next »

[isthisthingon]

Thanks vs - I'm looking forward to it, scariness and all 

[nop_90]

The idea that "technology" brings about evil is primarily a "western" idea.
Just look at all of the "western myths".

When telephones first became standard in USA, the law enforcement tried to get AT&T to agree that it would be legal for them to monitor everyones phone calls at whim. AT&T refused. But just for arguements sake, a telephone is basically a micro-phone. Theoretically the law enforcement could have pushed the issue that every telephone has to have a micro-phone in it, that can be remotely turned on. And that they could monitor all conversations in the house without the occupants knowledge.

In PH the gov't tried to force the cell companies to turn over all SMS message records to aide in catching insurgents. The cell companies refused. They said they will only do this if they have a proper search warrant etc. Possibly the cell phone companies are scared of the insurgents since it is known they are paying for protection. And that if they openly did such things then more cell towers might be blown up.

The filipino is very critical of themselves. So they have special terms. One term they have which i was trying to allude to is "fiesta mentality". Basically a politician who is going to run for office sponsors a whole bunch of fiestas. The people think he is a great guy and then vote for him. Not thinking of the consequences, or what his platform really stands for.

Chomsky great writer/thinker/what ever he is . But you see the terms "hysteria". Basically you use this in order to control the masses.
As perks put it, any fuk wad can create a baby. Well now days any fuk wad who is 18+ and a citizen can vote. But on the other hand if you start making laws on who can or can not make babies, or who can vote and not vote then you basically end up with a totalitarian regime.

I did a search on google. Results for Chomsky ~5.5M
But if you search for, Chomsky solutions only ~420K results
If you examine these results you see things like
"Chomsky implied a significant amount of pessimism in this lecture rather than proposing solutions"
"Chomsky has been criticised even by admirers of his work because he does not offer specific solutions to the evils and abuses he identifies. ..."
"Chomsky is famous for examination of all principles with exception to his own. Fortunately for him he rarely advocates a particular solution"
"Some attendees said Chomsky's presentation confused them because of awkward comparisons and lapses in chronology. "I wish he had provided some solutions ...""

So like many intellectuals he points out what the problem is.
In a sense he is similar to marx. Marx points out there is a problem with capitalism. (At the time it was a very big problem )
He then goes into great detail pointing out all the faults. His solution is a revolution.
But the biggest problem is he did not really specify how things should operate after this revolution.

The solution has to be realitively simple so that the masses can understand.
Hitler for example had very simple solutions. In a nutshell he based his platform on 3 simple points.
1) Problem is capitalism, Socialism is much better with the state running everything.
2) Racial purity / Nationalism is very important. Germans are the best at running things . Majority of problems are caused by jews elimate them.
3) Most people are stupid. Stupid/Weak people should be eliminated. They need a strong leader to tell them what to do. I am that strong leader.
I am not saying that I agree with his "solutions" but they appealed to the people at the time. They where very simple and most people could understand them.

So the point I am trying to to make is.
What is a practical solution to this problem so that "the democracy experiment" does not fail ?

[isthisthingon]

Damn @nop, you sure have lots of words to share about an author you've never read   

You should try reading some of his work before having so many opinions about him   

He's not a revolutionary    He's an author who focuses on linguistics and geopolitics.  He's also an honest, honorable man that represents so many things that this world seriously needs more of - not less.  But I hear Fox "News" is hiring and that kind of logic sells like hotcakes these days 

[vsloathe]

Chomsky is an Anarcho-Syndicalist.

He's incredibly brilliant and also extremely knowledgeable about world politics.

There's really nothing else to say. He's not a politician, he's not a diplomat (even though he frequently goes to places the US has forbidden him to go and speaks to people to whom the US has forbidden him to speak), he's just a very very bright man who has a few salient points to add to nearly any conversation about global politics. You shouldn't really ascribe anything more to him than that. He may have his own opinions, but he's not a demagogue. He is a pretty thoughtful guy, all told. I enjoyed his comments on 9/11 immensely when he was asked whether or not he thought it was an inside job. Leave it to Noam Chomsky to be calm, thoughtful, level-headed, and even-handed with both sides of an issue.

