>It is completely transparent, to me, that these laws and these tactics, are tools of oppression. They are not "to keep us safe", and never were. They are designed to make dissent as dangerous as possible through every means they can get away with.
It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult.
Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding.
This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
"It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism."
I had an inkling, as I think most people do, even the people who most benefit from the status quo. But, being born white and male into a middle class household granted me a tremendous amount of privilege to avoid ever having to see it too closely, without even trying very hard. Having been exposed to technology at a young age, and encouraged in that pursuit, granted me a near complete lack of need to actually work all that hard to survive. It's easy to believe in a meritocratic society when you believe you're meritorious enough to deserve all the good things that happen to you and to avoid all the bad things being inflicted on others.
Let's just say I've grown as a person over the past few years.
Have you written more at length about this? I often find it incredibly hard to convey these points, and having stories or at least anecdotes that are relatable to people is usually the best tactic.
It's easy to blame the government but the majority of Americans vote for the government they have or none at all. That means they are either happy with it or they're incompetent and should not be allowed to vote. It's easy to blame politicians but really it's the short-sighted self-interested voters who are at fault. If you vote for a party with a history of doing terrible things then you are asking them to do more terrible things.
It's a corrupt system. Both parties have the same attitudes towards fundamental state issues and they collude to prevent any other parties from entering their contest for lobbyist dollars (note the lack of third parties in the televised debates on network television).
You blame me for this fucked up system? Yeah, I'm not carrying that weight.
I worked for years for third party politics. I was a card-carrying member of the LP. Worked for ballot access for both LP and the Green Party. If that's how you want to activate, go do it. I'm done with it. I see the system for what it is: Corrupt.
As long as we have first-past-the-post voting, laws stacked against any third party or independent candidates, and a complicit media, third parties are a pit into which people throw their passions and their energy and their money, with no resulting change.
You do what you gotta do, and I'm gonna do what I gotta do. What I gotta do is help build communities of resistance, and make it as expensive and inconvenient as possible for this shit to keep happening.
That might be true of a Direct Democracy. But an Indirect Democracy insulates politicians from the will of the voters. Votes do little more than bludgeon politicians out of office as a last resort. As long as politicians don't upset voters too much, the two incumbent parties retain power and continue doing as they please (which isn't all that different from each other, since the optimal behavioral strategy is to hug the center of the spectrum). So to some extant, I blame the structure of the government.
But given this situation, I also blame the voters. Polarization is pretty high. Voters readily pledge loyalty to the party line rather than individually consider the pros and cons of each platform's ideas. Voters don't realize that the less precommitted they are to their party, the more pressure they exert over congress. I.e. the less confident politicians are that the same demographics will reelect them, the more likely politicians will actually pay attention to the voters. pg has noticed this, among others.
Unfortunately, zealotry is a tough nut to crack. It's hardwired into human psychology. One can find it in politics, religion, sports, warfare, the dynamics of any group in general. And consciously or not, the parties encourage it (since each party's optimal signalling strategy is to differentiate themselves as much as possible). The media encourages this too, definitely consciously since it feeds their bottom line.
Given Indirect Democracy is here to stay, I think the worst problem is the lobby system. Not only has the power of the voters been diluted, but it's taken a backseat to that of the lobbyists. I'm not saying corporations are conspiratorially colluding to directly control congress, but each corporation's individual bribes certainly incentivizes the government's behavior, and arguably more so than the people's votes.
Not really. The fact that people are individuals who always make decisions at the margins means you can fall into a sort of network effect hysteresis trap. If you have Party X who gives you 20% of what you want and is polling at 49%, Party Y gives you 22% of what you want and is polling at 49%, and Party Z gives you 80% of what you want and is polling at 2%, if you believe the polls are accurate, you have a much larger expected gain from voting for Party Y instead of Party Z.
This is true even if the voter preferences are universal -- if e.g. everyone would get 15%-30% of what they want from X and Y, and 70-90% of what they want from Z.
This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
I believe the odds of activism like this stopping fracking companies is actually very good. Which is why they are being met with police brutality. Suppose fracking protestors can reduce the likelihood of fracking companies to get local land exploitation permits from 95% to 90%, then that is a huge win and will save many wildlife areas.
It may not be "meaningful change" in the large scheme of things, but wins in many small fights compound and leads to bigger changes. Convincing people that they can't make a difference is the most efficient method for suppressing dissent.
Where did you learn this nonsense? I'll grant that calling something like this "terrorism" is over the top but the rest of this rant had me checking for a full moon.
It is quite easy to learn this. Someone with your intellect could do it in a short time:
It is called opening your eyes, cleaning them of the propaganda-rheum and seeing, wide awake the real structure of the world we live in.
I am a white male, totally privileged. Absolutely lucky to be that way by chance. And you know what - I know of this privilege, I did nothing for to earn.
