We were keeping our eye on 1984. When the year came and the prophecy didn't, thoughtful Americans sang softly in praise of themselves. the roots of liberal democracy had held. Wherever else the terror had happened, we, at least, had not been visited by Orwellian nightmares. But we had forgotten that alongside Orwell's dark vision, there was another--slightly older, slightly less well known, equally chilling: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing. Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley re marked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us. This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right.
Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman
As I watched the debate last night I thought, "I wonder if everyone else is thinking these two things... '327 million people and these are my two choices.' and, 'How did we get here?' "
Then I recalled what someone had post the other day so I'm going to to repost and hope you guys enjoy.
Seems to me, the next step is to sunder "tweedism" ("the genius theory for destroying democracy") in the US.
Here is how it works from a Harvard professor:
Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig makes the case that our democracy has become corrupt with money, leading to inequality that means only 0.02% of the United States population actually determines who's in power. Lessig says that this fundamental breakdown of the democratic system must be fixed before we will ever be able to address major challenges like climate change, social security, and student debt. This is not the most important problem, it's just the first problem.
Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and founder of Rootstrikers, a network of activists leading the fight against government corruption. He has authored numerous books, including Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Our Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Free Culture, and Remix.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at http://ted.com/tedx
Here is what taught in US Schools:
I know this has been talked about already:
But i couldn't help it. I feel like its all related and part of the same enigma.
"I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually and semantically correct than about being morally right."
I'm not normally "anti-liberal", but when people talk like this, i cant help but think like this:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
It is our duty to put aside our beliefs and desires, our limited scope of understanding and our narrow experience to pursue what is factually correct and harmonious with our ethical and moral beliefs which dictate the spirit of our government.
The conundrum is these two things are not mutually exclusive but literally one can dictate the other. You cannot have a morally aligned conversation without precise, factually and semantically correct because you are then forgoing truth in pursuit of your poorly informed "moral" beliefs. This statement is oxymoronic.
I appreciate Shapiro's perspective and i would like to add another perspective. As you know I've been on a Isabel Paterson (https://fee.org/media/22562/paterson-isabel-godofthemachine.pdf. - pg 96) kick lately. I think this falls under the whole "gender/age/identity fluidity/politics" arguments. I think there are other way to go about getting what you want besides manipulating language. Isabel Patterson below:
But the Marxist terminology reduces verbal expression
to literal nonsense on the basis of fact and usage 5 this is not
obvious gibberish, nor the humorous nonsense which will
sometimes elucidate an intrinsic difficulty of expression or
indicate a gap in knowledge, but arrangements of words according to the rules of grammar, in which each word taken separately has a customary meaning, but which in the given sequence, the sentence, mean nothing at all. For example, let it be said that: "An isosceles triangle is green." The several words are in common use, and as parts of speech they are
placed in proper order 5 but the whole statement is absurd.
That is bad enough, but it would be rather worse if one
spoke of the "roundness of a triangle." The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is like the "roundness of a triangle," a contradiction in terms. It has no meaning. The
theory of "dialectical materialism" is a misuse of terms of
the same type as the statement that an isosceles triangle is
The God of the Machine
... man must impose restraints on himself for the objectives distant in time and needing to be directed in space... His initiative will be wasted unless he also inhibits himself; he must be able to count upon others who participate in the exchange to observe like long-term inhibitions.
^this is what man is, he is initiative and creation itself. For, government cannot create. only man can create.
... there must be and agency to witness long-term contracts and see that they are fulfilled in the absence of either of the parties, or to enforce an agreed penalty in case of default. the appropriate authority for this purpose is therefore delegated to government.
^"this is what government does, and all it can do. It is a prohibitory and expropriative agency."
Great stuff from this guy.
ELI5. There is only 6% death rate on deaths solely attributed to COVID-19?
Comorbidity is way higher.
Hi, new to decentralized social media and social media in general. I chose Mastodon because if its uncensored nature and chose qoto because of its philosophy. Such a fresh take on social media I'm excited to try it out.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
No hate, No censorship. Be kind, be respectful
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.