> You don't trust re-published data, since it
> isn't the 'raw' data, from the original, original, original source.
I don't trust it completely as the truth, and neither should you. The more
checking you do, the more likely it is to be correct, but to truly "check
your sources" you HAVE to go to the original sources. I'm amazed that you,
as a researcher, don't see that.
Now, to check against different sources may highlight obvious errors or
deceptions, and can add a higher probability of being correct, I agree.
> > BTW, you might do well to remember that a lot of corporate sources ALSO
> > claim that their intention is to help and serve us, and to give us the
> > information we need to be responsible.
>
> Sure, but they'd say that anyway since they are corporate (i.e. for
> profit) sources.
And what makes you think that your sources also aren't just saying that?
Would anyone support them with money, influence or power if they didn't?
> > Um, I never, ever, claimed that we should only ever USE that
> > "unimpeachable" source. All I claimed is that the only things that I
> > cannot doubt are empiricism and reason (the combination).
>
> But, empiricism doesn't just include one's own experience. It encomasses
> the verification of any material experience, if even done 'second
> hand'. This also means data, in books, can be used. For example, my
> M.Phil. Thesis used solar data from 'Solar-Geophysical Data' and three
> papers were published from that data - subjected to different
> statistical analyses. The referee who 'passed' it for publication by
> Solar Physics (journal) wrote:
>
> "One of the most comprehensive *empirical* studies of the flare-sunspot
> relationship ever undertaken."
>
> I did not have to directly obtain the data myself for my thesis, or my
> papers - to have them called 'empirical'. (WHich is faithful to the
> tenets of empiricism)
Not philosophical empiricism, no. Then again, the purpose of all studies
and scientific papers and experiments is to produce something that either
can be tested or can be duplicated. Until we can design experiments that
can be duplicated to show that something exists, it is just a theory, and
is thus subject to error and doubt. Once it is shown that the experiment
does test the theory (reason) and works as expected in repeated attempts
(experience), then the theory is held to be correct. Anything that you get
from a book HAS to have been done repeatedly and has to be at least
possible for you to do to be considered "empirical". There is nothing
empirical about simply reading things from books, or else philosophy is
strictly an empiricial course of study.
>
> > Everything else
> > must have some amount of doubt attached to it, and the degree of doubt
> > varies as per the credibility of the source.
>
> I think if you're going to include that, you have to include your
> personal experience as well.
True. There is some doubt in that as well.
> For example, to many people's experience,
> it appears that the Sun moves around the Earth each day. That is their
> personal experience, but it *can't* be trusted. Since, in fact, it is
> the Earth rotating about its axis that produces the *apparent* motion of
> the Sun moving about the Earth (from east to west).
>
> This is the sort of misperception that led the ancients to develop
> models (like the Ptolemaic) that weren't accurate.
>
> They were based exclusively on personal perceptions, experience.
This is a flaw in reason, though, not personal experience. What reason do
I have for believing that if the Sun looks like it revolves around the
Earth that it really does? Well, none, actually. However, since it looks
that way, it's okay for me to believe it until you can show otherwise --
but once you do show otherwise, I must accept that.
Being empricist does not preclude being open-minded.
> > And why is it that you seem to be claiming that if you give us the
> > wrong impression, WE'RE the ones that are wrong, and not you for not
making
> > it clear what you want us to take away?
>
> Because it appears to me -as you even admitted, that you are making
> interpretations through personal filters, which automatically distort
> what I say. So, in my mind, since you're going to distort my themes
> anyway, it's up to you to alter or change (or get rid of) your filters,
> not for me to try to get through them. (And I believe most of these
> personal bias filters were created by the individual exposure to
> corporatocratic indoctrination, subliminal messages)
But my "personal bias filter" is simply that if what you say contradicts
personal experience (and if you, of course, tell me that I SHOULD have the
same experience as you) I argue that your experience is not relevant to my
situation. Then, is the onus not on you to use examples that are NOT
contradictory? Now, if you claim that I'm not supposed to have these
experiences, that's another matter -- but you risk me then dismissing your
argument as irrelevant to me.
>
> > In your case, less "brainwashing"
> > comments would do a world of good for your impression.
>
> Well, ok I will revise the term to 'mind control' instead.
I don't think that's quite accurate, though. Controlling the information I
receive does not control what I do with it.
> I don't see why people can't simply process out 'noise' and accept the
> signal. I do it, so why not others. There are, for example, certain
> people who irritate me no end in the way they convey their points, but
> whose message is valuable. Michael Kinsley is one them.
The problem is with you that many of us can't find the signal in your
"noise", and your attempts to help us simply add more distortion, it seems.
At least until you get frustrated and say "Get my experiences", which is
not helping.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
> >
> > > Nope. I think that's exactly the wrong way to go. I think the shy
> > > person, or any socially disaffected, or 'disadvantaged' person, needs
to
> > > learn the basic arts of cooperation, and working together in common
> > > cause - especially to assist and support *each other*.
> >
> > But there's no reason to believe that shy people DON'T know that.
>
> Knowing it and putting it into practice are two very different things.
Let me clarify: There's no reason to believe that they DON'T do it, unless
you are specifically talking about things like a shyness "lobby group".
> In addition, in a highly individualistic culture, many impediments would
> arise to putting it into practice. After all, when an entire class or
> group is scapegoated and branded- then organizing in a group would tend
> to reinforce the societal perception.
But in an individualistic society why would we scapegoat any group? We
shouldn't see a group, or the group as an individual with qualities. A
group is a collection of individuals in a highly individualistic society --
what basis would we have for scapegoating or branding it?
> Also, the continual messages
> coming out are that individual 'winning' is the way to go. Be a 'victor'
> not a victim and all that.
This is because we have a "winning" culture, not because it is an
individualistic one. If we were communitarian, then it would be a "group
winning", which leads to wars.
As I said, though, I don't like individualism, but I think that it would
work better than a "force everyone to be friendly" culture.
>
> > Many of
> > them do, and in fact one of their problems IS that they realize that
and
> > everyone else does.
>
> As I said, putting it into practice is the key, and they often don't
> realize how to expedite that. Particularly with 'roadblocks' in the form
> of subtle and not so subtle media brainwashing, indoctrination that
> encourages *individual* conquest of 'social liabilities' over
> organization as victims.
Okay, are you arguing that shy people have to organize into lobby groups,
or try to merge into society as social people or extroverts?
> > Individualism doesn't need to work that way, though, even though ours
seems
> > to.
>
> It doesn't have to, but does because the western form- reinforced by
Thus, a more radical form would be different. Plus the fact that I
conceded above that ours seems to work that way (and earlier that I dislike
it).
> >Besides, as I said above I'm not in favour of individualism -- just
> > that a more radical form would be better than what Steve suggested (in
my
> > opinion).
>
> Any 'more radical form', imho, must see the individual as a social
> 'holon' - a concept originally used by Arthur Koestler. (In his book,
> 'The Ghost in the Machine'). This 'holon' always - at all times, is
> cognizant of him-herself, as well as the responsibilities to the larger
> 'organism'. Koestler describes it as 'Janus-faced' - looking two
> directions at once: inward, and outward, and I concur. The current
> 'individual' tends to be shaped only one way - looking at himself, a
> viewpoint predominatly reinforced in posts to this ng, which tends to
> support my contentions.
This would be more a cross between communitarianism and individualism than
individualism, and again I'm not saying that individualism is GOOD, just
that it's better than what I've heard so far. If you have a better idea,
feel free to mention it.
I do agree that a more communitarian culture is better, but I worry that
the way to get that will be to pressure shy people to "conform", which is
no better than what we have today.
> > Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that instead of
> > trying to push everyone into the mold of society and turn shy people
into
> > extroverts what we REALLY need to do is make society so that people who
are
> > shy can BE shy if they want to without feeling inadequate because of
it.
>
> Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. But my point is that western style
> individualism will never allow it. Your brand may work, but it will
> require a re-thinking of the current (social Darwinist) individualism, I
> believe more toward what Koestler had in mind (see above)
I think that Western-style individualism could easily evolve to do that,
but it may be no better. Heck, even now we don't have an "everyone go it
alone" attitude, really, so your objections aren't that strong.
> > Read the "TRY to look like" again and you should understand how this
isn't
> > really a contradiction. Because society is materialistic, they want to
> > make money. If we tell them it'll make them money to promote
> > enviro-friendly products, they'll try to create such products.
>
> This simply isn't true. For one thing, the enviro-friendly products may
> require new industrial processes.
Note the TRY above. If it's too hard, then we have to make it more
profitable for them to do it (which means that more people must prefer it).
> > If it loses them money, they won't push materialism. If they'll lose
money
> > on those malls, they won't build them.
>
>
> No, they continue to build them, only *hoping* that they'll make money.
> Do you have any idea of how many deserted strip malls there are right
> now in this country? Malls which became 'extinct' because some new mall
> opened, or because developers vastly overestimated their market? Point
> is, large tracts of green land have been paved over, and can never be
> brought back 'to life'.
Those developers, though, soon run out of money and don't try that anymore,
and the more malls that fail the less likely it is that developers will try
it. Things don't happen overnight, but if we push they will learn.
>
> In many of these cases, the developers were not interested in doing
> their homework or research. Their market studies. They thought there was
> scope for large retail outlets, but they were proven totally wrong,
> because there was already too much competition.
So we have to make it obvious, now, don't we?
> > We started it, and we accept it, and we vote for it with our dollars.
>
> How can you say that? We don't 'vote' for it. No one I know of votes for
> corporate lobbies, to rewrite our laws to favor corporations, which is
> what we're really talking about. In this sense, the U.S. is not a
> genuine democracy. It's a republic- meaning indirect representation
> only.
Who pays for it? We do, by supporting the corporation by buying their
products.
>
>
> > We're the ones in charge and we cause all of it, even the
Corporatocracy.
>
> No, we're not the 'ones in charge'. The owner-elite-banker -corporate
> class is in charge, and it's *their* money - used in a legalized form of
> bribery we call 'lobbying' that propels it.
And we give them the money by buying their products. The people in the
government won't give in to lobbiers if we refuse to vote for anyone that
we catch doing it, because their job is better for them than what temporary
money they'd get from the corporations.
> > Society's views came first, because they created materialism, which
created
> > the Corporatocracy. Now, we are locked in a feedback loop, but make no
> > mistake. We started it.
>
> No, we couldn't have started it. If you read the Elements series, for
> example, you'd see the corporate class infrastructure was
> implemented long before our present society was even around.
But materialism that spawned the corporations to get that personhood status
was there before that decision. The people are at the heart of it problem,
and started it.
the paper chase guy
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In other words, if *all* you read is the Post, without any means of
> cross-checking, you will get a distorted view of the world.
Of course. But you have made the assumption that it's the only thing I
read, that I believe everything in it, and that I use no critical
thinking when reading. These assumptions may be right or they may be
wrong, but of course it's easy to look good by cutting me down, so you
have assumed the worst.
[ Again, based on little or no information, you and Steve are willing to
assume lots of Bad Things and attack me for them.
I'm not sure, but I think observers will remember that when reading your
research about other people you don't like. ]
Your obvious next question is whether your assumptions are right, which
I'm not going to answer because you have only used previous questions to
make status displays about what a horrible brainwashed person I am
compared to you. I guess you'll then trumpet that if I don't answer,
you must be right, to which I say believe what you want. Apparently no
one else thinks I'm brainwashed, and I don't care if you think I am. So
I capitulate. You win. Some opinions are more equal than others. I'm
a completely brainwashed corporate mind slave.
> > You included this sentence twice. I *really* hate it when someone
> > attempts to use shame to get me to do something. Out of sheer spite
I
> > don't want to answer your questions. I'll ask nicely: please don't
do
> > that again.
>
> At least it had the intended effect, and we're finished with the game
of
> 20 questions.
Re-read what I wrote. I answered in spite of your attempt to shame, not
because of it.
> >I, too, have problems with the way
> > corporations operate. These problems are not on topic in this
> > newsgroup. I would be more than happy to share them with you on
another
> > newsgroup, or even private email.
[snip]
> You may wish to do the corporate media overlords' bidding, but I
don't.
I offered my thoughts. You declined.
paperchaseguy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
DAERON
> However, it is possible that because of the examples you use they will > be meaningless to any one particular person -- and so if you want to >discuss the issues with that person, those experiences CANNOT > be employed as useful examples in that part of the discussion.
I disagree totally. What you are really asking, demanding is that I
downgrade my discussion basis to a level of ignorance, to meet the more
wide-open ignorance in the society (including extra-corporatocratic
societies).
When we strip away the subterfuge, a lot of this comes down to
'knowledge' basis. Do people have the knowledge basis to understand
where I'm coming from, or not? The statistics of the defects in American
(and to some extent other nations') education, especially in politics
and economics, is not sanguine. In his book'The Culture of Narcissism',
Christopher Lasch observes (p 129):
"Americans are becoming increasingly ignorant about their own rights as
citizens. Forty-seven percent of a sample of seventeen-year olds, on the
verge of becoming eligible voters, did not know the simple fact-
according to a recent survey, that each state elects two United States
Senators. More than half of the seventeen year olds could not explain
the significance of the Fifth Amendment against self- recrimination. One
of every eight seventeen year olds believed the President does not have
to obey the law. One of every two believes the President appoints
members of Congress. Half of the thirteen-year olds in the survey
thought the law prevents anyone starting a new political party. Hardly
anyof the students of either group could explain what steps the
Constitution entitles Congress to take to stop a President from fighting
a war without congressional approval."