[nop_90]

@isthisthingon
I read a couple of his essays. From what I read of him I agree he is brilliant and all those things. I never meant to imply anything else.
I can not remember the title of the essay. It was basically about how large cooperations in for the last ~90+ years have been working to make schools from a place of learning, to a place where people are molded into good little workers.

@vsloathe
Exactly my point .
This my point.
A really good book to read is "Leadership: “It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear” - Frank Luntz"
A good sumary of the book is here http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ruth-sherman/lip-service/leadership-%E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99s-not-what-you-say-it%E2%80%99s-what-people-hear%E2%80%9D-frank-luntz

In a nutshell Frank Luntz is a spin doctor for "right wing interests". My point is that they have a "plan" (not is the conspirousy sense).
And Luntz describes effective methods to deliever that plan .

If you go back 300+ years. People in the american colonies where complaining about too much British control of the colonies for probably 100+ years till George Washington (ok technically a lot more guys then him) came along. For that matter in all colonies this was a major complaint.

But why Washington was successful is he had a game plan of sorts. They knew what the problem was. How they plan to get rid of the problem. And what they plan to have afterwards. And they put it in action.

Again it does not have to be a "revolution" per say. Ghandi you see the same thing. And his "revolution" was totally pacifistic.
Also in both cases Ghandi and Washington understood thier "audience".
While in other colonies they never had a "game plan" Hence that is why they where not successful.

[quote author=isthisthingon link=topic=1575.msg12564#msg12564 date=1246420He's also an honest, honorable man that represents so many things that this world seriously needs more of - not less.
[/quote]
I agree 100%. But you get what I am trying so say.
In the modern world I am not even sure if a "demagogue" is needed. The demagogue has a nasty tendency to come around and bite you in the ass .
What I am trying to say is what is the game plan ?

[isthisthingon]

What I am trying to say is what is the game plan?

The idea of having to have a game plan or some "solution" in connection with the search for truth and the study of any subject is nice but irrelevant.  Turning your ears on and off to any form of learning based on this premise is a little strange to me.  Understanding the truth of something (not the spin) is it's own important endeavor and precedes meaningful change.  It's like radio waves (and now the Internet) passing into totalitarian regimes and causing great change to occur.  But basing beliefs or placing values on things in proportion to an apparently successful attempt to build a better X or Y is saying that the end justifies the means.

This notion is inextricably tied to conservative ideology.  In case you haven't noticed, I'm not exactly a conservative.  To answer your question though, I think some good ideas have come from the following attempt at developing a sustainable society that's not capitalist and not communist: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com.  The Venus Project is a related attempt to demonstrate the potential for society that's not based on existing socioeconomic structures.

This has nothing to do with Noam Chomsky but personally I think it presents some good ideas.  Check out the free Zeitgeist Addendum 2 documentary if you're interested in some possible answers to your question.  Or just click here to see it on Video Google: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zeitgeist+addendum&hl=en&emb=0&aq=1&oq=zeitgeist#. 

Capitalism is a caste society in a tuxedo - itto

Cheers!

[nop_90]

The engineer asks "how does it work?"
The scientist asks "why does it work?"
The accountant asks "how much does it cost?"
The arts major asks "Would you like fries with that?"


@isthisthingon
I myself am not exactly conservative myself. But on the other hand I am a realist .
At heart I am an anarchist, but I realise that we need laws for example just to make things function.

I do not turn my ears off to any form on knowledge based on a "game plan".
But it is like a medical scientist who studies a disease. Ideally they learn everything about the disease, and the ultimate goal is to be able to cure the disease.
"The end justifies the means" is old fashioned thinking. Again to the medical example. Obviously If he would just kill the patient, well that pretty much solves the disease problem . So obvious you want the patient to be alive an well when you iradicate the disease .

Looked at that Zeitgeist. I will have to study it in-depth. It looks very interesting.
Once think I can say is that the language used on the site is far too advanced for the average joe

Frank Luntz summed it up when he was talking about the democrates complaining about the republicans filibusting (is that a verb ).
They expected all the people to be out raged.
One minor problem, most people did not know what the word filbuster meant

[isthisthingon]

Once think I can say is that the language used on the site is far too advanced for the average joe

The Addendum documentary is real easy though and it's a nice collection of info - IMO.  Hope it's interesting for you

[vsloathe]

"The end justifies the means" e.g. the teleological suspension of the ethical

I've always loved that one.