Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

MilanPan!c

There's very little mainstream interest in extreme positions, relative to the norm.

Which is why dramatic change most frequently comes either at the end of a gun or after a disaster.

The masses, and not just because of brainwashing - ahem - resist change, because they're in their lives, with their families, and have a lot to lose, with no guarantees of a dramatically better future on the other side of any extreme upheaval.

This is of course very obvious.

So, most reasonable people try and change the quality of their government, not the form.

Of course, we're at a pretty dramatic point in the evolution of our societies. And inequality is becoming a big issue. So. Things will change, but probably not due to a huge structural shift of mass awakening/engagement.

Eramen

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The masses, and not just because of brainwashing - ahem - resist change, because they're in their lives, with their families, and have a lot to lose, with no guarantees of a dramatically better future on the other side of any extreme upheaval.

This is of course very obvious.

So, most reasonable people try and change the quality of their government, not the form.

Of course, we're at a pretty dramatic point in the evolution of our societies. And inequality is becoming a big issue. So. Things will change, but probably not due to a huge structural shift of mass awakening/engagement.

You're very correct when you say that there will not be a change in political power. There is an economic and political hierarchy embedded at the top of society and global affairs, and it will not be easily shifted, especially as it's accepted in the eyes of most. This is the way it's always been, certainly in the modern era.

This is the source of 'inequality' - but this situation only exists because of nature. People are by their very character, talents and proficiencies diverse, unequal, different and modern civiliasation with its materialism and scientific bias has accentuated this, furthering inequality. In the past religious/philosophical ethics or some other moral principle shortened the gaps between groups of people, but no longer.

Through better technology the people at the lower end society are becoming disposable. It's expected that this will only accelerate over time, including an ever-growing mass of people. The 'fight for equality' is just another false front, as is the fight for democracy. Usually this just means increased state welfare [in return for the abdication of their rights] for those concerned.

Bertrand Russell summed the situation up very well:

"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."

“The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated.Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”


Thus at this point in time, amid huge economic and financial ruin, people are endorsing or opposing things like homosexual marriage, the validity of the Senate, bashing the person who they feeling threatened by based on their sub-culture, whether it be hipsters, liberal, conservative, atheist, fundie, capitalism etc.. Everyone one of them have missed what's going on. Massive interregnum seems very distant, and any nation who opposes the current order is crushed (usually to the glee of the masses)


The only question know for each one of us now is: are we part of the rulers or the ruled?

Or - we could reduce our reliance on the state, giant corporations, official systems, buying and selling that includes levies, to the point in our lives where they become more and more irrelevant to us. By doing this collectively people may reverse the growth of the ruling class and regain personal sovereignty. Though at present, people act in the opposite way, increasing the power of the rulers. Russell's observations appear ,on the surface at least, to be right.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You have such little faith in the general public, don't you?

See above.

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

See above.

Your basic facts are wrong, the conclusions you draw are unrelated to the facts you appear deploy to support them. But that hardly matters since they're wrong too. And your broad brush strokes are wrong. At every perceivable level, your post is wrong:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

Eramen

robindch wrote: »

Your basic facts are wrong, the conclusions you draw are unrelated to the facts you appear deploy to support them. But that hardly matters since they're wrong too. And your broad brush strokes are wrong. At every perceivable level, your post is wrong:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

- People have natural inequalities, human society is but a reflection of this, with people varying in class, culture, intelligence, attractiveness, genetics, talent, education and much more.

- Technology reduces the need for human labour. People have historically more free time than ever. Unfortunately this can also increase unemployment as efficiencies increase.

- The media is plays a pivotal role in forming political and mass opinion, moreso than it ever has due to increased literacy rates and proliferating platforms and technology with which to engage in media activity. As a result most people's opinions are shaped by it.

The above are the pillars of human society and their effects are readily observable to an intuitive mind. I'm taking it you're approaching this subject from a pronounced ideological progressivist angle, as do most 'atheists'? As for the scientific positing - it's a simply a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Read some Bertrand Russell, he's an excellent fellow (I'm assuming you only quote him on religion and ignore the rest?). Also 'The Crowd' - Gustave Le Bon

BuilderPlumber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

There's very little mainstream interest in extreme positions, relative to the norm.

Which is why dramatic change most frequently comes either at the end of a gun or after a disaster.