"If an educated electorate is the best defense against arbitrary
government the survival of political freedom appears uncertain at
best."
Lasch then goes on to trace many of these deficiencies to 'the modern
school system' - particularly those with increasing *corporatocratic*
influence.
This has been a theme in many of my posts, as well as Part 5 ('The
Educational Adjunct to the Corporatocracy') of the 'Elements' Series.
Yet you would have me scotch that, and replace it with trivial examples
that are either of little, or no relevance, merely to appease the mass
audience's (or what you presume to be)own gaping holes in knowledge.
(Since most of the issues I bring up are predicated on some basic
foreknowledge -as Lasch brings up).
Well, I am sorry, but I don't see why I must provide the remedial
sociology, political, economic education any potential reader may never
have obtained. Or limit my discussion spectrum to what readers (like
you) may have had by way of limited experience, basically diluting my
own case in the process. (And we will get to more of where you- a
non-causal, empiricist-narcissist-solipsist are coming from later).
> If this is the case, the onus is then on you to provide other > examples or argumentation that better illustrate your point.
Up to a point. But imho *more* onus is on potential readers,particularly
those such as you- who would enter into discussion on the basis of
*knowledge* , to bring themselves up to speed. To fill in the knowledge
gaps that were never addressed in their economic, or political
education. (Specifically on U.S. corporatocratic issues, history etc)
Indeed, Lasch himself notes (p. 239)that the proliferation of such
ignorance (as noted above on a mass scale), combined with an 'excess of
visual and auditory images' in a 'society of the spectacle' have
"encouraged a pre-occupation with the self" which Philip Zimbardo notes
is largely what shyness is about. Lasch continues:
"People respond to others as if their actions are being recorded...or
stored up for scrutiny at a later time."
"Prevailing social conditions have brought out narcissistic personality
traits present, to varying degrees, in everyone. A certain protective
shallowness, a fear of binding committments..an incapacity for loyalty
or gratitude."
>Most of us, though, would at least have some knowledge of shyness, no?
Not from many of the ng posts I've seen. Another deficit to be filled.
> And if you are trying to use examples from a broader
> picture than the topic of the group, you very much run the risk of > people not seeing the link between it and the topic, and so lose the > relevance of your words to not only their own personal experiences but > to the supposed collective experiences supported by this group.
I think the risk has to be taken, with the additional understanding,
that I am spurring potential readers (hitherto unaware of these issues)
to learn/ read about them, in the sources I and others have provided. If
people aren't prepared to advance their own cause, or make up
deficiencies in their own education on even the basics (as Lasch)
notes, there is little I can do for them.
> Perhaps starting FROM the limited contexts and then moving to the
> larger examples will make your points clearer
That has already been done in many posts I've made, and in two extensive
articles: 'A Bifurcation Theory of Shyness', and 'Corporatocracy, False
Consciousness, and Personal Difference'. Exhaustive examples, starting
with the limited have been given in each. I see no reason to waste
bandwidth by continually having to dredge them up when any minimally
ambitous person can access them.
> and maybe then fewer people will gripe that your posts are
> off-topic.
Hardly. There'll always be sorehead purists screaming 'off topic.'
>If the standard social issues have no bearing on what you want to talk
>about, then how does that relate to shyness?
See above points, and articles referenced.
> However, I think that there
> is some relevance in the larger issues to this newsgroup, and to >fuller understand that that people may have to "broaden perspectives".
Well, I am gratified to read this.
> I strongly disagree, though, with STARTING from the broader
> perspective and not addressing the smaller but more universal (here)
But, am I not allowed to assume at least *some* modicum of
foreknowledge? Some acquaintance with the existing rudiments of the
system, even the 5th Amendment? Must I *educate*, over and over again,
those deficient? I really think not. I think at some point, the onus is
on them, to bring themselves up to speed, especially if they debate.
> If you are looking for common experiences, I can't see how anyone > could not have ever had a conversation with someone.
That example was already dealt with in both my extensive articles,
previously referenced. Why must I consume valuable bandwidth and time,
re-introducing them, at the expense of specific corporatocracy issues?
Why do I have to make up for the educational deficiencies of others, to
the extent of continually having to re-post 'limited' examples, etc.?
> I guess I can tell you to see my above remarks, BUT all I was saying,
> really, is that because you don't make the obvious links back to > shyness sometimes people won't see it,
The 'obvious links' are made, but not in the same article(s). Why is it
expecting too much for those interested to cross-reference articles,
posts? I do it all the time, in other ngs. (a.c.jfk, sci.phys.research
alt.politics.economics)
> most people reading a newsgroup called "alt.support.shyness" will tend > to assume that if they can't link a series of posts back to shyness >that it is not relevant to that newsgroup
What about cross-checking? I.e. other posts the author has made? Or, is
that asking too much? Must *all* material, relevant examples *always* be
in the same place, everytime I post? You are saddling me with a burden
no other poster has.
> Now, your posts DO have some relevance to shyness BUT YOU DON'T SHOWIT
I DO SHOW IT! I just don't *continually* show it in the *same* posts,
articles. B/c the corporacracy itself is so complex, and consumes so
much explanatory bandwidth, and examples, I deal with that more
specifically- expecting people (if interested) to get my 'links to
shyness' elsewhere. If you insist, I can post those other articles more
often, like I do my a.c.jfk FAQ.
> And what I really fail to understand is why you would defend not using > and insist on not using direct links to shyness
I don't. I simply defend not having to regurgitate them every damned
time I write about the corporatocracy. This would make each post (on the
corporatocracy) unwieldy, having to integrate both 'shyness'-personal
examples, *and* the larger societal issues. Besides, the linkage issues
and more general ones, are *already* covered in the 2 articles
referenced earlier.
> But if you use them as examples, and they cannot relate to them, your
> examples will not help them understand your points,
They will, if they're capable of reading my *other* articles, wherein
the linkages are discussed in depth. That's why those two articles were
prepared, at considerable time and effort. I do not see why I am now
expected to make even *more* effort, b/c some might be lazy.
>and that's the purpose of examples, is it not?
Yep, and it's also expected that people do some of their own
informational work, checking other posts. Assuming they're really
interested.
> Um, what I had actually found conflicted with my personal experience > was the "shy people are selfish" line of arguments, as I have pointed > out on several occasions.
Um, I believe I addressed that above, in reference to what Christopher
Lasch noted (in his book 'The Culture of Narcissism'). In effect, the
'prevailing social conditions' (which most shys refuse to become
conversant with) 'bring out narcissistic personality traits...a certain
protective shallowness'. This is little different from what Philip
Zimbardo has already noted, in terms of elemental *self-absorption* and
'overwhelming' self consciousness defining the shy person. Read his
works!(e.g.'Are You Shy?' (Psychology Today, November- December, 1995,
p35). Clearly 'selfishness', in terms of self absorption, is a large
factor. One prescription, therefore, is obviously to broaden one's
perspectives beyond oneself. And I'm offering it!
>But if you are TRYING to HELP us understand, it is in your best >interest to promote familiarity and common examples so that it is >easier for us to understand.
But not to the extent of doing everything for you! You must take some
responsibility for expanding your own paramters, purview. And I note you
snipped my reference to the 'Third Reich' example. I.e., that one need
not have been in a concentration camp, to understand it. One can do so
by *reading* the historical documents, and applying a modicum of
empathy. (Unless one is hobbled by being a self-absorbed narcissist of
course!)
> It makes no sense to try to help me understand by confusing me
> more <grin>.
I don't. Rather, the lack of a proper experiential (and -or empathic)
base is responsible for the confusion. And let's also add a deficient
education (for many, as Lasch notes). I cannot be expected to always
compensate for everyone's experiential, education shortcomings.
> Why is it not logical for me to trust my own experiences over what >someone else tells me?
Perhaps b/c they have *more* experience? Perhaps they have a superior
knowledge base, in the areas you don't? (Though you could check things
out but don't).
>You misunderstand, though. If what you say conflicts with my own > personal experience, it's not the matter of it being "remote" that's
> the issue --it's the matter that I am more likely to believe myself
> than I am to believe any external person.
And that is precisely what I mean by being solipsist.
> And that's logical, since because I know all of my own thought > processes it is harder for me to lie to myself
Nonsense. People lie to themselves all the time. It's called false
consciousness. What you're assuming, is that you *can't* lie to
yourself. But, neurological studies of the temporal lobes show human
brains are wired for this, to self delusion.
> since I can't see the thought process (if you were lying) that says >"I'm going to spin this lie for him".
No. I say it is simply a false empirical distrust.
>You are saying that personal experience is untrustworthy, but what you > are REALLY arguing is that it is not universal.
It isn't *universal* at the same time. It is in terms of the society.
> I don't claim that my personal experience is universal, ..However, if > you tell me something and it contradicts my own personal experience, I > am very likely to conclude ..that is not the way it is for ME.
Again, pure solipsism. The inability to emerge from a totally
self-contained frame of reference. Even tho' what I present is fully
documented. (And *you* are more or less outside the corporatocracy)
> Now, if I moved to the U.S. it would only be logical for me to realize > that my circumstances have changed and so that my own personal >experience may no longer be relevant to the specific situation, and so > my personal experience may no longer be valid.
Fair enough, but you are trying to deny it for the millions for whom it
is valid, simply based on *your* lack of that experience.
> This has not happened in any of the cases we have been discussing.
But that doesn't invalidate for those (in the cases) that *are*
affected, OR those for whom (in this society) it may logically be
extended. As Wittgenstein would say, these are 'atomic facts'.
>I deny that it does any such thing. Besides, mine is a more empiricist
>view and solisistic --
Well, here you concede openly you're solipsistic. And indeed, there is
no mutual exclusion between them. Since no (a priori) relations obtain
between sense impressions, one is left with 'the solipsism of the
moment'
>unless you'd like to argue that empiricism leads to
>that.
I do, and it must (phil. empiricism).
>(If you want to learn more about the empiricist philosophical view, >read Locke, Hume, or Berkeley, in case I'm not being clear here).
I have, and you fit in there perfectly. Acausal sense impressionism, as
opposed to 'consilience of causal explanation' (cf. 'Consilience', by
E.O. Wilson, p.12, which is what I am about. We are, I'm afraid, at moot
dead ends. With little possibility of compromise.
>But the instant, as I said above, that I accept that the situation may > be valid for YOU allows me to discuss the U.S. Corporatocracy.
Then - if not solipsist-empiricist, you should have long since accepted.
> However, I may start to feel, with more of these things, that the > topic isn't really relevant to me as most of the issues don't apply to > my personal situation.
That is merely narcissistic self-aborption, fueled by the over-abundance
of images, auditory stimuli - as Lasch notes (above). Plus, lack of
awareness of the 'prevailing social conditions'.
> But I never said that I would DISMISS your personal experience as not > being "true" -- just that it is not true from my personal experience.
In other words, you dismiss it in your own frame of reference.
=Solipsism
> And if I cannot apply personal experience to your issues, it's
> going to be a lot harder for me to understand your own arguments and > so you'll have to put more effort into making them clear.
Or, you'll have to put more effort into bringing yourself up to speed on
the background fundamentals. And broadening your perspective outside of
pure solipsism, immediate personal experience.
>But I don't rigourously maintain that my views are universal or
>that if it is not true for me, then it cannot be true for you.
I like that 'rigorously'
> But that's not what you said you DO.
I can't say everything at once. It's *part* of what I do.
> YOU argued that "you checked your facts", and when asked how, said >that you check in different magazines.
Different reports, books.
>This is not checking your facts sufficiently to show certainty.
I don't claim 'certainty'. I only claim high QA, which is all imho, one
can claim.
> In order to check your facts you at least have to go to the ORIGINAL > source,
One cannot do that, in *most* cases. I.e. I cannot get the *original*
JFK autopsy films, x-rays. I cannot get the original Santa Clara (1886)
Decision document. One must usually settle for reputable secondary
sources.
> not simply checking several secondary sources to see if they post the > same thing.
So long as they're good secondary sources,
> Checking several differing INDEPENDENT sources can often reveal
> discrepancies,
Not relevant if differing originals are referenced (as in the JFK case)
> Besides, I DON'T distrust books and information. That's YOUR line,
It appears to be yours, applied to *me*.
> However, "checking sources" must mean more than simply reading > different magazines if you want to increase credibility.
Truth is what we are about, not just 'credibility'. See Lasch's book on
the difference ('Truth & Credibility' -p. 74). And I am saying checking
numerous reputable secondary sources - in the absence of originals,
access thereto, can achieve high QA, approaching truth.
> Well, again, I'm not a solipsist,
But you are! A solipsist-empiricist to be exact. All your statements,
arguments in concert point to that.
> but yes, I agree -- my tendency as a HUMAN will be to play up those > points that support my position and downplay those that damage it.
That's bias. Not the same as solipsism.
> And, again, I don't argue that your experience is less "real", but it > is not, I suppose, relevant to my own experiences and situation.
And hence, 'less real' to YOU. Thus, the solipsist take.
