A little something to think about in politics

[Craig234]

We often like to point out how - usually other people - are sort of 'tribal' in their politics, with analogies to team sports, how they like to 'score points' against the 'other side' and tend to turn a blind eye to problems with their side. Your side did it, that's -10 for you, our side did it, who cares, and so on.

But let's recognize there's some human nature in this. Look how much we love to have 'sides' in our entertainment, we create them. So you can have 'bad guys' like 'zombies' created just for that purpose, but in top stories, we have it - so we're for 'the federation' against 'the Klingons' or 'the Borg', we're for 'the rebels' against 'the empire', we're for Dorothy against the witches - all made up 'sides' because people like 'sides'.

And in that sense - that it's entertainment, it's enjoyable, to 'cheer for a side', people buy into that in politics as enjoyment also. To 'take a side' and enjoy trying to 'beat' the other side.

The thing is, it's one thing when it's being done as entertainment - here are your good guys, look at the cute ewoks, here are your bad guys, look at darth vader in black and cruel, but quite another when there is an army of paid propagandists giving people sides as propaganda to manipulate them on important political things, handing them 'bad guy pedophile liberals' when it's about scamming trillions of dollars.

It would be good for people to realize there is that army of manipulators playing to people's desire for that sort of 'entertainment' and the high price of their giving them their vote instead of using it for substantive things.

 

[ecofarm]

That's Star Wars apologism. Wars was simple and for the simple-minded. Black and white, good and evil, no doubts and no regrets. A child's story. Trek was nuanced and ethics-based. Pretending they were similar is bs. **** Star Wars.

 

[Simpletruther]

We often like to point out how - usually other people - are sort of 'tribal' in their politics, with analogies to team sports, how they like to 'score points' against the 'other side' and tend to turn a blind eye to problems with their side. Your side did it, that's -10 for you, our side did it, who cares, and so on.

But let's recognize there's some human nature in this. Look how much we love to have 'sides' in our entertainment, we create them. So you can have 'bad guys' like 'zombies' created just for that purpose, but in top stories, we have it - so we're for 'the federation' against 'the Klingons' or 'the Borg', we're for 'the rebels' against 'the empire', we're for Dorothy against the witches - all made up 'sides' because people like 'sides'.

And in that sense - that it's entertainment, it's enjoyable, to 'cheer for a side', people buy into that in politics as enjoyment also. To 'take a side' and enjoy trying to 'beat' the other side.

The thing is, it's one thing when it's being done as entertainment - here are your good guys, look at the cute ewoks, here are your bad guys, look at darth vader in black and cruel, but quite another when there is an army of paid propagandists giving people sides as propaganda to manipulate them on important political things, handing them 'bad guy pedophile liberals' when it's about scamming trillions of dollars.

It would be good for people to realize there is that army of manipulators playing to people's desire for that sort of 'entertainment' and the high price of their giving them their vote instead of using it for substantive things.

Way to find some bad guys for your side to cheer against.

Good propaganda. But not pay grade worthy.

 

[SkyChief]

The Star Trek was more political in its messaging.

in The Wrath of Khan, it is revealed that Mr. Spock was a democratic socialist.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." This is the very essence of how democracy works.

One person has something that the group (collective) wants or needs. So they vote, and the group votes to take the goods/property from the guy who produced/developed it.

Naturally, the man protests the seizure of his property,, but the group tells him "Look, we voted and the group thinks your farm would be more productive if it were divided among everyone. You see, we want to be farmers too. So vacate your farm - we're taking it, and you cannot stop us."

That's why freedom-loving people cringe when we hear the word democracy. This is why the Founding Fathers agreed on a republic vs a pure democracy. They understood human nature, and the desire for the commoners to covet their neighbor's property.

 

[EdwinWillers]

We often like to point out how - usually other people - are sort of 'tribal' in their politics, with analogies to team sports, how they like to 'score points' against the 'other side' and tend to turn a blind eye to problems with their side. Your side did it, that's -10 for you, our side did it, who cares, and so on.

But let's recognize there's some human nature in this. Look how much we love to have 'sides' in our entertainment, we create them. So you can have 'bad guys' like 'zombies' created just for that purpose, but in top stories, we have it - so we're for 'the federation' against 'the Klingons' or 'the Borg', we're for 'the rebels' against 'the empire', we're for Dorothy against the witches - all made up 'sides' because people like 'sides'.

And in that sense - that it's entertainment, it's enjoyable, to 'cheer for a side', people buy into that in politics as enjoyment also. To 'take a side' and enjoy trying to 'beat' the other side.