This is very true. War, terrorism, the ill health of key individuals and societies where guns are widely available are 99% of the time the key to extremists takeover. Looking at some of the extremist regimes to take root in the recent past:

Stalinist Russia (early USSR): The Czar's excesses and outbursts of ruthless cruelty did little to make him popular with the Russian people. However, his regime would not have collapsed as quickly only for WW1. Even after the ousting of the Czar, civil war, the poor health of Lenin, Lenin's death and Stalin's rise/execution of Trotsky all radicalised the regime. The rise of another dictator in a neighbouring country of course further radicalised an already paranoid Stalin. Without all these events, would Stalinist style communism have not only succeeded but succeeded as a superpower?

Nazi Germany: The rise of Hitler has its roots in a combination of the desires of Bismarch and the Kaiser plus a poorly treated post-WW1 Germany. Hitler rose to challenge the victors of WW1 and gained enormous support in Germany as well as Austria. Other client Nazi states came into being as well, all mostly ex-Hapsburg lands. All had a common enemy, the victors of WW2. Of course, Hitler's bitterness and personal depression did not help either but they drove him forward. Would Hitler have experienced such a depressed early life and would Germany have been receptive to his views if WW1 did not happen or Germany won it? Doubtfully. As Hitler rose up, the regime around him (often reliant on ex criminals and dodgy big businessmen) saw communism and Stalin as the main enemy and wrongly considered Jews (who were in reality as cruelly treated by Stalin as by Hitler) as Stalin communist agents. Hitler's paranoia lead to mass killings of Jews and other suspected communists. The regime's ego thought it could win a war against the UK and Russia at once. As the war wore on, the regime got more and more cruel. If war had not happened, Hitler would have probably been remembered by few in Vienna as a minor artist prone to long periods of depression and a life in and out of mental hospitals. His death by suicide ironically may have happened anyway.

Kim lead North Korea: WW2 was also the godsend to another dictator, Kim Il Sung. He lead resistence against the Japanese and eventually won support from Stalin as a leader of the Soviet backed part of Korea. Soon, he set up his own communist regime. His paranoia developed radically when he fell out with the USSR (post Stalin) and to a degree China. His isolationist tendencies lead to Juche. If anything, his brandy guzzling son Kim Jong Il and current leader Kim Jong Un are even worse and more paranoid as all support from other countries is gone. North Korea remains the only dictatorship of its kind around today.

Khmer Rouge ruled Kampuchea (Cambodia): Probably the worst regime ever, the aftermath of the Vietnam war lead to Pol Pot and his band of very young, uneducated peasants attaining power. To Pol Pot, Cambodia was just an experiment: something in his head to see if a country could survive without cities. A mad culchie? A joke you may think? But, not when it meant every man, woman and child was a slave, were rationed 1 bowl of rice a day, died from disease, starvation and exhaustion and where Pol Pot himself lived it up. Even the Nazis did not do this to everyone. Support secretly from America and China to counter the Vietnamese communists is the main reason why the KR got guns and gained power. Without the Vietnam war, they would unlikely have taken power.

1979 Iran: while the Khmer Rouge regime was not equalled anywhere else, several tried to copy it and the peasants who took control of Iran in 1979 were among the first religious KR imitators. Uniquely here, there was no real reason for why the Shah threw in the towel (yes, he was dying but he could have passed it on to his son Reza Pahlavi? Only guess is he did not get along with his children and not only crown prince Reza?). But, he literally got on a plane and let the Revolutionary Guards take control. Khmer Rouge style forcing of people to cover up and not drink alcohol in public came to a bewildered Tehran. Moderate elements of the government tried to control the thugs but a hostage crisis, a war with Iraq and a sick Ayatollah Khomeini all worked in favour for the Revolutionary Guards' tyrannical grip on Iran. The regime leads Iran to this day but hope is on a more moderate president who is now at the helm. Would the Revolutionary Guards have seized power in Iran? Yes, they did without a war. Would they have been able to consolidate power for longer than at most 1 year let alone 30+ if there was no Iran-Iraq war? No, or not in their very repressive 1980s form.