> But I said that your sources likely had a hidden agenda, and asked if > you thought that only the corporatocracy had the market on hidden > agendas.
I meant the ones that *matter*. Since profits are far more powerful a
motive and corrupting force in human affairs, than say...wanting to save
all the tree frogs. Or, wanting to de-mind control the populace.
> You said they did because they were only interested in profit. I > said that there are more hidden agendas than profit.
BUT, they aren't as potent a consideration as profit. (Which has a
vastly higher potential- as money- to corrupt others, i.e. politicians).
>This response is not relevant to what I actually said.
See my response above.
> If you want to ignore everything else in a blind hatred of the
> corporatocracy, be my guest --
I don't 'ignore everything else'. And there is no 'blind' hatred. (My
wife is still a part of the corporatocracy after all)
>but forgive me if the more you claim that only the things that the > corporatocracy cares about are evil,
I don't, as I said before. There are a few good aspects.
> the more I start to think that your dislike of the corporatocracy may > be blinding you to the problems inside the sources
The only 'problem' in the sources, is that they aren't disclosing all
the 'dirty truths'. (Since many documents, i.e. from the tobacco corps.
are still under wraps). Nevertheless, they have documented *most* of the
key stories the corporate media have excluded. (Like the fact that
Creutzfeldt-Jakob ('Mad cow') disease, has been in N. America (Canada)
since 1994. ('Deadly Mad Cow Disease Spreads to North America', 1995
Project Censored Yearbook, pp. 110-11). Is this starting to get close
enough to your 'personal experience'?
> And which group is dominating feminism? NOW, ACLU, myriad others?
Mostly 'myriad others' of the type into postmodernism.
> Until one of them decides that they have a clearer vision or get a > leader who wants more power and decides that being on an equal footing > is not working.
You don't appreciate that these power games are less likely to apply,
since no profit motive is driving the agendas. Also, unlike feminism,
there are no 'inflammatory issues' -or personalities (i.e. C. MackInnon,
who equates marriage to 'rape' and domination). On an equal footing,
there's everything to gain in common cause. On an unequal footing,
everything to lose.
>Feminism tried the "all people are equal, all issues are equal" route,
Prompted by its descent into Derridian relativism and subjectivism.
> as evidenced by the splintering into "special interest groups" >(lesbian, black, immigrant, abortion, pornography) it did not work very > well.
And part of the award must go to the corporate media propagandists,
again, who fed the divisions. As usual, 'divide and conquer'. Make the
people fight each other, so they don't have to. As in the 60s when the
system contrived (thru the Cointelpro agenda) to have blue collar
workers square off vs. hippies.
>Hell, there's a niche for everyone in feminism, too -- and that was the
>problem.
No, the main problem was falling for Derridian malarkey and postmodern
bs.
> Right now, I suspect that you don't have problems because you aren't > really unified to one specific cause or fight yet.
Who is 'you'? Me, personally. Or is it a generic reference to all groups
earlier cited?
> If you want to "bring down the Corporatocracy", though, you'll have to >all unite to throw your weight and pool your resources.
It's not so much 'bringing it down' -which may be infeasible. But
rather, getting the government to do its job of regulating and policing
these mega-corporations, instead of 'falling into bed' with them. The
problem is that powerful lobbies have diluted and eroded most regulatory
or oversight powers to the point of non-existence. Laws are rife with
loopholes, enforcement almost nil.
>The Corporatocracy is successful because it is ad-hoc --
No, it's successful b/c they're controlling the media machines,spreading
propaganda, and the people are enveloped in false consciousness of how
things really work.
> they don't try to pool their resources and don't try to agree with > each other,
They DO in their shared monopolies and their propaganda. (Which is
repeated in unison by all their media)
> Your fight could work the same way, but then your education about the >"Corporatocracy" ....is the exact wrong move.
No, b/c people must first be aware of the problem, and its depths,
before they can oppose it.
>What you want to do is have the Sierra Club argue that the environment > is being destroyed....and someone else providing information that is > being hidden WITHOUT trying to link it to some global conspiracy
It's a global *network*, not a conspiracy. (Tho' a rough conspiracy is
not out of the question, i.e. using plausible denial, and undocumented
meetings, etc.)
>to trying to rouse people against that cause. This way, people will >support the issues naturally,
No, as Reich says, the only 'natural way' this will occur, is for
people's consciousness to alter. A lot of the consciousness raising work
is also on *their* shoulders.
> Nope. I'm just saying that if you claim your points are right because > you check them, you aren't really checking them by the methods > you used.
Huh? I said that I checked them using superior, secondary sources. Those
sources contained all the tables, data from the originals, albeit not
the originals. There would be no point in these sources lying, or being
deceptive. Too much to lose.
>This does not mean that other sources are necessarily wrong,
> but I have to accept that they could be incorrect and that they are > more likely to be incorrect than experience and reason.
Again, this is solipsist-empiricist in approach.
>I don't trust it completely as the truth, and neither should you.
I don't, but I do give it 'high QA.'(Depending on the secondary source
quality)
> The more checking you do, the more likely it is to be correct, but to > truly "check your sources" you HAVE to go to the original sources.
But, in most *practical* cases, you CAN'T get the originals!
> I'm amazed that you, as a researcher, don't see that.
I DO. It's you that don't see the extreme impracticality, impossibility
of obtaining most originals! (Btw, that is what *books* are for! As
Sagan notes 'to interrogate the past with high accuracy')
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note - high accuracy(QA) *not* certainty!
>Now, to check against different sources may highlight obvious errors or
> deceptions, and can add a higher probability of being correct, I > agree.
That is all I am after.
> And what makes you think that your sources also aren't just saying > that? Would anyone support them with money, influence or power if > they didn't?
It's b/c they have little 'money, influence or power'. That's why they
aren't just 'saying that'. There's more unquanitified 'profit' in
telling the truth, than merely repeating new lies. (Apart from which
people's *experiences* validate their documentation)
> Not philosophical empiricism, no. Then again, the purpose of all > studies and scientific papers and experiments is to produce something > that either can be tested or can be duplicated.
Well, the *method* I used certainly could. (Obviously, flares can't
since they change from solar rotation to rotation depending on magnetic
fields, etc.)
> Until we can design experiments that can be duplicated to show that >something exists, it is just a theory, and is thus subject to error and >doubt.
The idea of all science, is to disprove, or falsify theories anyway.
Else, they're facts, not theories.
> Once it is shown that the experiment does test the theory (reason) and > works as expected in repeated attempts (experience), then the theory >is held to be correct.
Tentatively so, as *provisional fact* until a better theory comes along.
> Anything that you get from a book HAS to have been done repeatedly and > has to be at least possible for you to do to be considered"empirical".
True, but solar flare or sunspot data, are themselves not specifically
'repeatable' *(changing with each solar cycle). Data books use the same
methods (year to year) of *gathering* data however.
>There is nothing empirical about simply reading things from books, or >else philosophy is strictly an empiricial course of study.
True, and philosophy certainly ain't that! But my study was empirical in
the sense of using data that had been independently confirmed elsewhere.
For a limited subset (sunspot groups, flares) I could get H-alpha films,
spot photographs, but obviously not for all.
>This is a flaw in reason, though, not personal experience. What reason >do I have for believing that if the Sun looks like it revolves around >the Earth that it really does? Well, none, actually.
Well, direct *sense* experience, since that is what you see. We call
this 'naive realism'.
> However, since it looks that way, it's okay for me to believe it until > you can show otherwise --but once you do show otherwise, I must accept > that.
The problem is that my method of 'showing' may be beyond yours to grasp.
What if they entail some mathematics (i.e. spherical trigonometry) with
which you're not familiar? You would then simply revert to your personal
experience, or insist, I 'emulsify' the mathematics until it reduces to
your level. (By which time we may be down to addition, subtraction etc.
and no hope of demonstration!)
> Being empricist does not preclude being open-minded.
Perhaps not, but it's position may need to include more general exposure
to previous knowledge, data - so as not to wear down (or try to) one's
opponent. But then, the empiricist-solipsist escapes by insisting his
own experience (and 'reason) supercedes all other materials.
> But my "personal bias filter" is simply that if what you say >contradicts personal experience.... I argue that your experience is not > relevant to my situation.
Which is totally solipsist.
> Then, is the onus not on you to use examples NOT contradictory?
ONLY if in so using, my richness and diversity of experience is not
excessively impoverished, diluted. In this case I believe it is, since -
in order not to contradict your experience, I must find more parochial
examples- which then merely risks diluting my corporatocracy model to a
solipsist chain of personal anecdotes and tautologies.
I cooperate-you win. I don't,you do
> Now, if you claim that I'm not supposed to have these experiences, >you risk me then dismissing your argument as irrelevant to me.
Ever heard of something called generalization? Or, does that no longer
apply? More to the point, I suspect my basis (of causal consilience) is
inherently at odds with yours (solipsist-empiricism). What I am after is
consistent predication, and a general *conceptual framework of
relations* -but that is denied by Humeans such as yourself.
>I don't think that's quite accurate, though. Controlling the >information I receive does not control what I do with it.
It controls how you think of it, which can control what you do with it.
>The problem is with you that many of us can't find the signal in your
>"noise",
That's absurd. If I had no demonstrative 'signal' neither you or others
would be able to argue with me! The fact you can, discloses there are
meaningful terms, concepts I have, that you recognize (and challenge).
>and your attempts to help us simply add more distortion, it seems.
Because of solipsist, narcissistic personal bias filters, with media
mind-control.
>At least until you say "Get my experiences", which is not helping.
How about reading?
DAERON
>But in an individualistic society why would we scapegoat any group?
It's easier to exploit, demean them uniformly as categorical victims.
Hence: blacks, Jews, gays, etc. - can all be more easily targeted
(particularly by the right). The powerful attacking the powerless, as is
par for the course. And a *grouped* -categorical scapegoating is always
more efficient than doing it one by on. And with 'outgroups' labeled -
the perpetrators can more easily get ahead and grab the spoils, blaming
the victims as usual for their lack of success.
> group is a collection of individuals in a highly individual society --
which is founded on social Darwinist imperatives, that the 'weaker'
won't survive. Jews, gays, blacks, etc. are portrayed as 'weaker' hence
we can pardon ourselves when they don't 'make it' or are persecuted.
When people are blocked into a group, for attack, they lose their
humanity. And that makes them more 'attackable' as a group. (Outgroup).
Like the 'Trenchcoat Mafia' at Columbine. A name given by the jocks not
the 'trenchcoated' students btw.
>what basis would we have for scapegoating or branding it?
See above. The basis that the others (in an alpha ape-style hierarchy)
can more easily dominate and seize the biggest 'slice' of cake. (Once
the weakest are excluded).
>This is because we have a "winning" culture, not because it is an
>individualistic one.
Actually, a 'winner take all' culture. Everything designed so that only
the exceptionally few can succeed, while everyone else loses. (See, e.g.
'The Winner Take All Society', by Frank Cook, Free Press, 1995). And it
is 'winner (i.e. INDIVIDUAL) take all' precisley because it is grounded
in Darwinian social individualism. For example the job structure:
In the corporatocracy, for example, the jobs follow a pryamidal
('winner -take-all') structure:
/\
/ \ <---Top jobs (enjoyable & well paid)
/- --\ 'unix jockeys', CEOs
/ \
/ Avg. \--- most desk jockeys, managers
/----------\
/low status \
/ \
/ jobs \
/ (service) \
--------------------
The pyramid layout is fairly constant (zero-sum), so that if changes are
made -i.e. between top and bottom, winners and losers are implicit (i.e.
one moving from the bottom to top implies one at top has been 'cut' or
moved to lower rungs) Note that the highest echelon are jobs that engage
the full skills and latent talents,abilities of the lucky people who
have them. The bottom offer lowest pay, least autonomy, most stress.
'Working' can therefore cover a multitude of 'sins'.
> If we were communitarian, then it would be a "group winning", which > leads to wars.
Nonsense. It is in fact *individual* winning, with most of the populace
disenfranchised, that has always led to wars, civil and world. The elite
('individuals')exploiting the few, for their own gain. By contrast, in a
communitarian or cooperative society, lethal levels of competition would
be almost unheard of. The society itself would have less hostile people,
less murders, rapes, the whole nine yards/
>As I said, though, I don't like individualism, but I think that it would
>work better than a "force everyone to be friendly" culture.
Not 'force everyone to be friendly'. You develop integral systems of
shared cooperation *first*, then friendliness, neighborliness develops.
Not the bastions of individual isolation and alienation that currently
proliferate.
>Okay, are you arguing that shy people have to organize into lobby groups,
>or try to merge into society as social people or extroverts?
No. I'm arguing that shy folk shouldn't have to do any organizing. I
mean it isn't as if they are in need of mass scapegoating. What they do
need to do, is to be prepared to come out of their 'shallow selves' and
assist and support each other - *when needed*. The danger of a permanent
shy organization - like PFLAG for gays, is that it will again stigmatize
the whole category. We do NOT want that, since society already does it
in its categorization -labeling process for 'deviants'. Shy folk could
also, however, expand their purview beyond the purely personal realm of
experience. Either by expanding their reading, or base of experience. In
my case, I did both. Travelled and worked in another area of the world,
plus read a lot.
>Thus, a more radical form would be different.
