6 ms·

>but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it. Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. Because of the whole vot

>but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it. Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. Because of the whole voting/paying attention/holding elected officials accountable thing. The Federal Government is representative of our collective ability to do that well, plus our historic ability to do that well I suppose.

ekianjo 10y ago
> Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that Maybe as a nation if you consider that the term makes any sense, but for the most part this has started to happen before most Americans alive today were born. Like always there is not a single date in History where you can pinpoint a decisive moment where the Constitution was destroyed, it's been a progressive and "death by thousands cuts" kind of thing.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I would argue that date was in 1917, when President Wildon founded the Committee on Public Information to sell WWI to Americans. The committee then hired Edward Bernays, who was struck by the ability for war to motivate people, and used his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories on psychoanalysis to contrive ways to get people to do or buy things they normally wouldn't. The stunning success of psychologically tuned propaganda taught generations of political masterminds how to not only rile up the public to make big changes, but to structure society as a disconnected atomized collection of individuals too caught up with their own lives and consumerism to seriously challenge the powers that be. From then on, it becomes easier and easier to circumvent the constitution and even basic ethics because people are less likely to care for longer than a news cycle.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    What about 1861, when the mutual agreement of the Constitution was reinterpreted as an inescapable suicide pact? I don't think there's necessarily a specific turning point - it seems a long line of gradual erosion.
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      It's all about how you read your history. You could just as easily point to the amendments expanding voting rights to men without property, then freed slaves, then women, and so on, as an aberration of the founders' original design. I prefer to look at it through the lens of propaganda because it marked the beginning of an era when big changes in culture and society can be reliably made through subtle manipulation instead of conquest or impassioned public debate.
      - mindslight 10y ago
        What's your constructive result (as opposed to reactive/condemning) of that characterization? To me, propaganda is just a result of mass media, which itself is a result of the longer trend of advancing of communication technology. It's impossible to oppress someone who is not in your "light cone", or to control actions which are below your limit of resolving. In the past things weren't as developed, so it was easier to circumvent a model that was less reflective of reality. But going forward, I feel the quest for individual freedom entirely comes down to information architectures.
        rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Not just mass media. In Bernays' Propaganda, he describes a new process to sell pianos based on psychoanalysis rather than traditional big-print advertisements. Essentially, get leading architects to incorporate "music rooms" into their residential designs. Most architects will follow the greats and add music rooms as well. The average homeowner will then walk into the hardware store someday and notice a piano for sale - another Bernays innovation - and think to themselves that the idea to buy a piano was theirs all along. In fact, this all could have been done before the invention of the radio, maybe even the telegraph. Propaganda itself is neither good nor evil. We must accept that biases and manipulable aspects are a part of all of us. We have to work with them, or ignore them at our peril. One of Bernays' biggest early arguments pro-propaganda was that if the business and political elite don't figure it out now, someone else down the line will, and they'll use it to take you down. We as a species will have to consider this with every generation until Homo sapiens goes extinct.
jnbiche 10y ago
> Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. I'll accept the blame for spending so many years falling for the two-party system. For that I'll take my blame. But for voting for candidates who turned out to be nothing like they presented themselves? Who outright and repeatedly lied during election season? (and here I'm talking about more than just the presidential level) I'm a reasonably intelligent, well-informed, and fairly skeptical citizen. If, in my idealism, I have fallen for political tricksters, then how can I blame my fellow citizens for doing the same? In fact, with respect to the "well-informed" part, it was only when I completely stopped consuming mainstream media news that I was finally able to see through all the bullshit with some clarity. I think most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of our leaders. After all, we don't typically blame the secretary for a corporation's failure, right? In principle, that blame goes to the CEO, and s/he gets booted out.
- webjprgm 10y ago
  Booted out by whom? The board of directors votes. Well, that is We the People who have to vote in this case.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    > Well, that is We the People who have to vote in this case. Well, you go on and boot out the current incumbents, and then vote in the next wave, and see what happens.
    - tracker1 10y ago
      Which is why, for the next decade, I will not vote for any incumbent, or successive seating of a political figure in any office that I vote for... No repeat... no return... I encourage everyone to do the same.. ignore party, and policy... simply don't vote for anyone who's running for re-election for anything, or for that matter looking to seat switch, where term limits are imposed. After a decade, the shakeout from the real source of many of the problems (follow the money) would be in such disarray, that maybe then we can talk about fixing the system.

ekianjo 10y ago

> Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that Maybe as a nation if you consider that the term makes any sense, but for the most part this has started to happen before most Americans alive today were born. Like always there is not a single date in History where you can pinpoint a decisive moment where the Constitution was destroyed, it's been a progressive and "death by thousands cuts" kind of thing.