I know, that the system is rigged like in a mobsters casino. And you know what - I believe it sucks real bad.
And people like you make it harder for everyone fighting for change. Or for people turning their backs on this system, robbing it of its support.
So please, do me a favor: Go home and play with your new shiny toys - what ever keeps you asleep in a world, that needs more people being awake and seeing for real.
but how do you know if all those Zeitgeist, Russia TV, and other revelations (Greenpeace) aren't just paid and orchestrated by Russia to destabilize US. I know they are.
How is RT or Zeitgeist (bleurgh) a primary source for any of this? If they aren't, why bring them up? And what does Greenpeace have to do with anything?
Sponsored/funded by KGB/FSB to destabilize US by creating an army of useful idiots.
Zeitgeist is a name to Marxism that doesn't suck. Anything green is left by definition. RT is official Russian Government propaganda channel. All the journalists you see there are FSB agents are have to cooperate with FSB.
At the same time US backed NGO in Russia are banned from receiving any money from the outside world and the Russian media are tightly controlled by Kremlin. There is no "voice of America" in Russia.
Why to fire bullets when soft skills of youth and intelligentsia indoctrination will do? It woke out great for them, hasn't it? We have a president Marxist, perfect product of the same forces in the educational system in the USA.
Just look how US becomes more and more like Russia as the years pass. I.e. oligarchs (the 1%), poor getting poorer, the police state, lack of democracy. The country is being russiaficated and nobody even notices what is the root of the evil. Genius!
I asked why you brought it up in context of the post you replied to, yes.
Are you meaning to say that any and all outrage about totalitarianism is, like anything "left", planted by the KGB, and just a means to subvert the US, so it can be overtaken by totalitarianism? So what is your solution? A better police state to defend liberty?
Comments
It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism. I think that in itself is a more significant indication of how hopeless the situation in America is. It underlines the main reason why serious social change is so difficult.
Put it simply: the government exists to protect the interests of corporations and wealthy people. Dissent of any kind challenges the status quo and therefore must be discouraged and quelled by any means necessary. The rights of "The People" (i.e. the poor) mean jack shit, because The People only exist to make the rich richer. This has been the case since the country's founding.
This is not to say that change is impossible. But, historically, the only time meaningful change has happened is when there was overwhelming social pressure. We aren't talking about petty (and for the most part meaningless) activism here and there. We're talking about social dissent of such magnitude that it threatens to become a revolution. Only in such times has the establishment allowed any sort of concession.
"It is disheartening that you realized this only after getting involved in activism."
I had an inkling, as I think most people do, even the people who most benefit from the status quo. But, being born white and male into a middle class household granted me a tremendous amount of privilege to avoid ever having to see it too closely, without even trying very hard. Having been exposed to technology at a young age, and encouraged in that pursuit, granted me a near complete lack of need to actually work all that hard to survive. It's easy to believe in a meritocratic society when you believe you're meritorious enough to deserve all the good things that happen to you and to avoid all the bad things being inflicted on others.
Let's just say I've grown as a person over the past few years.
Have you written more at length about this? I often find it incredibly hard to convey these points, and having stories or at least anecdotes that are relatable to people is usually the best tactic.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."
It's easy to blame the government but the majority of Americans vote for the government they have or none at all. That means they are either happy with it or they're incompetent and should not be allowed to vote. It's easy to blame politicians but really it's the short-sighted self-interested voters who are at fault. If you vote for a party with a history of doing terrible things then you are asking them to do more terrible things.
It's a corrupt system. Both parties have the same attitudes towards fundamental state issues and they collude to prevent any other parties from entering their contest for lobbyist dollars (note the lack of third parties in the televised debates on network television).
"If you vote for a party with a history of doing terrible things then you are asking them to do more terrible things."
Which of the two parties that can plausibly win elections do you believe does not do terrible things?
The two-party system (backed the winner-take-all vote) has become the ultimate form of regulatory capture.
Their plausibility is a gift from you and everyone like you. Thanks so much for fucking the rest of us over.
You blame me for this fucked up system? Yeah, I'm not carrying that weight.
I worked for years for third party politics. I was a card-carrying member of the LP. Worked for ballot access for both LP and the Green Party. If that's how you want to activate, go do it. I'm done with it. I see the system for what it is: Corrupt.
As long as we have first-past-the-post voting, laws stacked against any third party or independent candidates, and a complicit media, third parties are a pit into which people throw their passions and their energy and their money, with no resulting change.
You do what you gotta do, and I'm gonna do what I gotta do. What I gotta do is help build communities of resistance, and make it as expensive and inconvenient as possible for this shit to keep happening.
Well that's me told :) For what it's worth, I vote every time, never for one of the big two, and I tell people why.