Exactly, more like what Koestler suggested, using social holons.
>> Any 'more radical form', imho, must see the individual as a social
>> 'holon' - a concept originally used by Arthur Koestler.
>This would be more a cross between communitarianism and individualism >than
>individualism,
Not really. As Koestler notes (ibid., p. 72): "In a complex society,
with its many hierarchies, it is essential that each holon.. .should
operate as an autonomous, self-contained unit."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In other words, it *is* a form of individualism. But, individualism
grounded in a social context, as a holographic unit - rather than an
'atomic' unit. ('Holographic' meaning the part -holon- embodies the
whole within itself)
>I do agree that a more communitarian culture is better, but I worry
>the way to get that will be to pressure shy people to "conform",
No one, certainly not myself, wants shy people to 'conform'. This is
merely playing into enemy hands. What I (and Zimbardo) are saying (as
well as Koestler) is that shy folk need to emerge enough from their
personal cocoons to at least know what is going on in the larger social
fabric in which they live. They need to broaden world view beyond the
immediate personal and parochial. And STOP finding excuses not to do so!
>> Your brand may work, but it will
>> require a re-thinking of the current (social Darwinist) individualism, I
>> believe more toward what Koestler had in mind (see above)
>I think that Western-style individualism could easily evolve to do that
Not as presently constructed, with the 'winner take all' psyche-meme,
plus the social Darwinist imperatives. These would have to be radically
undone first. In particular the current corporatocratic job structure.
>but it may be no better.
I believe it would be since as Koestler notes, in a social holon -based
hierarchy there is always an *explicit* hierarchical rule schema. There
are sets of fixed rules known by everyone -not hidden, or covert. (As
the current system is, with few discerning how it really works).
>Heck, even now we don't have an "everyone go it
> alone" attitude, really, so your objections aren't that strong.
They are, but as usual your dearth of personal experiences lags far
behind. You insist on defining reality from within this limited
(solipsist-empiricist) framework, while I am trying to expand it. Lasch
- in his book, pointedly notes that the proliferation of the corporate
media and advertising, in creating a disaffected, alienated populace, is
largely responsible for this. Along with, imho, good ol' social
Darwinism, which persists as a sublminal subtext in 99% of human
interactions.
>Note the TRY above. If it's too hard, then we have to make it more
>profitable for them to do it
But, in the course of changing industrial processes, i.e. from
throughput-disposal, to cyclical manufacture (with wastes collected,
recycled) the initial costs will always be excessive, and more likely
little or no profits. This is why it's important to develop long-term
thinking rather than short. As Ornstein notes ('New World-New Mind')most
of our current troubles in this area stem from too much short term, for
profit thinking.
He also points out that the real division in the world is not between
left and right, or 'liberals' and 'conservatives' but between short term
thinkers, and long term thinkers. Our planet right now is reeling under
the impetus of too many short term gain-mongers.
> Those developers, though, soon run out of money and don't try that
> anymore,
Sure -after they've laid waste to thousands of acres of green -forested
natural areas! Uh...oh, made another mistake. Toooo bad.
>and the more malls that fail the less likely it is that developers will > try it.
True, after an excessive number of failures at the people's expense.
After their beautiful greensward or forest is replaced by acres of
concrete and more bleak sprawlish eyesore. Trouble is, it's then too
late to get back what was there.
> Things don't happen overnight, but if we push they will learn.
We have to push harder. Too much damage is being done - people
'fiddling'- While 'Rome burns'. An antidote is needed to cure people of
their short term thinking.
>So we have to make it obvious, now, don't we?
Yes indeedy.
> Who pays for it?
Not the people, willingly.
> We do, by supporting the corporation by buying their products.
Actually that is only part of it. Much more insidious is the corporate
welfare from taxes, which goes to support corporate lobbying and
advertising for example. Did you know that most corporations are able to
write off lobbying expenses? What kind of profound advantage does that
confer? A tremendous amount, since it is our tax dollars funding it.
BUT, one cannot refuse to pay taxes./ (Well, one *could* but the
consequences would not be sanguine).
>And we give them the money by buying their products.
More importantly, supporting their corporate welfare with taxes.
> The people in the government won't give in to lobbiers if we refuse to > vote for anyone that
> we catch doing it,
BUT they all do. Besides it doesn't matter. Since the entire U.S.
political system is predicated on the infusion of money, then money is
'the mother's milk' of American politics/. (To use one recent
commentator's words) And so long as there is no campaign finance reform
legislation, money will remain an integral part whether the people vote
or not (since the law will ensure that only the 'monied' can
participate).
Ways to change that? First, enact campaign finance reform. Then -pass
laws whereby it is easier for less well known candidates to get on
ballots, *without* coughing up a fortune from special interests they
must be beholden to the rest of their days. Lastly, change the current
'winner take all' electoral system to a proportional system (i.e. each
candidate collects the number of delegates or votes proportional to
his/her share of the total vote count)
>because their job is better for them than what temporary
>money they'd get from the corporations.
Not if money is currently institutionalized into the System, as it now
is (as a form of legalized bribery)
> But materialism that spawned the corporations to get that personhood status
> was there before that decision.
No it wasn't. Not in the mass of people it wasn't. Most were still dirt
poor after the Civil War. It was rather the materialism of the *few*
(Andrew Carnegie, John Rockefeller, J. Pierpointe Morgan etc.) that
spurred them to use the court system to 'rig' the whole country and its
laws for their avarice. The people were more or less passive spectators.
> The people are at the heart of it problem,
> and started it.
Absolutely and completely false. The 'robber barons' (see above)started
it, because they perceived large holes in the system which they could
exploit, to set up a system that worked exclusively for them. They
initiated it in terms of making monopolies easier (restricting them to
corporate entities), then went on to impose a banking system that would
confer huge class advantages. The people, for their part, were in no
position to implement anything. They certainly didn't have the resources
to march Morgan's, Carnegie's and Rockefeller's. Most of the people
-still working 80-100 hour weeks (the 40-hr weeks was decades away
still), couldn't even find a spare minute to organize. Even if they did,
the robber barons had a ready troop of thugs (called 'Pinkertons') ready
to break skulls if they did.
More recently, however, the people are made their worst enemies
(translated, i.e. into the lowest savings rate on record, The Baltimore
Sun, 6/29/99) by the mindwash tactics of modern advertising. As Lasch
notes ('The Culture of Narcissisim', p. 72):
"In a simpler time, advertising merely called attention to the product
and extolled its advantages. Now, it manufactures a product of its own:
the consumer, perpetually unsatisfied, restless, anxious and bored.
Advertising serves not so much to advertise products as to promote
consumption as a way of life. It 'educates' the masses into an
unappeasable appetite not only for goods, but for new experiences and
personal fulfillment. ....It plays seductively on the malaise of
industrial civilization."
Thus, the mind-enslaved populace, under the mind -control of the
corporate advertising barons, cooperates by spending on needless junk
to fund their coffers. Meanwhile impoverishing themselves.
Worse, mindless consumerism fuels pernicious lack of awareness of false
maps, their presence and dynamic. This confers vastly disproportionate
power to the society -specifically the corporate class culture and
media, in shaping individual consciousness. At the same time it weakens
and paralyzes individual self-reflection and critical thinking - by
instigating an 'automatic', i.e. 'auto - pilot' processing mode, in the
('mind-jacked' narcissistic) person. It becomes thereby easier to simply
assimilate societal fictions than to make any concerted effort on one's
own to validate them, or test them. This helps set up a positive
feedback loop that further reinforces and strengthens the false
persona ('consumer'), and its underlying false consciousness. In extreme
cases, the victims of this will violently oppose any and all who try to
point out the source of their problem. Indeed, denial can be so strong
as to impel personal attacks against any who even suggest false
consciousness is present.
But, imho, this merely shows the fantastic levels of mind-rigging and
control the media-advertising corporatocracy has succeeded in
perpetrating. To be able to entice the downtrodden to be their own worst
enemies. And then not even be mindful enough to rectify the situation!
James G
>
> Worse, mindless consumerism fuels pernicious lack of awareness of false
> maps, their presence and dynamic. This confers vastly disproportionate
> power to the society -specifically the corporate class culture and
> media, in shaping individual consciousness. At the same time it weakens
> and paralyzes individual self-reflection and critical thinking - by
> instigating an 'automatic', i.e. 'auto - pilot' processing mode, in the
> ('mind-jacked' narcissistic) person.
And according to you one way to protect ourselves is to read
more non-corporate sources. But what sources are acceptable
according to you? Even though I haven't finished all of your
recommended reading, I have searched my university library for
non-corporate political/news magazines. Even though my school
has contracts with Nike, AT&T and Pepsi, I did find _The Nation_,
_The Progressive_, _Z Magazine_ and _Extra!_ in our library. I
also found something called the "Multinational Monitor." And this
from a school whose football team won't wear a Rose Bowl patch,
but puts a Nike swoosh on its uniforms. But back to my question.
Do you mean corporate owned or accpets ads? One thing that
struck me about _The Nation_ was an ad for an Alaskan cruise
seminar. Another was an ad for a _Nation_ Visa Card. Is this
outside the corporate structure? And if it is, what about a less
leftist magazine like _The New Republic_? It was at least mentioned
by _Extra!_ as giving a lot of news missing in our paper or in
_Newsweek_ or _U.s. News_. And what about leftist magazines/
newspapers like _Mother Jones_ or _The Village Voice_? _Mother
Jones_ had lots of ads and some mainstream things (an interview
with Matt Groening?), while the _Village Voice_ is almost
impossible to read due to its ad content. Yet, I understand it
is one of the most referenced paper by these other magazines.
The best one I found for making your point about the media was
_Extra!_, the bi-monthly magazine (with a newsletter in off-
months) of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and its website
at www.fair.org. It specifically cited the missing stories and
which newspapers/magazines were willing to pick them up.
However, I still think people are better off than you claim. Pepsi's
interest in Burma has been well-documented at my school by people
in the organization Students for a Democratic Burma. The website
of the local alternative paper I told you about before mentions
FAIR, _The Nation_ and _Mother Jones_ as sources for its
information.
But again, what am I allowed to read? _The New Republic_ struck
me as a fair presenter of issues and is mentioned as a centrist
magazine by FAIR, but it did seem to have more news that some
corporate sources. Yet I did notice a Philips 66 ad that was
also in _The National Review_. But does _The New Republic_
count? How about _Brill's Content_ which seemed loaded with ads,
but certainly has something to say about media coverage of the
Monica case?
DAERON
>
> And according to you one way to protect ourselves is to read
> more non-corporate sources. But what sources are acceptable
> according to you? Even though I haven't finished all of your
> recommended reading, I have searched my university library for
> non-corporate political/news magazines. Even though my school
> has contracts with Nike, AT&T and Pepsi, I did find _The Nation_,
> _The Progressive_, _Z Magazine_ and _Extra!_ in our library. I
> also found something called the "Multinational Monitor." And this
> from a school whose football team won't wear a Rose Bowl patch,
> but puts a Nike swoosh on its uniforms. But back to my question.
> Do you mean corporate owned or accpets ads?
Preferably NO corporate adds, and NO corporate advertising. If you want
the best example I've seen thus far it's 'In These Times' - Ed. Joel
Bleifuss - who is often cited (his stories) in the Project Censored
Yearbook.
Let's get straight that *any* corporate links compromise reporting
integrity. If it's corporate owned - obviously the papers' marketing
depts. will have directives that exclude any story which might offend
shareholders. Since most corporations are now part of merged entities,
or shared monopolies- whose CEOs serve on interlocking directorates,
that is a lot!
Secondly, corporate advertising in a paper *can* have damping and
censorship effects. Here again, if the corporation doesn't like the
story, thinks it strikes 'too close to home', or whatever, it will
demand it be cut- or threaten to pull advertising dollars. 'In These
Times' - Bleifuss' paper, doesn't face these threats, since it isn't
beholden to the corporate fatcats or their Madison Ave. lackeys.
>One thing that
> struck me about _The Nation_ was an ad for an Alaskan cruise
> seminar. Another was an ad for a _Nation_ Visa Card. Is this
> outside the corporate structure?
No, and to be frank 'The Nation' isn't the muckraking paper is used to
be (at the turn of the century). However, on a spectrum of less or more
corporate sources, interests, it's certainly to be preferred to say,
'The Washington Post' - which has a known, documented history of
selective censorship, and co-option. As I said, if you can get it, I
think the best bet is 'In These Times'.
> And if it is, what about a less
> leftist magazine like _The New Republic_? It was at least mentioned
> by _Extra!_ as giving a lot of news missing in our paper or in
> _Newsweek_ or _U.s. News_.
The New Republic is ok. Often has stories that hit at the
corporatocracy. However, I don't like the choice of term of 'leftist'.
This is merely playing into the corporate propagandists' hands who wish
to paint 'as leftist' all who don't concede ground to the corporate
agenda.
True, many whom I've recommended (i.e. Michael Parenti) do refer to
themselves as 'leftists', but as Parenti notes, that would have occurred
anyway, since most of the political spectrum left of center has been
wiped out-and the center more and more gets in bed with the right (on
most issues). This is not terribly surprising, since the right's
'thinktanks' (i.e. American Heritage Foundation', etc.)are the most
richly funded. It's easier for 'centrist' journalists to get published
if they at least appear t share some ofthe right's interests and
agendas.