Taliban Afghanistan: Final example. Like the RGs and KR, the Taliban's main idea was to force their own ideas and culture on a people during a war period. While far worse than RG lead Iran, they stopped well short of KR Cambodia. Still, the Taliban lead Afghanistan was probably the second worst regime of the post WW2 era after KR (with perhaps Kim's North Korea vying for that position too). Also, like the KR, the Taliban did not last, running fowl of GW Bush and his war machine. Again, the Taliban rose to power because of war but in a slightly different way: by 1994-96 when the Taliban took over, Afghanistan was in a virtual state of war since the late 1970s. Civil war, war with the Russians, more civil war was the history, along with corrupt warlords stealing from the people. Afghans saw the Taliban as not corrupt and welcomed them and their promise to end the war and stamp out corruption. But, the Taliban imposed their 'peace' with a price: all other Mujahedin organisations and their supporters were brutally killed (crucified, stoned, machine gunned to death, beheaded), and brutal restrictions on what people could dress in, eat, drink, play, etc. were introduced. War continued in the North of the country, the killing of Iranian diplomats by Taliban in 1998 almost caused a war with Iran, and alleged support for al Qaeda brought it into a collision course with the rest of the world post 9/11. To this day, they still control parts of Afghanistan although were ousted by the unlikely alliance of the US, other Western nations, Iran and the Afghan rebel Northern Alliance from power in 2001.

Absolam

Has A&A just metamorphosed into CT?

robindch

Absolam wrote: »

Has A&A just metamorphosed into CT?

There will be firm and final action if there is any serious sign that this is going to happen.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

Your basic facts are wrong, the conclusions you draw are unrelated to the facts you appear deploy to support them. But that hardly matters since they're wrong too. And your broad brush strokes are wrong. At every perceivable level, your post is wrong:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

I preferred him when he went on about the evils of masturbation, which is saying something.

Eramen

Nodin wrote: »

I preferred him when he went on about the evils of masturbation, which is saying something.

Hey Noddy, I see you're still about. I'm glad to see that my views have had such profound effects on you. But just one thing, masturbation is not evil, rather it's just a waste of time and effort, especially considering the porn/self-sex culture made possible with high-speed internet.

I don't think in terms of 'satans' and 'evils', there's enough of this malarky on AA.

Pherekydes

Eramen wrote: »

But just one thing, masturbation is not evil, rather it's just a waste of time and effort...

I'm baffled. Why would it be considered a waste of time and effort?

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

[...] masturbation is not evil, rather it's just a waste of time and effort [...]

You're doing it wrong.

Eramen

robindch wrote: »

You're doing it wrong.

My lady is from Minsk, so I couldn't be doing it half-bad

However this is the caliber of commentary I've grown accustomed to from the bearded 'atheist' gaimer and AA in general. Much ego-stroking, mutual back-patting and vainglorious thanking.

This is why your brand of atheism is in demographic decline worldwide.. 1.8% of world pop by 2030.

But 4 srsly, look into online porn and chronic masturbation addiction. Huge social/sexual problem these days. Plenty of forthcoming research on it too.

Delirium

Eramen wrote: »

My lady is from Minsk, so I couldn't be doing it half-bad

However this is the caliber of commentary I've grown accustomed to from the bearded 'atheist' gaimer and AA in general. Much ego-stroking, mutual back-patting and vainglorious thanking.

This is why your brand of atheism is in demographic decline worldwide.. 1.8% of world pop by 2030.

But 4 srsly, look into online porn and chronic masturbation addiction. Huge social/sexual problem these days. Plenty of forthcoming research on it too.

looks like you're not so adverse to masturbation after all.

Eramen

SW wrote: »

looks like you're not so adverse to masturbation after all.

I think you're going to have to read my comment carefully again. Anyway, probably best not to worry about it.

I wasn't the one who brought up this topic, it's not me who feels the need to muffle/attack/offer false pretense against people who are here to discuss the state of American/Irish politics. I'm not insecure about where I stand on things. Other people, stating their opinions, even if they are contrary to mine, do not offend me. I'm aware AA is not like this..

Everyone knows 'dat atheist' guy, young enough, white, culturally undermined, possible gamer, constantly bashes all social institutions, including religion. In nearly every case it's the same. He's that way because he can't get any (via his own inverted attitude), therefore has no attachment or investment to society.

It may not be what you observe, but it happens to be what I have seen around me concerning Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists'.

Nodin

Eramen wrote: »

I think you're going to have to read my comment carefully again. Anyway, probably best not to worry about it.

I wasn't the one who brought up this topic, it's not me who feels the need to muffle/attack/offer false pretense against people who are here to discuss the state of American/Irish politics. I'm not insecure about where I stand on things.

Everyone knows 'dat atheist' guy, young enough, white, culturally undermined, possible gamer, constantly bashes all social institutions, including religion. In nearly every case it's the same. He's that way because he can't get any (via his own inverted attitude), therefore has no attachment or investment to society.

It may not be what you observe, but it happens to be what I have seen around me concerning Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists'.