The thing is, it's one thing when it's being done as entertainment - here are your good guys, look at the cute ewoks, here are your bad guys, look at darth vader in black and cruel, but quite another when there is an army of paid propagandists giving people sides as propaganda to manipulate them on important political things, handing them 'bad guy pedophile liberals' when it's about scamming trillions of dollars.

It would be good for people to realize there is that army of manipulators playing to people's desire for that sort of 'entertainment' and the high price of their giving them their vote instead of using it for substantive things.

I thought about thinking about this, then thought... naaaah.

 

[Michael Cole]

I thought about thinking about this, then thought... naaaah.

Me too. Just a little. I'm thirsty.

Beer speaks. People mumble.

 

[NolanVoyd]

I thought about thinking about this, then thought... naaaah.

That doesn't surprise me.

 

[EdwinWillers]

That doesn't surprise me.

I changed my mind - what's so surprising about that?

Oh but wait, I get it - you actually thought you were reading something else, right?

C'mon, it's ok - two identical and one related words: "thought" "thinking" and "thought" and you imagined there was a witty comeback there you could fashion into an insult didn't you?

Well, silver star anyway for the effort.

 

[Craig234]

The Star Trek was more political in its messaging.

in The Wrath of Khan, it is revealed that Mr. Spock was a democratic socialist.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." This is the very essence of how democracy works.

One person has something that the group (collective) wants or needs. So they vote, and the group votes to take the goods/property from the guy who produced/developed it.

Naturally, the man protests the seizure of his property,, but the group tells him "Look, we voted and the group thinks your farm would be more productive if it were divided among everyone. You see, we want to be farmers too. So vacate your farm - we're taking it, and you cannot stop us."

That's why freedom-loving people cringe when we hear the word democracy. This is why the Founding Fathers agreed on a republic vs a pure democracy. They understood human nature, and the desire for the commoners to covet their neighbor's property.

That's not how democracy works. That's childish Libertarian nonsense.

It's like someone telling you, "Libertarians run all red lights because they think the government can't tell them what to do."

 

[cpwill]

The thing is, it's one thing when it's being done as entertainment - here are your good guys, look at the cute ewoks, here are your bad guys, look at darth vader in black and cruel, but quite another when there is an army of paid propagandists giving people sides as propaganda to manipulate them on important political things, handing them 'bad guy pedophile liberals' when it's about scamming trillions of dollars.

It would be good for people to realize there is that army of manipulators playing to people's desire for that sort of 'entertainment' and the high price of their giving them their vote instead of using it for substantive things.

Good instinct. Who do you think is guilty of this in your Tribe?

 

[SkyChief]

That's not how democracy works. That's childish Libertarian nonsense.

It's like someone telling you, "Libertarians run all red lights because they think the government can't tell them what to do."

Congratulations, Craig. Your argument has been inducted into my Top Ten Lamest Straw-Man Arguments Ever Made.

Good God man.

 

[Craig234]

Congratulations, Craig. Your argument has been inducted into my Top Ten Lamest Straw-Man Arguments Ever Made.

Good God man.

Well, it's appropriate you have a storage place to keep your lame arguments, since you ignored that that wasn't 'my argument', that was showing you an equivalent to YOUR lame argument.

In other words, I'm the one who called it lame, like your argument it responded to, not you. But you didn't even understand *that*. So I'll not waste more time.

 

[SkyChief]

Well, it's appropriate you have a storage place to keep your lame arguments, since you ignored that that wasn't 'my argument', that was showing you an equivalent to YOUR lame argument.

In other words, I'm the one who called it lame, like your argument it responded to, not you. But you didn't even understand *that*. So I'll not waste more time.

You're upset because your straw-man argument did a face-plant.

You offered ZERO argument other the offering this straw man:

That's not how democracy works. That's childish Libertarian nonsense.

It's like someone telling you, "Libertarians run all red lights because they think the government can't tell them what to do."

This is why the Founding Fathers agreed on a republic vs a pure democracy. They understood human nature, and the desire for the commoners to covet their neighbor's property.

Note that I used the term pure democracy. That's exactly how a pure democracy works - the people vote on an issue or policy, and the majority rules - regardless if it is ethical or not. If the majority wants to take something from the minority, and they have the votes, then they TAKE it.

The Founding Fathers understood this and created a republic instead of pure democracy.

Your straw-man "Libertarians run all red lights because they think the government can't tell them what to do." failed. Sorry.