But, where I am really coming from is the original meaning of economics,
defined for welfare of the many, called *Oikonomia*. (See e.g. "One
World Ready Or Not', by William Greider, Ch. 19 'Oikonomia') The
derivative information matrix (which includes stewardship of the
environment) is therefore Oikonomian. I know it's doesn't 'roll off the
tongue' or write as easily as 'leftist' but it also is more accurate,
and doesn't carry the negative baggage and derogatory tone of 'leftist'.
> And what about leftist magazines/
> newspapers like _Mother Jones_ or _The Village Voice_? _Mother
> Jones_ had lots of ads and some mainstream things (an interview
> with Matt Groening?), while the _Village Voice_ is almost
> impossible to read due to its ad content.
Again, these sources have changed over the years, not what they used to
be before. 'Mother Jones' for ex. endured a 'bloodless coup' about 7-8
yrs. ago, and had to alter its way of doing things, because it wasn't
surviving economically. It therefore did 'sell out' to some extent, to
survive. Again, on a scale of news, the sellout hasn't been as bad as
for most of the mainstream press like 'TIME', Newsweek etc.
Let's also get clear that if people don't support these alternative
voices, then yes- they often will have to look for funding from outside
advertising. They may not like it (some of MJ's original staff quit)but
it's either that or cave in, cease to exist.
> Yet, I understand it
> is one of the most referenced paper by these other magazines.
See above. It is because it still has many good, hard hitting stories.
Possibly, some contractual agreement was made, stipulating zero or
minimal interference in the newspaper's reporting. (Whereas for most
corporate -owned and operated papers, the Sales-Makrketing Dept. have
final say on what get's published or not)
> The best one I found for making your point about the media was
> _Extra!_, the bi-monthly magazine (with a newsletter in off-
> months) of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) and its website
> at www.fair.org. It specifically cited the missing stories and
> which newspapers/magazines were willing to pick them up.
Good, and I will check them out too. I hadn't previously heard of them.
MOst of these are very small papers, like 'In These Times' which also
don't have large advertising budgets. Unless people find out about them
by word of mouth, usually , they won't know. I found out because I
received a direct mail subscription offer- and they felt they could do
that with high confidence. My direct mail 'profile' probably already
disclosed I was 'anti-corporate' as a member of ACLU, Common Cause,
Public Citizen etc. so they'd be 'safe' in sending this to me, and it
wouldn't just end up in the dustbin.
> However, I still think people are better off than you claim.
You are entitled to your own opinion, I simply disagree. This canard is
easier to believe, given the constant spin-propaganda put out by the
large mega-media conglomerates ('the great economy', 'the record Dow'
etc.- without cognizance that most Americans -55% are *not* invested in
the Dow!). It also absolves most of the rest of us of any responsibility
for lifting a finger to do or change anything.
We can justify preserving the status quo, while lashing out mindlessly
at anyone who dares to follow the genuine journalistic credo of
'afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted'.
>Pepsi's
> interest in Burma has been well-documented at my school by people
> in the organization Students for a Democratic Burma. The website
> of the local alternative paper I told you about before mentions
> FAIR, _The Nation_ and _Mother Jones_ as sources for its
> information.
Perhaps -but there are hundreds, hell - thousands of examples of
corporate sponsored abuse, and mayhem -economic, environmental, or other
that remain undocumented/. Many of these occur, because after the
perpetrators are caught, they make legal payoffs (i.e. pay some millions
to the people, or community affected) but ensure the transaction
requires no blame be attached to them. Thus, they can say- with straight
face-'we never did anything'.
> But again, what am I allowed to read?
Please don't frame it in terms of 'allowed'. No one is trying to dictate
anything to you. Read what you want. But, if you want *suggestions* on
escaping the corporate media mind-control game, Ican offer a few.
In that spirit, try to get 'In These Times' - the paper edition. As I
said, I believe it's the best I've seen thus far. Retroactively, you can
also get hold of the past stories from the Project Censored group. ('The
News That Didn't Make the News and Why?, Ed. Carl Jensen).
> _The New Republic_ struck
> me as a fair presenter of issues and is mentioned as a centrist
> magazine by FAIR, but it did seem to have more news that some
> corporate sources.
Well, try it - but use Parenti's 'media manipulation' criteria -which I
previously gave (one of earlier posts on this thread), to screen what
you read. Look out for 'framing' etc.
> Yet I did notice a Philips 66 ad that was
> also in _The National Review_. But does _The New Republic_
> count?
You can't make absolutist determinations based on ad content alone. At
some point you have to gauge the stories themselves. And some will be
fairly good, others found wanting.
You are demanding that I give you a binary (1/0, y-n) basis for
decision, I can't -with the possible exception of 'In These Times'. In
all other cases the 'caveat emptor' rubric holds. (And using Parenti's
media manipulating criteria)
>How about _Brill's Content_ which seemed loaded with ads,
Sorry not impressed. After the first issue, I cancelled my subscription.
> but certainly has something to say about media coverage of the
> Monica case?
But overly sensationalistic, and too one-sided in that regard (since
many other more important issues, stories, were not addressed)
I think, in general, it's best to look for 'In These Times' as a
one-stop source, with added feedback from other sources (i.e 'The
Nation', Mother Jones etc.) but using the Parenti indicese to scan for
possible corporate 'intrusions'. A little bit of effort, but worth it.
What you won't get -because of the complex nexus of the
corporatocracy's tentacles -is 'easy' answers, or prescriptions.
You do what many of us do: keep looking, and a critical eye on content.
Jim F.
BTW _The New Republic_ in its pre-Marty Peretz incarnations used to lean
sharply to the left. I was once in the Boston Public Library and I
leafed
through some old copies of _The New Republic_ from the early 1970s.
What
was striking wasn't so much that it was well to the lefft back then of
its
current incarnation but it was also far to the left of the current
version
of _The Nation_ as well. Anyway it should be noted that over the last
couple of years The Nation has been tacking closer to the center than
it had been previously. This shift was signaled hen they cut back on
Alex Cockburn's column but it was soon manifested in a softening of
their editorial stance on the Clinton Administration.
Mother Jones is IMO shadow of its former self. I think the real
Mother Jones would be quite horrified if she could see what has
happened to the magazine that bears her name.
Jim F.
DAERON
> Mother Jones is IMO shadow of its former self. I think the real
> Mother Jones would be quite horrified if she could see what has
> happened to the magazine that bears her name.
I think most of the original press, which did their jobs responsibly (in
pre WWI era) would be horrified to see how their respective media
evolved - to be lapdogs for the corporations, instead of watchdogs. Even
the old -W.Post (in the heady Watergate days) would be recoiling at how
their genuine news organ has sold out.
Everywhere we look, with few exceptions, the 'sellout' and quick profits
have become the rule. Integrity and loyalty appear to be the hallmarks
of a bygone era.
If I could get hold of a decent time -machine, I'd go back to Nov. 22,
1963 and prevent the JFK assassination, because imho, that's when the
massive portion of the sellout really began. Affecting all facets of
society not just a few- homo sapiens mutating at warp speed to 'homo
vendens') With JFK out of the way, the financial privateers and scum
could begin to put into place their plans for global oligarchy, at the
expense of a brainwashed public. (Ooops....I meant mind-controlled
public).
James G
>
>
> No, and to be frank 'The Nation' isn't the muckraking paper is used to
> be (at the turn of the century). However, on a spectrum of less or more
> corporate sources, interests, it's certainly to be preferred to say,
> 'The Washington Post' - which has a known, documented history of
> selective censorship, and co-option. As I said, if you can get it, I
> think the best bet is 'In These Times'.
The reason I wanted to ask that question was the 'The Nation' was
one you had recommended before.
> The New Republic is ok. Often has stories that hit at the
> corporatocracy. However, I don't like the choice of term of 'leftist'.
> This is merely playing into the corporate propagandists' hands who wish
> to paint 'as leftist' all who don't concede ground to the corporate
> agenda.
Sorry. I'll see if I can fix that habit. It's been a long habit
of mine, and I still like to consider myself a leftist, so it's
hard to drop. Of course, you are correct. After 'Chemical &
Engineering News' ran a story on global warming, there were letters
to the editor telling it that shouldn't be a propaganda machine
for the left.
>
> Good, and I will check them out too. I hadn't previously heard of them.
> MOst of these are very small papers, like 'In These Times' which also
> don't have large advertising budgets. Unless people find out about them
> by word of mouth, usually , they won't know.
Agreed. I originally only found out about 'The Nation' and
'In These Times' because they were mentioned by you. FAIR
was mentioned by somebody on another newsgroup I read. Whereas
I've seen many ads for 'The National Review' on TV. I also found
some by looking for liberal magazines on Yahoo. And then,
I decided I would just glance through the current periodcials at
my school library to see what they had. That's where I found
the "Multinational Monitor," which appears to be a watch of what
activites multinational coporations are doing to/in third-world
countries. I happen to me looking through various magazines/
journals in my library and seeing what they say.
>
> > But again, what am I allowed to read?
>
> Please don't frame it in terms of 'allowed'.
Poor word choice. My apologies. I'm not expecting you to censor
what I read, but I was just trying to understand if 'The Nation'
and 'The Village Voice' where papers you considered worth reading
and outside the corporate world. I was impressed with both
'The Progressive' and 'Z' for not taking ads, but those are
monthlies and political commentaries rather than weekly newsmagazines/
newspapers.
> You are demanding that I give you a binary (1/0, y-n) basis for
> decision, I can't -with the possible exception of 'In These Times'.
That's how it came across, but I was more wondering what your
experience with those magazines/papers I had mentioned was and
whether you thought they were worthwhile. I'm sorry if I came
across that way, but I don't want you to do my thinking for me any
more than I want the corporatocracy to do my thinking for me.
>
> >How about _Brill's Content_ which seemed loaded with ads,
>
> Sorry not impressed. After the first issue, I cancelled my subscription.
Ok. I only looked at one issue and didn't fully read it. That's
on my "to be examined" list. I only happened across it in the
current periodicals in my library.
>
> You do what many of us do: keep looking, and a critical eye on content.
Ok. That's part of a personal project I'm on right now. I've
been looking through the periodicals that my library gets and
writing down the ones that are political/news in nature. Then
I am trying to read many of them to determine which ones are good
or not. Unfortunately, 'In These Times' is not one of them, although
I do have the web address you gave me.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
> > However, it is possible that because of the examples you use they will
> be meaningless to any one particular person -- and so if you want to
>discuss the issues with that person, those experiences CANNOT > be
employed as useful examples in that part of the discussion.
>
> I disagree totally. What you are really asking, demanding is that I
> downgrade my discussion basis to a level of ignorance, to meet the more
> wide-open ignorance in the society (including extra-corporatocratic
> societies).
Gee, where did I ever ask that? I asked NO such thing. What I asked is
that if you are using examples, which are supposed to help in any
individual or group discussion, that you at least use them in the way they
are intended to be used -- as a clarification of your main points. As I
pointed out above, if you are talking to someone, and they don't have the
experience to find the example meaningful, then your example CANNOT be
considered to be a useful example. I'm not saying that you have to
downgrade your DISCUSSION -- just your illustrations.
For example, how would you like it if in one of my posts I used C
pseudo-code to illustrate a point -- and then when you asked me to clarify
it told you to learn C? Would you consider that reasonable?
>
> When we strip away the subterfuge, a lot of this comes down to
> 'knowledge' basis. Do people have the knowledge basis to understand
> where I'm coming from, or not?
Not from what I'VE said, it doesn't. My comment is strictly on supporting
illustration -- if you are going to use examples to clarify your main
points, you had better make them ones that the person you are talking to
understands, or else they are NOT helpful in THAT discussion. And if they
are not helpful, why use them?
Even if you get tonnes of mail from other people saying they understand
you, you have to remember that if you respond to a post I made that you are
primarily responding to me, and so I'M the one who has to understand it.
[stuff snipped; none of these have been raised as examples as of yet and so
the fact that most Americans don't know them is irrelevant]
> This has been a theme in many of my posts, as well as Part 5 ('The
> Educational Adjunct to the Corporatocracy') of the 'Elements' Series.
> Yet you would have me scotch that, and replace it with trivial examples
> that are either of little, or no relevance, merely to appease the mass
> audience's (or what you presume to be)own gaping holes in knowledge.
> (Since most of the issues I bring up are predicated on some basic
> foreknowledge -as Lasch brings up).
Well, let's review, shall we? I pointed out that if you wanted to find
examples that most people could relate to in this particular newsgroup,
then shyness or social interaction examples would seem to be the way to go.
Yet, somehow, shyness issues are now "trivial" and "of little or no
relevance" to your posts. Now, I know this will probably just get you to
go ballistic, but then I have to ask why in the hell you are posting about
these issues here? I'm going to stand up and say to heck with the FAQ, and
to heck with the posting history, and ask what makes you think that issues
that cannot use shyness examples as shyness examples are "of little or no
relevance" to what you are trying to say are relevant to a newsgroup that
is primarily interested in shyness? By your own words, you have condemned
the corporatocracy issues to being irrelevant to this newsgroup, and pay
attention to that really, really closely, because it isn't me, now, that
accusing your topics of not being relevant -- it's you, with your commnts
above that shyness examples would not be relevant to the points you are
making.
