sorry for spoilerrs if you wanted to join the masons
tpaine posted:intent doesn't matter, only the outcome. whether there's a coherent conspiracy or just a bunch of assholes accidentally bringing about Armageddon, the result in the same: we're fucked. personally, i think it's a blend of conspiracy and shortsightedness, as there's certainly an overarching plan among the elites to protect their fortunes and hegemony, but we'll never know the extent to which it guides their actions. the only thing we can know is the action itself, established as factual in via evidence and reasoning, and the outcome, which is predictable on a grand scale thanks to the social sciences and history.
We agree on this. In fact, we can never be certain when it comes to intentions, even when dealing with well-documented matters of historical fact. This in itself, I claim, is not reason enough not to try.
tpaine posted:the important thing is that we ask everyone, from 'conspiracy theorists' to those doing the supposed conspiring, to explain and justify themselves via a generally agreeable discourse with terms that are common to all people, which importantly excludes those who wish to justify their positions by citing some kind of religious doctrine. this form of rationalization has a lot in common with those who propose some kind of nefarious conspiracy as an explanation for positions and outcomes: it relies on a secret, personal form of knowledge which is not based in evidence or reason and is thus exclusive to its holder and not communicable on a wide scale, except to other true believers. as long as we allow irrational thinking of one stripe, we will not be in a position to decry others for the unavailability of thinking behind their own pet theories.
Let me clear: I have not, in my previous posts, been attempting to propose a strategy for winning hearts and minds. However, this is obviously an important goal. I agree that it would be useless to respond to those who believe the official narrative about Islamic terrorism with shrieks of "BUSH DID 9/11!".
However, I strongly object to the idea that seeing an active western role in al Qaeda requires a cult-like belief in irrational premises. What I advocate requires the opposite: an attempt to detect "deep state" behavior by identifying verifiable patterns of events and common actors. Granted, it is important to avoid seizing upon information that fits a theory when it is not verifiable. For this reason, I have not so far mentioned Sibel Edmonds, whose "Gladio B" claims support my argument almost too conveniently. Outside of a leftist internet forum, even more care would be necessary to discuss these matters in a useful way. Still, I feel it can and should be done.
tpaine posted:the answer is always more mundane, as it isn't angels or demons, nor lizardmen or aliens, nor some shadowy cabal which has somehow evaded detection for decades, that is the problem. it is our own dialectical permissiveness as leftists that has blinded us from the simplest and truest of explanations, that our common avarice and ignorance has prevented us from deviating from a history of the relative same group of power-holders passing their disproportionate wealth down from century to century, with liberalization only obfuscating the method of transmission.
This is very confusing. I am, actually, attempting to illuminate vital aspects of, to use your terms, the obfuscated method of transmission of disproportionate wealth between power-holders..! I am naming names. The people involved do not constitute a cabal, and they're not even that shadowy. I would even go so far as to say I am certain they are not lizards.
tpaine posted:the reality is that there isn't some mythical quality to these people--we are every bit as self-interested as they are and would abuse the exploitable system as much as they would if we were to find ourselves in their shoes. they are just ordinary human beings who have been given control over the lives of others and elected to play with them like a child plays with action figures, and any group of people would either be doing the same thing, apologizing for them (because thinking about issues is difficult and there are easier explanations in mythical narratives) or suffering at their hands. we never held them accountable because we would have to hold ourselves accountable, and this requires us to confront some very discomfiting aspects of ourselves and our nature.
This is a rather strange and blunt argument. The universality of human nature now, is it?
You've advocated confronting irrational beliefs, so you must think there's some hope of a better world. If so, indulge me for a moment: it is the nature of the present system that is the problem. The status quo is maintained only by means of vicious repression of the poor. As for the bourgeois, they need only sufficient disincentive to act. Both are achieved in large part by an absurdly huge police-military-intelligence complex. The myths used to justify it must surely be challenged. Do you suggest a discussion of dialectics?
NoamTrotsky posted:lol at people invoking mark ames criticism of greenwald as being corrupted by taking eBay money, like Ames wouldn't endorse rand paul for a ziplock bag half full of biker crank
This is funny but I went out of my way to work a disclaimer in there.
Since you mention it, though, I want to reiterate that important information frequently arrives via questionable channels, wrapped up in questionable interpretation. For instance, I really enjoyed and found useful Ames' "Meet Charles Koch's Brain". I would not, however, leave him alone with my hypothetical crack pipe and teenage daughter.