That might be true of a Direct Democracy. But an Indirect Democracy insulates politicians from the will of the voters. Votes do little more than bludgeon politicians out of office as a last resort. As long as politicians don't upset voters too much, the two incumbent parties retain power and continue doing as they please (which isn't all that different from each other, since the optimal behavioral strategy is to hug the center of the spectrum). So to some extant, I blame the structure of the government.
But given this situation, I also blame the voters. Polarization is pretty high. Voters readily pledge loyalty to the party line rather than individually consider the pros and cons of each platform's ideas. Voters don't realize that the less precommitted they are to their party, the more pressure they exert over congress. I.e. the less confident politicians are that the same demographics will reelect them, the more likely politicians will actually pay attention to the voters. pg has noticed this, among others.
Unfortunately, zealotry is a tough nut to crack. It's hardwired into human psychology. One can find it in politics, religion, sports, warfare, the dynamics of any group in general. And consciously or not, the parties encourage it (since each party's optimal signalling strategy is to differentiate themselves as much as possible). The media encourages this too, definitely consciously since it feeds their bottom line.
Given Indirect Democracy is here to stay, I think the worst problem is the lobby system. Not only has the power of the voters been diluted, but it's taken a backseat to that of the lobbyists. I'm not saying corporations are conspiratorially colluding to directly control congress, but each corporation's individual bribes certainly incentivizes the government's behavior, and arguably more so than the people's votes.
Not really. The fact that people are individuals who always make decisions at the margins means you can fall into a sort of network effect hysteresis trap. If you have Party X who gives you 20% of what you want and is polling at 49%, Party Y gives you 22% of what you want and is polling at 49%, and Party Z gives you 80% of what you want and is polling at 2%, if you believe the polls are accurate, you have a much larger expected gain from voting for Party Y instead of Party Z.
This is true even if the voter preferences are universal -- if e.g. everyone would get 15%-30% of what they want from X and Y, and 70-90% of what they want from Z.
I believe the odds of activism like this stopping fracking companies is actually very good. Which is why they are being met with police brutality. Suppose fracking protestors can reduce the likelihood of fracking companies to get local land exploitation permits from 95% to 90%, then that is a huge win and will save many wildlife areas.
It may not be "meaningful change" in the large scheme of things, but wins in many small fights compound and leads to bigger changes. Convincing people that they can't make a difference is the most efficient method for suppressing dissent.
Where did you learn this nonsense? I'll grant that calling something like this "terrorism" is over the top but the rest of this rant had me checking for a full moon.
It is quite easy to learn this. Someone with your intellect could do it in a short time:
It is called opening your eyes, cleaning them of the propaganda-rheum and seeing, wide awake the real structure of the world we live in.
I am a white male, totally privileged. Absolutely lucky to be that way by chance. And you know what - I know of this privilege, I did nothing for to earn.
I know, that the system is rigged like in a mobsters casino. And you know what - I believe it sucks real bad.
And people like you make it harder for everyone fighting for change. Or for people turning their backs on this system, robbing it of its support.
So please, do me a favor: Go home and play with your new shiny toys - what ever keeps you asleep in a world, that needs more people being awake and seeing for real.
Telling someone to wake up and smell the oppression is not going to convince anyone of anything.
but how do you know if all those Zeitgeist, Russia TV, and other revelations (Greenpeace) aren't just paid and orchestrated by Russia to destabilize US. I know they are.
How is RT or Zeitgeist (bleurgh) a primary source for any of this? If they aren't, why bring them up? And what does Greenpeace have to do with anything?
Sponsored/funded by KGB/FSB to destabilize US by creating an army of useful idiots.
Zeitgeist is a name to Marxism that doesn't suck. Anything green is left by definition. RT is official Russian Government propaganda channel. All the journalists you see there are FSB agents are have to cooperate with FSB.
At the same time US backed NGO in Russia are banned from receiving any money from the outside world and the Russian media are tightly controlled by Kremlin. There is no "voice of America" in Russia.
Why to fire bullets when soft skills of youth and intelligentsia indoctrination will do? It woke out great for them, hasn't it? We have a president Marxist, perfect product of the same forces in the educational system in the USA.
Just look how US becomes more and more like Russia as the years pass. I.e. oligarchs (the 1%), poor getting poorer, the police state, lack of democracy. The country is being russiaficated and nobody even notices what is the root of the evil. Genius!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doqvkC-jYk
It's a simple question. The post you replied to didn't even mention Zeitgeist or RT, it's you who equates "opening your eyes" with those.
You asked about RT and Zeitgeist and the reply was about RT and Zeitgeist. Not sure what are you unhappy about now.
I asked why you brought it up in context of the post you replied to, yes.
Are you meaning to say that any and all outrage about totalitarianism is, like anything "left", planted by the KGB, and just a means to subvert the US, so it can be overtaken by totalitarianism? So what is your solution? A better police state to defend liberty?