No, I'll repeat this one more time: I don't think your points are
irrelevant. I do think the social context can impact shyness. And I also
think that you could easily make links between the so-called "trivial"
issues and your points, to make your examples clearer. However, it seems
right now that you don't think there's any real or direct link between your
posts and shyness, and if I accept your argument then your posts AREN'T
relevant to this newsgroup. Fortunately, I refuse to accept that argument,
but I hope that you will think about this a bit and realize what I'm trying
to point out to you here (and if not I'll try to make it clearer).
One more thing: To people who are shy, and who may be critically shy,
shyness is not "trivial". It is a crucial matter in their lives and in
their attempts to gain some happiness and contentment from life, and in
that case could be far more important than, say, (to pick on Steve) the
price of gasoline. In fact, I'd argue that, here, in this group, shyness
is far more important than the price of gasoline, and your dismissal of it
as "trivial" shows far more ignorance than anything you could ascribe to
us.
>
> Well, I am sorry, but I don't see why I must provide the remedial
> sociology, political, economic education any potential reader may never
> have obtained.
If you want us to understand you, if you want us to learn, and understand,
and be educated, and be interested in the issues, you have to provide a
reasonable amount of information DIRECTLY in order to do so. If all you
want to do is get on a soapbox and lecture and get praise, then you don't
-- but don't be surprised if you only end up preaching to the converted.
>Or limit my discussion spectrum to what readers (like
> you) may have had by way of limited experience, basically diluting my
> own case in the process.
Why would it "dilute" your case? Are you such a poor lecturer that you
allow examples to hurt your arguments? I've always found that more
examples, even "trivial" ones HELP a case, not hurt it.
Now, before you go screaming on about a possible insult here, remember what
we are talking about here. We are not talking about arguments, but about
examples. Your arguments may be as broad and complicated as you wish; I
have no objection. It's your examples that must at least start at an
understandable level for the person you are talking to, or else they are
useless.
>(And we will get to more of where you- a
> non-causal, empiricist-narcissist-solipsist are coming from later).
Oh, dear, I've been branded (despite the fact that I've denied all of these
except empiricist, and I'm not even all that fond of empiricism, actually)
by Daeron. Whatever shall I do ...
For the record, I like David Hume's empiricism in "An Enquiry Concerning
Human Understanding" the best, and he is most certainly a CAUSAL
empiricist.
>
> > If this is the case, the onus is then on you to provide other >
examples or argumentation that better illustrate your point.
>
> Up to a point. But imho *more* onus is on potential readers,particularly
> those such as you- who would enter into discussion on the basis of
> *knowledge* , to bring themselves up to speed.
Nope. Either I can attack your arguments on pure reason or you must
provide the real-world common contexts so that I can discuss them. You
fail to accept either side, which leaves me in the position of either
having to do more research than I should to discuss your argument or to not
discuss your argument. As this is Usenet, the chances of my taking the
latter are fairly high, as opposed to the former.
> "Prevailing social conditions have brought out narcissistic personality
> traits present, to varying degrees, in everyone. A certain protective
> shallowness, a fear of binding committments..an incapacity for loyalty
> or gratitude."
This generalization is clearly incorrect. Just thought you might like to
know, since that means that any arguments based on this idea are also
clearly incorrect.
>
> >Most of us, though, would at least have some knowledge of shyness, no?
>
> Not from many of the ng posts I've seen. Another deficit to be filled.
You have yet to PROVE that ANYONE here has NO knowledge of shyness in any
way, which is what you'd have to do in order to take the negative stance to
my question above.
Ok, that's not fair. You'd have to prove that MOST OF THE PEOPLE here have
no knowledge of shyness in any way, actually.
Since many people here claim to BE shy, this would be difficult.
(And if we ignore that, you have yet to show that your reasons for shyness
are correct and universal, anyway).
>
> > And if you are trying to use examples from a broader
> > picture than the topic of the group, you very much run the risk of >
people not seeing the link between it and the topic, and so lose the >
relevance of your words to not only their own personal experiences but > to
the supposed collective experiences supported by this group.
>
> I think the risk has to be taken, with the additional understanding,
> that I am spurring potential readers (hitherto unaware of these issues)
> to learn/ read about them, in the sources I and others have provided.
With the way you do it, any spurring is mostly done out of spite.
> If
> people aren't prepared to advance their own cause, or make up
> deficiencies in their own education on even the basics (as Lasch)
> notes, there is little I can do for them.
I AM prepared to back up my own causes, yet you reject it on the basis of
"You just don't have the experience", as if not understanding the examples
makes one incapable of understanding the argument, which is false.
>
> > Perhaps starting FROM the limited contexts and then moving to the
> > larger examples will make your points clearer
>
> That has already been done in many posts I've made, and in two extensive
> articles: 'A Bifurcation Theory of Shyness',
I read this one. It didn't seem to help much (especially, I suppose, since
I disagree with it).
>and 'Corporatocracy, False
> Consciousness, and Personal Difference'. Exhaustive examples, starting
> with the limited have been given in each. I see no reason to waste
> bandwidth by continually having to dredge them up when any minimally
> ambitous person can access them.
Are they specific to this particular discussion? If not, then they won't
be much help, since the attempt by the reader to translate them onto this
specific discussion a) may result in mistranslation and so
misunderstandings and b) may fail, leaving them just as confused as they
were before but with more information to be confused about.
>
> > and maybe then fewer people will gripe that your posts are
> > off-topic.
>
> Hardly. There'll always be sorehead purists screaming 'off topic.'
Sigh. And somehow the fact that there'll never be NO ONE screaming
"off-topic" means that we cannot reduce the current number at all (thus
resulting in "fewer people" as I said above).
>
> > I strongly disagree, though, with STARTING from the broader
> > perspective and not addressing the smaller but more universal (here)
>
> But, am I not allowed to assume at least *some* modicum of
> foreknowledge?
A REASONABLE amount, yes. I don't think that you are assuming a reasonable
amount, though.
> Some acquaintance with the existing rudiments of the
> system, even the 5th Amendment?
Where has the 5th Amendment come into this? And since most people, as you
said, don't really understand it, I think your assuming such acquaintance
is false, is it not?
> Must I *educate*, over and over again,
> those deficient? I really think not.
If you want to inform and educate, yes. If you want to lecture, no.
Simple as that.
> I think at some point, the onus is
> on them, to bring themselves up to speed, especially if they debate.
At some point, yes -- but not at the point you think it should be. You use
that point, it seems, to avoid ever having to actually explain what you
mean, and that's too short a point.
>
> > If you are looking for common experiences, I can't see how anyone >
could not have ever had a conversation with someone.
>
> That example was already dealt with in both my extensive articles,
> previously referenced. Why must I consume valuable bandwidth and time,
> re-introducing them, at the expense of specific corporatocracy issues?
Because you introduced it, in this sub-thread, not me. To introduce an
example and then tell me to look it up somewhere else is dishonest. You
introduce the example, you explain it DIRECTLY, if asked to do so.
> > I guess I can tell you to see my above remarks, BUT all I was saying,
> > really, is that because you don't make the obvious links back to >
shyness sometimes people won't see it,
>
> The 'obvious links' are made, but not in the same article(s). Why is it
> expecting too much for those interested to cross-reference articles,
> posts? I do it all the time, in other ngs. (a.c.jfk, sci.phys.research
> alt.politics.economics)
Other than the fact that this newsgroup isn't in the same vein as they are,
you mean? Well, how about the fact that those other articles aren't
directly related to the topic at hand, since they were not written about
the topics under direct discussion? And how about the fact that in order
to do so we'd have to assume your ideas never change, which would hint at a
bit of closed-mindedness?
>
> > most people reading a newsgroup called "alt.support.shyness" will tend
> to assume that if they can't link a series of posts back to shyness >that
it is not relevant to that newsgroup
>
> What about cross-checking? I.e. other posts the author has made? Or, is
> that asking too much?
Well, it is indeed asking too much to expect people to go through all the
posts you've made previously to gather together all relevant and irrelevant
information for any one discussion. You DO post a lot, you know ...
> Must *all* material, relevant examples *always* be
> in the same place, everytime I post? You are saddling me with a burden
> no other poster has.
Nope. I'm saddling you with the same burden I saddle everyone else with.
I'm not asking you to provide it every time, just when you are asked to do
so by someone interested in your point who needs it to understand what you
are talking about. The only other suggestion was that you might want to
use more shyness examples since that would be an easy way to get the common
ground that you were whining about not having. Seems like it's too much
work for you to do to take the one easy step to greater understanding, so
how can you argue that we have to make more effort to gain understanding
when you, clearly, are unwilling to help us at all?
>
> > Now, your posts DO have some relevance to shyness BUT YOU DON'T SHOWIT
>
> I DO SHOW IT! I just don't *continually* show it in the *same* posts,
> articles. B/c the corporacracy itself is so complex, and consumes so
> much explanatory bandwidth, and examples, I deal with that more
> specifically- expecting people (if interested) to get my 'links to
> shyness' elsewhere. If you insist, I can post those other articles more
> often, like I do my a.c.jfk FAQ.
Unless nothing ever changes in your views, and you never tell us anything
new, then they will be dated and the links will become unclear.
[snipped; repetition]
> > Um, what I had actually found conflicted with my personal experience >
was the "shy people are selfish" line of arguments, as I have pointed >
out on several occasions.
>
> Um, I believe I addressed that above, in reference to what Christopher
> Lasch noted (in his book 'The Culture of Narcissism'). In effect, the
> 'prevailing social conditions' (which most shys refuse to become
> conversant with) 'bring out narcissistic personality traits...a certain
> protective shallowness'. This is little different from what Philip
> Zimbardo has already noted, in terms of elemental *self-absorption* and
> 'overwhelming' self consciousness defining the shy person. Read his
> works!(e.g.'Are You Shy?' (Psychology Today, November- December, 1995,
> p35). Clearly 'selfishness', in terms of self absorption, is a large
> factor. One prescription, therefore, is obviously to broaden one's
> perspectives beyond oneself. And I'm offering it!
Um, this is the first time you've suggested that book to me, so why do you
expect me to have read it? I tried to read the other book, but couldn't
find it (and since your response was "I'm not surprised" I have to feel a
little bit like I was given a run-around).
As for selfishness being a large factor, again, I deny that. I disagree
that it is like that in ALL cases. Certainly, in some cases, it is true --
I have never denied that. However, in some cases it is not. You seem to
be arguing that it is true in all cases, and since I deny that I refuse to
accept it. (There are many narcissistic outgoing people, so why are they
differeny? Clearly, this cannot be the sole or even main issue).
And how are you broadening our perspectives beyond ourselves? You don't do
anything to help us see that the numbers you quote are PEOPLE, which is
what we'd need to do to overcome self-absorption, no?
>
> >But if you are TRYING to HELP us understand, it is in your best
>interest to promote familiarity and common examples so that it is >easier
for us to understand.
>
> But not to the extent of doing everything for you! You must take some
> responsibility for expanding your own paramters, purview. And I note you
> snipped my reference to the 'Third Reich' example.
Considering what you've cut from my posts, I don't think you're one to
talk.
> I.e., that one need
> not have been in a concentration camp, to understand it. One can do so
> by *reading* the historical documents, and applying a modicum of
> empathy. (Unless one is hobbled by being a self-absorbed narcissist of
> course!)
Yes, I snipped it. It was irrelevant, and understood, and did not address
my point.
>
> > It makes no sense to try to help me understand by confusing me
> > more <grin>.
>
> I don't.
I'm the judge of whether or not you are confusing me, not you.
> Rather, the lack of a proper experiential (and -or empathic)
> base is responsible for the confusion.
If my experiences can never relate to the issue, the issue cannot relate to
my experience. Why should I care?
> > Why is it not logical for me to trust my own experiences over what
>someone else tells me?
>
> Perhaps b/c they have *more* experience? Perhaps they have a superior
> knowledge base, in the areas you don't? (Though you could check things
> out but don't).
Hmm. So if you tell me the sky is green, I should trust your opinion even
though I can see that the sky is blue?
If I have experienced X, and you tell me that no one experiences X but
instead experiences Y, it is illogical for me to accept that argument.
That is what I mean by trusting my experiences over what you tell me. Now,
if I say I experience X, and you say that someone people experience Y
instead, then I accept that it is possible that some people experience Y
instead of X, but that I don't, or at least have not experienced Y yet.
And then one logical thing to do in such a situation (if I always
experience X and you always experience Y) is to see what the differences
are between our conditions and environments to figure out why that is so,
and thus leading to a greater understanding of life, the universe, and
everything. Blindly believing you doesn't allow for that, nor does
sacrificing personal experience to someone else's.
If you want me to accept the possibility of your words, then I'm already
there. If you want me to accept the certainty, you will not get me there.
>
> >You misunderstand, though. If what you say conflicts with my own >
personal experience, it's not the matter of it being "remote" that's
> > the issue --it's the matter that I am more likely to believe myself
> > than I am to believe any external person.
>
> And that is precisely what I mean by being solipsist.
Is it wrong to trust myself more than any other person? I know myself a
lot better than I know anyone else (and I do not even really know myself).