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
I would argue that date was in 1917, when President Wildon founded the Committee on Public Information to sell WWI to Americans. The committee then hired Edward Bernays, who was struck by the ability for war to motivate people, and used his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories on psychoanalysis to contrive ways to get people to do or buy things they normally wouldn't. The stunning success of psychologically tuned propaganda taught generations of political masterminds how to not only rile up the public to make big changes, but to structure society as a disconnected atomized collection of individuals too caught up with their own lives and consumerism to seriously challenge the powers that be. From then on, it becomes easier and easier to circumvent the constitution and even basic ethics because people are less likely to care for longer than a news cycle.
- mindslight 10y ago
  What about 1861, when the mutual agreement of the Constitution was reinterpreted as an inescapable suicide pact? I don't think there's necessarily a specific turning point - it seems a long line of gradual erosion.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    It's all about how you read your history. You could just as easily point to the amendments expanding voting rights to men without property, then freed slaves, then women, and so on, as an aberration of the founders' original design. I prefer to look at it through the lens of propaganda because it marked the beginning of an era when big changes in culture and society can be reliably made through subtle manipulation instead of conquest or impassioned public debate.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      What's your constructive result (as opposed to reactive/condemning) of that characterization? To me, propaganda is just a result of mass media, which itself is a result of the longer trend of advancing of communication technology. It's impossible to oppress someone who is not in your "light cone", or to control actions which are below your limit of resolving. In the past things weren't as developed, so it was easier to circumvent a model that was less reflective of reality. But going forward, I feel the quest for individual freedom entirely comes down to information architectures.
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Not just mass media. In Bernays' Propaganda, he describes a new process to sell pianos based on psychoanalysis rather than traditional big-print advertisements. Essentially, get leading architects to incorporate "music rooms" into their residential designs. Most architects will follow the greats and add music rooms as well. The average homeowner will then walk into the hardware store someday and notice a piano for sale - another Bernays innovation - and think to themselves that the idea to buy a piano was theirs all along. In fact, this all could have been done before the invention of the radio, maybe even the telegraph. Propaganda itself is neither good nor evil. We must accept that biases and manipulable aspects are a part of all of us. We have to work with them, or ignore them at our peril. One of Bernays' biggest early arguments pro-propaganda was that if the business and political elite don't figure it out now, someone else down the line will, and they'll use it to take you down. We as a species will have to consider this with every generation until Homo sapiens goes extinct.

jnbiche 10y ago

> Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. I'll accept the blame for spending so many years falling for the two-party system. For that I'll take my blame. But for voting for candidates who turned out to be nothing like they presented themselves? Who outright and repeatedly lied during election season? (and here I'm talking about more than just the presidential level) I'm a reasonably intelligent, well-informed, and fairly skeptical citizen. If, in my idealism, I have fallen for political tricksters, then how can I blame my fellow citizens for doing the same? In fact, with respect to the "well-informed" part, it was only when I completely stopped consuming mainstream media news that I was finally able to see through all the bullshit with some clarity. I think most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of our leaders. After all, we don't typically blame the secretary for a corporation's failure, right? In principle, that blame goes to the CEO, and s/he gets booted out.

webjprgm 10y ago
Booted out by whom? The board of directors votes. Well, that is We the People who have to vote in this case.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  > Well, that is We the People who have to vote in this case. Well, you go on and boot out the current incumbents, and then vote in the next wave, and see what happens.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Which is why, for the next decade, I will not vote for any incumbent, or successive seating of a political figure in any office that I vote for... No repeat... no return... I encourage everyone to do the same.. ignore party, and policy... simply don't vote for anyone who's running for re-election for anything, or for that matter looking to seat switch, where term limits are imposed. After a decade, the shakeout from the real source of many of the problems (follow the money) would be in such disarray, that maybe then we can talk about fixing the system.