tpaine posted:intent doesn't matter, only the outcome. whether there's a coherent conspiracy or just a bunch of assholes accidentally bringing about Armageddon, the result in the same: we're fucked. personally, i think it's a blend of conspiracy and shortsightedness, as there's certainly an overarching plan among the elites to protect their fortunes and hegemony, but we'll never know the extent to which it guides their actions. the only thing we can know is the action itself, established as factual in via evidence and reasoning, and the outcome, which is predictable on a grand scale thanks to the social sciences and history. the important thing is that we ask everyone, from 'conspiracy theorists' to those doing the supposed conspiring, to explain and justify themselves via a generally agreeable discourse with terms that are common to all people, which importantly excludes those who wish to justify their positions by citing some kind of religious doctrine. this form of rationalization has a lot in common with those who propose some kind of nefarious conspiracy as an explanation for positions and outcomes: it relies on a secret, personal form of knowledge which is not based in evidence or reason and is thus exclusive to its holder and not communicable on a wide scale, except to other true believers. as long as we allow irrational thinking of one stripe, we will not be in a position to decry others for the unavailability of thinking behind their own pet theories. the answer is always more mundane, as it isn't angels or demons, nor lizardmen or aliens, nor some shadowy cabal which has somehow evaded detection for decades, that is the problem. it is our own dialectical permissiveness as leftists that has blinded us from the simplest and truest of explanations, that our common avarice and ignorance has prevented us from deviating from a history of the relative same group of power-holders passing their disproportionate wealth down from century to century, with liberalization only obfuscating the method of transmission. the reality is that there isn't some mythical quality to these people--we are every bit as self-interested as they are and would abuse the exploitable system as much as they would if we were to find ourselves in their shoes. they are just ordinary human beings who have been given control over the lives of others and elected to play with them like a child plays with action figures, and any group of people would either be doing the same thing, apologizing for them (because thinking about issues is difficult and there are easier explanations in mythical narratives) or suffering at their hands. we never held them accountable because we would have to hold ourselves accountable, and this requires us to confront some very discomfiting aspects of ourselves and our nature.
post the troophate writing pages
the ISIS is far more sinister. it's a proxy army that can be utilized against counter-hegemonic regimes (Assad's Syria) and disobedient clients (Maliki) that doubles as a convenient bogeyman/casus belli to justify direct intervention (northern Iraq). i guess certain leftists can't comprehend that the US is competent enough to pull all this off and/or that the seemingly chaotic results are desired by the US empire. but it makes sense to me.
NoamTrotsky posted:they are morons barfing out the most inane cliches that would get you laughed out of the politics section of a videogame webcomics messageboard. it's tempting to think that this is because they are spouting low truths for the low. it's not. it's because that's all they got.
furthermore, it is more than what they need. they need to have either no personal political opinion or one that is based around their team being the righteous one and building a worldview around that. they are chosen ones to fill the shoes of those leaving the mortal coil, men that are reliable by necessity and stupid as a bonus. do you think vilerat would ever pull a snowden? probably fucking not
tpaine posted:lol sorry, just trying out some of those new catchphrases. it sounds like we mostly agree, except here:
If so, indulge me for a moment: it is the nature of the present system that is the problem. The status quo is maintained only by means of vicious repression of the poor.
But it's always been this way. It's wrong to assert that it's only the present system because our entire history has been this way, it's just the nature of the oppression that's changed (see: fiefdom/slavery toward liberalism, etc.). i'm not advocating that things can be improved, because they can't. all i'm doing is trying to establish a cause, because all i care about is the truth. it's overwhelmingly likely that we're irreversibly screwed by now. i'm just hoping maybe we have some collective sense enough to write our own epitaph.
the fact that history is hierarchy and opression all the way down doesn't change that we're rich and white and live in a first world country or that life expectancy keeps going up (or was now it's going back down) and violence is decreasing
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population.
etc. the fact that we are currently running out of oil (free energy) which will have to be replaced with labor means that it's likely we are in for a long decline, accompanied by global warming related food/water shortages etc.
but on the balance we aren't slaves, and the argument that the vileness of opression is a constant is laughable. asking people to pick between liberalism and slavery would produce a pretty obvious result.
NoFreeWill posted:asking people to pick between liberalism and slavery would produce a pretty obvious result.
that's a ban
NoFreeWill posted:tpaine posted:lol sorry, just trying out some of those new catchphrases. it sounds like we mostly agree, except here:
If so, indulge me for a moment: it is the nature of the present system that is the problem. The status quo is maintained only by means of vicious repression of the poor.
But it's always been this way. It's wrong to assert that it's only the present system because our entire history has been this way, it's just the nature of the oppression that's changed (see: fiefdom/slavery toward liberalism, etc.). i'm not advocating that things can be improved, because they can't. all i'm doing is trying to establish a cause, because all i care about is the truth. it's overwhelmingly likely that we're irreversibly screwed by now. i'm just hoping maybe we have some collective sense enough to write our own epitaph.the fact that history is hierarchy and opression all the way down doesn't change that we're rich and white and live in a first world country or that life expectancy keeps going up (or was now it's going back down) and violence is decreasing
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population.
etc. the fact that we are currently running out of oil (free energy) which will have to be replaced with labor means that it's likely we are in for a long decline, accompanied by global warming related food/water shortages etc.
but on the balance we aren't slaves, and the argument that the vileness of opression is a constant is laughable. asking people to pick between liberalism and slavery would produce a pretty obvious result.
would you rather be a roman galley slave?
NoFreeWill posted:ok so what's your counter-argument?
roseweird posted:...eventually only the machines, the machines' owners, and the machines' owners' carefully cultured and tamed servants and attendants will exist. don't you see how beautiful the future is...
the removal of living labour from the production process is in principle a good thing and blindly decrying it is at bottom a kind of crypto-feudalism