>
> > And that's logical, since because I know all of my own thought >
processes it is harder for me to lie to myself
>
> Nonsense. People lie to themselves all the time. It's called false
> consciousness. What you're assuming, is that you *can't* lie to
> yourself. But, neurological studies of the temporal lobes show human
> brains are wired for this, to self delusion.
No, actually, I'm assuming that it's harder, not that it is impossible.
In order to lie to myself I have to hide my thought-processes and so can
only do so subconciously. Someone else can lie to me consciously AND
subconsciously, since I'm not telepathic. Who's got the easier job?
>
> > since I can't see the thought process (if you were lying) that says
>"I'm going to spin this lie for him".
>
> No. I say it is simply a false empirical distrust.
You argue that I CAN see that conscious thought process where someone
thinks to themselves, consciously, "Let me spin this lie for him"? Are you
telepathic? Because I'm not, and so have no way to do such a thing.
>
> >You are saying that personal experience is untrustworthy, but what you >
are REALLY arguing is that it is not universal.
>
> It isn't *universal* at the same time. It is in terms of the society.
Nope. No one has the exact same experience wrt society, and society isn't
a person, and so does not have personal experience. What are you trying to
say here? It seems a bit muddled.
>
> > I don't claim that my personal experience is universal, ..However, if >
you tell me something and it contradicts my own personal experience, I > am
very likely to conclude ..that is not the way it is for ME.
>
> Again, pure solipsism. The inability to emerge from a totally
> self-contained frame of reference. Even tho' what I present is fully
> documented. (And *you* are more or less outside the corporatocracy)
I have that ability. My theory is to accept the possibility of anything
until someone tries to tell you it's true, at which point they had better
be able to prove it.
>
> > Now, if I moved to the U.S. it would only be logical for me to realize
> that my circumstances have changed and so that my own personal
>experience may no longer be relevant to the specific situation, and so >
my personal experience may no longer be valid.
>
> Fair enough, but you are trying to deny it for the millions for whom it
> is valid, simply based on *your* lack of that experience.
I am not. I accept the possibility, and may even accept the fact, but see
no NEED to accept the relevance to me. That was all I've been saying.
> >I deny that it does any such thing. Besides, mine is a more empiricist
> >view and solisistic --
>
> Well, here you concede openly you're solipsistic.
I meant "than". If you had read more closely, you would have noticed that
this was a mistake since I had spent most of my time denying that ...
> And indeed, there is
> no mutual exclusion between them. Since no (a priori) relations obtain
> between sense impressions, one is left with 'the solipsism of the
> moment'
This would exclude Locke's "reflection" and Hume's "causation", wouldn't
it? Since they are strongly empiricist, this seems a bit odd.
> >(If you want to learn more about the empiricist philosophical view,
>read Locke, Hume, or Berkeley, in case I'm not being clear here).
>
> I have, and you fit in there perfectly. Acausal sense impressionism, as
> opposed to 'consilience of causal explanation'
You must have missed Hume, then, since the basis of his empiricism IS
causation, and Locke uses reflection to allow us to put together ideas or
even convert them and generalize them.
>
> >But the instant, as I said above, that I accept that the situation may >
be valid for YOU allows me to discuss the U.S. Corporatocracy.
>
> Then - if not solipsist-empiricist, you should have long since accepted.
I did accept that, a long, long time ago (in fact, pretty much the instant
you said it). It may indeed be valid for you, but it is not universal.
You come across as pushing universals. I oppose universals, especially
those that do not apply to me. And the trouble starts.
>
> > However, I may start to feel, with more of these things, that the >
topic isn't really relevant to me as most of the issues don't apply to > my
personal situation.
>
> That is merely narcissistic self-aborption, fueled by the over-abundance
> of images, auditory stimuli - as Lasch notes (above). Plus, lack of
> awareness of the 'prevailing social conditions'.
If you keep telling me that what you are talking about is not relevant to
my personal experience, tell me again why I should think it is?
>
> > But I never said that I would DISMISS your personal experience as not
> being "true" -- just that it is not true from my personal experience.
>
> In other words, you dismiss it in your own frame of reference.
> =Solipsism
I dismiss the applications of not having universal health care to the
Canadian experience, since we have it. I do not dismiss it in the American
context. If you try to apply consequences of not having universal health
care to the Canadian context, I will dismiss it, since it isn't true (we
have universal health care). I will not dismiss it in the American
context, because it is true.
> > However, "checking sources" must mean more than simply reading >
different magazines if you want to increase credibility.
>
> Truth is what we are about, not just 'credibility'. See Lasch's book on
> the difference ('Truth & Credibility' -p. 74). And I am saying checking
> numerous reputable secondary sources - in the absence of originals,
> access thereto, can achieve high QA, approaching truth.
If you are seeking truth, then I maintain my stance on checking sources.
As close as you may claim to come to truth, you cannot claim truth without
certainty -- and you don't have certaintly.
> > but yes, I agree -- my tendency as a HUMAN will be to play up those >
points that support my position and downplay those that damage it.
>
> That's bias. Not the same as solipsism.
And it's human and we all do it. So what?
>
> > And, again, I don't argue that your experience is less "real", but it >
is not, I suppose, relevant to my own experiences and situation.
>
> And hence, 'less real' to YOU. Thus, the solipsist take.
Those are your words, not mine. I don't say it is less real, but that it
is less RELEVANT. The information you gain from your experience may not be
relevant or useful in my life but it is just as real -- at least, to you it
is.
>
> > But I said that your sources likely had a hidden agenda, and asked if >
you thought that only the corporatocracy had the market on hidden >
agendas.
>
> I meant the ones that *matter*. Since profits are far more powerful a
> motive and corrupting force in human affairs, than say...wanting to save
> all the tree frogs. Or, wanting to de-mind control the populace.
>
POWER is the strongest one -- and that's one I could see them having.
> > You said they did because they were only interested in profit. I >
said that there are more hidden agendas than profit.
>
> BUT, they aren't as potent a consideration as profit. (Which has a
> vastly higher potential- as money- to corrupt others, i.e. politicians).
How potent a consideration it is depends on the individual. I, personally,
might be more likely to lie to get a moral code through than to make money.
> > Until one of them decides that they have a clearer vision or get a >
leader who wants more power and decides that being on an equal footing > is
not working.
>
> You don't appreciate that these power games are less likely to apply,
> since no profit motive is driving the agendas.
What profit motive drove feminism -- at least at the start?
> Also, unlike feminism,
> there are no 'inflammatory issues' -or personalities (i.e. C. MackInnon,
> who equates marriage to 'rape' and domination).
There aren't? Really? And never will be? Forgive me if I scoff, but at
the beginning there weren't really any of those either, but they came in
quickly enough.
> > Right now, I suspect that you don't have problems because you aren't >
really unified to one specific cause or fight yet.
>
> Who is 'you'? Me, personally. Or is it a generic reference to all groups
> earlier cited?
The groups, actually.
> >The Corporatocracy is successful because it is ad-hoc --
>
> No, it's successful b/c they're controlling the media machines,spreading
> propaganda, and the people are enveloped in false consciousness of how
> things really work.
>
> > they don't try to pool their resources and don't try to agree with >
each other,
>
> They DO in their shared monopolies and their propaganda. (Which is
> repeated in unison by all their media)
They do so only where convenient; they have no loyalty to each other and
will sacrifice those shared interests when profitable.
> >This is a flaw in reason, though, not personal experience. What reason
>do I have for believing that if the Sun looks like it revolves around >the
Earth that it really does? Well, none, actually.
>
> Well, direct *sense* experience, since that is what you see. We call
> this 'naive realism'.
I suppose so-called because it's ditches reason. There's no logical reason
to claim that there is any link between how the Sun looks to be moving and
how it is.
>
> > However, since it looks that way, it's okay for me to believe it until
> you can show otherwise --but once you do show otherwise, I must accept >
that.
>
> The problem is that my method of 'showing' may be beyond yours to grasp.
> What if they entail some mathematics (i.e. spherical trigonometry) with
> which you're not familiar? You would then simply revert to your personal
> experience, or insist, I 'emulsify' the mathematics until it reduces to
> your level. (By which time we may be down to addition, subtraction etc.
> and no hope of demonstration!)
I'd ask you to show me, actually ...
> > Now, if you claim that I'm not supposed to have these experiences, >you
risk me then dismissing your argument as irrelevant to me.
>
> Ever heard of something called generalization? Or, does that no longer
> apply?
You can only generalize to a universal, which is the problem. If it is
supposed to be universal, but contradicts my own experience, I cannot
generalize it over my own experience, as that would be incorrect.
> >I don't think that's quite accurate, though. Controlling the
>information I receive does not control what I do with it.
>
> It controls how you think of it, which can control what you do with it.
Can, not must. Which was my point.
DAERON
<lots of redundancies -moot dead ends, snipped>
> For example, how would you like it if in one of my posts I used C
> pseudo-code to illustrate a point
Not the same. False analogy.
> Even if you get tonnes of mail from other people saying they understand
> you, you have to remember that if you respond to a post I made that you are
> primarily responding to me, and so I'M the one who has to understand it.
Sorry, but unless you read, broaden your Canadian outlook, I don't think
that's possible. Plus you are hobbled by strong solipsist-empiricist
notions, and the baggage attendant on them. So, when I respond to you, I
am doing more than responding to *you*. I wouldn't consume the time
otherwise.
> Now, I know this will probably just get you to
> go ballistic,
I don't go 'ballistic' that easily, do you?
> but then I have to ask why in the hell you are posting about
> these issues here?
Because, a place was settled for them long before you arrived - believe
it or not. Plus, they define a context for what I call the 'Social Self'
which I've been thru umpteen times, though your solpsist filters have
probably not allowed you to pay proper attention.
>By your own words, you have condemned
> the corporatocracy issues to being irrelevant to this newsgroup,
Errrrm...no. YOu have. By your own inherent solipsism and erroneous
notions of 'empiricism' - which have already been shown to be basedon
ciricular reasoning (cf. Bunge, 'Causality & Modern Science', Dover , p.
88)
> because it isn't me, now, that
> accusing your topics of not being relevant -- it's you, with your commnts
> above that shyness examples would not be relevant to the points you are
> making.
Nice twisting of what I said. Deft, but totally missing the point.
> No, I'll repeat this one more time: I don't think your points are
> irrelevant. I do think the social context can impact shyness. And I also
> think that you could easily make links between the so-called "trivial"
> issues and your points, to make your examples clearer.
And, I said those links are already given in the two articles I
referenced.
> One more thing: To people who are shy, and who may be critically shy,
> shyness is not "trivial".
I never said it was. However, the personal based examples would be by
comparison to a much larger social context. In other words, 'trivial'
(archaic usage = 'commonplace' or 'ordinary') is a relative term.
>In fact, I'd argue that, here, in this group, shyness
> is far more important than the price of gasoline, and your dismissal of it
> as "trivial" shows far more ignorance than anything you could ascribe to
> us.
See above, and do try to de-fuse your 'ballistic' bombast.
> -- but don't be surprised if you only end up preaching to the converted.
I know I'm not. I get new e-mails each day, from other ngs as well,
showing me that new people are opening their eyes to these issues.
>It's your examples that must at least start at an
> understandable level for the person you are talking to, or else they are
> useless.
Multifold examples have been given in the articles previously
referenced.
> For the record, I like David Hume's empiricism in "An Enquiry Concerning
> Human Understanding" the best, and he is most certainly a CAUSAL
> empiricist.
He ISN'T as was pointed out by Bunge (ibid., p. 45), who notes Hume's
reasoning in respect of *disproof*of productive causation' was circular.
(I.e. he presupposed what he set out to prove.).
Hume's problems rested on these assumptions:
a)sense impressions are the sole relata tobe considered-as fits an
*empiricist theory*
b)sense impressions are momentary- unrelated to past or future
c) since the past is no longer actual, it cannot act upon the present-so
every event is a *fresh* entity having no connection to entities in the
past.
A consequence which - if developed -leads to the conclusion the world is
created 'fresh' each instant in some mysterious way.
Bunge goes on to note (ibid.)
"The empiricist reduction of causation to regularity is grounded in the
original sin of empiricism, namely, the *identification* of truth with
its *criterion*, the reduction of the meaning of a proposition to the
mode of its verification."
> Nope. Either I can attack your arguments on pure reason
You can't for the reason there's no such thing in any empiricist
framework. (See above, Bunge's remarks) Since they confuse "the
*identification* of truth with its *criterion*, the reduction of the
meaning of a proposition to the mode of its verification."
>or you must
> provide the real-world common contexts so that I can discuss them.
Your 'real world' apprehensions are predicated on a sense impression
model ungrounded in time, so how can I?
>You
> fail to accept either side, which leaves me in the position of either
> having to do more research than I should
No, only enough to fulfill your end of the exchange, and to get you out
of your solipsist-empiricist cocoon.
> This generalization is clearly incorrect.
Read Lasch's book, and see where he iscoming from before you
peremptively dismiss him.
> You have yet to PROVE that ANYONE here has NO knowledge of shyness in any
> way, which is what you'd have to do in order to take the negative stance to
> my question above.
Look at the deja news archives and the number of misperceptions (in
terms of questions asked) by a number of people there.
> With the way you do it, any spurring is mostly done out of spite.