Wow, your perception truly sees us all as we really are. That clear sightedness must be a result of not pulling your plum.

Delirium

Eramen wrote: »

I think you're going to have to read my comment carefully again. Anyway, probably best not to worry about it.

I wasn't the one who brought up this topic, it's not me who feels the need to muffle/attack/offer false pretense against people who are here to discuss the state of American/Irish politics. I'm not insecure about where I stand on things. Other people, stating their opinions, even if they are contrary to mine, do not offend me. I'm aware AA is not like this..

Everyone knows 'dat atheist' guy, young enough, white, culturally undermined, possible gamer, constantly bashes all social institutions, including religion. In nearly every case it's the same. He's that way because he can't get any (via his own inverted attitude), therefore has no attachment or investment to society.

It may not be what you observe, but it happens to be what I have seen around me concerning Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists'.

so you're attacking one caricature with another. You're guilty of that you accuse others of.

Eramen

SW wrote: »

so you're attacking one caricature with another. You're guilty of that you accuse others of.

Often times some caricatures contain more truth than falsehood.

Anyway lads, go outside - look up. A beautiful clear night. Enjoy it for a few if you can, and be sure to revel in the 'science' of it all.

You can even whip your telescope out to it if you want.

PopePalpatine

Eramen wrote: »

This is why your brand of atheism is in demographic decline worldwide.. 1.8% of world pop by 2030.

Do you have a source for that?

Absolam

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?

Divine revelation, crystal ball, demon inna box... can there be any credible source for a definitive prediction of what people will believe in 16 years time?

pauldla

Eramen wrote: »

...

Everyone knows 'dat atheist' guy, young enough, white, culturally undermined, possible gamer, constantly bashes all social institutions, including religion. In nearly every case it's the same. He's that way because he can't get any (via his own inverted attitude), therefore has no attachment or investment to society.

It may not be what you observe, but it happens to be what I have seen around me concerning Dick Dawkins brand 'atheists'.

Theists get all the babes.

Absolam

pauldla wrote: »

Theists get all the babes.

The ultimate you can have the cake but you can't eat it?

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

The ultimate you can have the cake but you can't eat it?

The cake is for the next life. Some get 72 cakes.

Absolam

For athiests, there is no cake.

pauldla

Absolam wrote: »

For athiests, there is no cake.

We bake our own, or so it is alleged. With babies.

Pherekydes

Eramen wrote: »

But 4 srsly, look into online porn and chronic masturbation addiction. Huge social/sexual problem these days. Plenty of forthcoming research on it too.

What's "chronic masturbation"? Is all masturbation chronic? What's online porn got to do with masturbation? Did people not masturbate before the internet?

Oh yeah and:

Why is it a waste of time and effort?

robindch

Eramen wrote: »

But 4 srsly, look into online porn and chronic masturbation addiction. Huge social/sexual problem these days. Plenty of forthcoming research on it too.

Do you have much first-hand experience of the issue?

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

Do you have much first-hand experience of the issue?

To be fair, much of it may be second-handed.

wp_rathead

Eramen wrote: »

You can even whip your telescope out to it if you want.

You lil minx you

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

For athiests, there is no cake.

That's because we're too busy fighting either GLaDOS or Janeway.

joseph brand

Eramen wrote: »

My lady is from Minsk, so I couldn't be doing it half-bad

However this is the caliber of commentary I've grown accustomed to from the bearded 'atheist' gaimer and AA in general. Much ego-stroking, mutual back-patting and vainglorious thanking.

This is why your brand of atheism is in demographic decline worldwide.. 1.8% of world pop by 2030.

But 4 srsly, look into online porn and chronic masturbation addiction. Huge social/sexual problem these days. Plenty of forthcoming research on it too.

Stop reading the Daily Mail. A paper which likes to scaremonger it's aged readers with stories of violent video games turning our children into serial killers. "Won't someone think of the children." It also runs articles on how the brown and black people are sneaking in and stealing everyone's jobs. Oh yeah, they have full page spreads on the 'evidence' of miracles, and the depressing misery that is an atheist's life. The apparent wrongness of atheism usually warrants a chuckle, a finger point and a "Ha Ha" from my parents. "Dickie Dawkins and all those non-believing scientists are all idiots." I despair.


My parents read it religiously and have 'challenged' me on these topics. I use the word challenged lightly, since there's no real difficulty in pointing out the stupidity of Daily Mail articles. T'is a silly paper.