Not at all, but I do insist on a basis of minimal knowledge, in order to
have an intelligent discussion. I don't believe in basing it on vacuous
Humean 'sense impressions' that aren't even causal.
> I read this one. It didn't seem to help much (especially, I suppose, since
> I disagree with it).
And you disagree with it, because it diverges from your personal
reference filters and sense impressions. You use yourself as one
'exception' to whatever, then generalize that exceptionality to a
general litmus test of reality. Solipsism.
> > But, am I not allowed to assume at least *some* modicum of
> > foreknowledge?
>
> A REASONABLE amount, yes. I don't think that you are assuming a reasonable
> amount, though.
On the contrary, as two recent e-mails (7/2, 7/3) have indicated (from
'JGAuthor' and 'Eliska') that I am giving you way too much leeway, in
terms of knowledge base, and should demand even *more*. However, I think
I'll leave it where it is, without making further demands. This will
also reinforce the reasonability of my expectations, certainly to those
lurkers.
> Where has the 5th Amendment come into this?
A general piece of knowledge, concerning *personal* rights. I.e. if one
doesn't know his rights, how can he exercise them? If a rudimentary
right -like the 5th isn't known, why would we expect a person to know
any any others?
And if they have zippo knowledge, about ANY rights, how would they
conter totalitarian infrastructures like the corporatocracy?
>> I think the onus is on them
> At some point, yes -
Well, I'm glad we do agree on this.
>
> Because you introduced it, in this sub-thread, not me. To introduce an
> example and then tell me to look it up somewhere else is dishonest.
No, not at all. As the two e-mail lurkers have pointed out, it is
eminently fair. Your avoidance by appeals to 'personal filters' and
solipsism is dishonest.
> Other than the fact that this newsgroup isn't in the same vein as they are,
> you mean?
It is -since its denizens are equally subject to the totalitarian and
ruthless excesses of the corporatocracy. Perhaps even moreso.
> Well, how about the fact that those other articles aren't
> directly related to the topic at hand,
But they are related to links of the corporatocracy to shyness-personal
examples, which is one of the issues we're arguing about here.
> And how about the fact that in order
> to do so we'd have to assume your ideas never change, which would hint at a
> bit of closed-mindedness?
Checks of deja news would easily disclose the consistency of my
arguments.
> Well, it is indeed asking too much to expect people to go through all the
> posts you've made previously to gather together all relevant and irrelevant
> information for any one discussion.
It isn't that big a deal. One e-mailer informed me that she could do it
in less than twenty minutes. Found all relevant posts on the issue.
> You DO post a lot, you know ...
Yes, but a little directed strategy, and efficiency of search - can take
care of that, and locate what I am referring to. Others have done it.
(See above).
The point is, I should not have to continually keep re-posting the same
examples, materials. I do have other things to do you know.
>The only other suggestion was that you might want to
> use more shyness examples since that would be an easy way to get the common
> ground that you were whining about not having.
I'm not 'whining' about anything, other than perhaps your entrenched
solipsism, but then I don't think there's any cure for that/
> Um, this is the first time you've suggested that book to me, so why do you
> expect me to have read it?
Hey, you said you *read* my 'Bifurcation of Shyness' article earlier.
Zimbardo's article was referenced therein (in a particularly extensive
section in which his work was referenced). Now, did you *really* read
that 'Bifurcation' article, or were you merely blowing more smoke? I
find it hard to believe you read it, if you missed the Zimbardo
reference- which took up most of the first 60 lines!
> I tried to read the other book, but couldn't
> find it (and since your response was "I'm not surprised" I have to feel a
> little bit like I was given a run-around).
Brother, some nerve. What I did was take the time to post that book's
('Opposing the System's) catalog # from a *discount book dealer* (after
you said you couldn't get it at the library). I even gave the price
($3.95)and the dealer's address in CT/. Now, if you were *really*
interested, you'd have shelled out that pitiful 3.95 to have purchased
the book, instead of making excuses now that I gave you 'the runaround'.
> As for selfishness being a large factor, again, I deny that.
Deny it if you wish, but as Zimbardo (and Lasch) accurately note, when
people are self-absorbed - as most shys are, they will be 'selfish'.
(Meaning overwhelmingly concerned with their self image, etc.)
>(There are many narcissistic outgoing people, so why are they
> differeny? Clearly, this cannot be the sole or even main issue).
Read Lasch's book and find out.
> And how are you broadening our perspectives beyond ourselves? You don't do
> anything to help us see that the numbers you quote are PEOPLE, which is
> what we'd need to do to overcome self-absorption, no?
I provide you with ample books, references, even give the titles,
catalog#'s from my own discount catalog. What else must I do, sit down,
put a bib on you, and spoon feed you? In this cyber-setting, you should
be thankful for that.
> Considering what you've cut from my posts, I don't think you're one to
> talk.
I cut only what I see as redundancies (which also btw, enables me to
type my response in my newsreader, without opening up a new
reply-response field, post).
However, the Third Reich example was critical to your absurd claim that
one had to be able to directly experience a thing, and reason about it,
for it to be 'credible'. Hence, your exclusion of it was a severe
transgression.
> Yes, I snipped it. It was irrelevant, and understood, and did not address
> my point.
No, you snipped it because it *demolished* your point. It showed people
*could learn* and *find truth* from a temporal distance- even if the
self was displaced in time from the experience (i.e. of the
concentration camps, and the 'original sources')Admit you couldn't
handle it, and crapped out.
> If my experiences can never relate to the issue, the issue cannot relate to
> my experience. Why should I care?
Right, so I guess you don't 'care' about those six million gassed in the
concentration camps, then roasted in the ovens at Auschwitz, Birkenau,
Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, etc?
After all, none of those six million 'relate to your personal
experience'.
Now is this solipsism? Yep plus a hefty dose of narcissism.
> If I have experienced X, and you tell me that no one experiences X but
> instead experiences Y, it is illogical for me to accept that argument.
So, like the historical revisionists, you don't accept the validity of
the concentration camps then? You think it's all made up?
> Blindly believing you doesn't allow for that, nor does
> sacrificing personal experience to someone else's.
No one's asking for 'blind belief'. There are such things as books you
know, which as Sagan notes, allow us to 'interrogate the past with high
accuracy'.
> If you want me to accept the possibility of your words, then I'm already
> there. If you want me to accept the certainty, you will not get me there.
How about something radically different, from either 'possibility' or
'certainty' - like *probabilty* ? (The high QA I've been talking about)
>
> Is it wrong to trust myself more than any other person?
Yes, in the issues we're discussing, which are not so much 'yourself',
as a larger entity, of which you've minuscule (relative)experience. So,
it is correct to mistrust a minimal base of experience, relative to a
much larger, longer one.
> In order to lie to myself I have to hide my thought-processes and so can
> only do so subconciously.
But subconscious deceits can translate into conscious inaction, or
erroneous decision.
>
> You argue that I CAN see that conscious thought process where someone
> thinks to themselves, consciously, "Let me spin this lie for him"? Are you
> telepathic? Because I'm not, and so have no way to do such a thing.
Obviously, because you're too solipsist to. But, you see I am able to
use probabilities, and generalize from them. Use something called
induction.
> > It isn't *universal* at the same time. It is in terms of the society.
>
> Nope. No one has the exact same experience wrt society, and society isn't
> a person, and so does not have personal experience. What are you trying to
> say here? It seems a bit muddled.
I am simply saying that- whether one experiences some particular event
or not, relative to other individuals, the fact of sharing the *same*
society itself, makes that experience a 'universal'. (Since if it can
occur to one, it can happen to another, just not at once).
> I have that ability. My theory is to accept the possibility of anything
> until someone tries to tell you it's true, at which point they had better
> be able to prove it.
'Proof' is no longer applicable. In science, we use or apply the goal of
high QA criteria. Of which we try to meet as many as possible. This is
what publishing scientific papers is all about. Be able to provide a
paper -of such quality, that its falsification is extremely difficult.
> This would exclude Locke's "reflection" and Hume's "causation", wouldn't
> it? Since they are strongly empiricist, this seems a bit odd.
See my above citation of Bunge's work, and his critique of Hume, the
circular reasoning.
> You must have missed Hume, then, since the basis of his empiricism IS
> causation,
A FALSE causation, see above. (Bunge's critique)
> You come across as pushing universals. I oppose universals, especially
> those that do not apply to me. And the trouble starts.
The trouble starts because you refuse to accept or think of society
itself as a *ground* of universal experiences (i.e. of the
corporatocracy). You demand 1:1 bijective relation, at once. However, I
am merely requiring people share the same society to have the
*potential* shared experience.
> If you keep telling me that what you are talking about is not relevant to
> my personal experience, tell me again why I should think it is?
I can't because any reason I give will be ab initio rejected by your
personal filters as not relevant!
> If you try to apply consequences of not having universal health
> care to the Canadian context, I will dismiss it, since it isn't true (we
> have universal health care). I will not dismiss it in the American
> context, because it is true.
Then why dismiss other personal experiences, common to the American
experience, and *specifically* to the (American) corporatocracy?
> If you are seeking truth, then I maintain my stance on checking sources.
> As close as you may claim to come to truth, you cannot claim truth without
> certainty -- and you don't have certaintly.
I don't claim that. I claim 'high QA' or probability. In other words an
approach to truth. What is there about *approach* you can't or won't
understand? After all -in science we *approach* truth via successive
approximations. And I already gave the example of the hyperbola. All I'm
saying is that these sources (such as I've used)provide this *approach*.
>
> And it's human and we all do it. So what?
So I'm making the distinction between solipsism and bias.
> > And hence, 'less real' to YOU. Thus, the solipsist take.
>
> Those are your words, not mine. I don't say it is less real, but that it
> is less RELEVANT.
BUT less RELEVANT because LESS REAL. Like those concentration camps.
Now, riddle me this: Do you accept the truth that concentration camps
existed and 6 million were gassed there, or not? And if you do, on what
basis? And, if not, on what basis? And please answer, because I will
hold your feet to the fire on this, no matter how many responses it
takes.
>
> POWER is the strongest one -- and that's one I could see them having.
That's a joke. Any 'power' without money in this country is hollow.
> How potent a consideration it is depends on the individual. I, personally,
> might be more likely to lie to get a moral code through than to make money.
But we're not talking about you personally. And besides, even to get a
'moral code' through (as the Xtian Coalition has found out)requires
tons of money, and inlfuence, especially with the right thinktanks.
> What profit motive drove feminism -- at least at the start?
The profit motives of its individual high priestesses.
Allan Cybulskie
DAERON <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> Allan Cybulskie wrote:
>
> >But in an individualistic society why would we scapegoat any group?
>
> It's easier to exploit, demean them uniformly as categorical victims.
> Hence: blacks, Jews, gays, etc. - can all be more easily targeted
> (particularly by the right). The powerful attacking the powerless, as is
> par for the course. And a *grouped* -categorical scapegoating is always
> more efficient than doing it one by on. And with 'outgroups' labeled -
> the perpetrators can more easily get ahead and grab the spoils, blaming
> the victims as usual for their lack of success.
You are still thinking in a "community" mindset about what I claimed to be
an "individualistic" society. How could there be a "right" in an
individualist society. since an extremely individualistic society would not
place any importance on ANY community? How can you scapegoat blacks when
you don't look on any grouping as having any importance or validity?
THAT'S what extreme individualism is, and that's why you can't scapegoat
groups in it -- the groups have no importance and no meaning. And no one
would join or claim (with any importance) to BE part of ANY group (like the
right) because it's either simply not true or not important.
>
> > group is a collection of individuals in a highly individual society --
>
> which is founded on social Darwinist imperatives, that the 'weaker'
> won't survive. Jews, gays, blacks, etc. are portrayed as 'weaker' hence
> we can pardon ourselves when they don't 'make it' or are persecuted.
In a highly individual society, only individuals are portrayed as weaker,
not groups, because the groups are unimportant or do not exist.
> > If we were communitarian, then it would be a "group winning", which >
leads to wars.
>
> Nonsense. It is in fact *individual* winning, with most of the populace
> disenfranchised, that has always led to wars, civil and world. The elite
> ('individuals')exploiting the few, for their own gain. By contrast, in a
> communitarian or cooperative society, lethal levels of competition would
> be almost unheard of. The society itself would have less hostile people,
> less murders, rapes, the whole nine yards/
You do realize that nationalism is part of a communitarian society, don't
you? And that nationalism leads to many wars? I'm not going to argue that
those wars aren't manipulated by individuals, but if no one felt any
particular loyalty to any country of group how do you start a war? No one
would come unless it personally benefited each of them.
> >Heck, even now we don't have an "everyone go it
> > alone" attitude, really, so your objections aren't that strong.
>
> They are, but as usual your dearth of personal experiences lags far
> behind. You insist on defining reality from within this limited
> (solipsist-empiricist) framework, while I am trying to expand it. Lasch
> - in his book, pointedly notes that the proliferation of the corporate
> media and advertising, in creating a disaffected, alienated populace, is
> largely responsible for this. Along with, imho, good ol' social
> Darwinism, which persists as a sublminal subtext in 99% of human
> interactions.
Is there still welfare? Are charitable works still considered to be a good
thing? Is there still not a major idea in many places that family sticks
together? If so, then my statement stands and my "dearth" of personal
experiences is irrelevant.