5 ms·

You've failed to make the case that the government is not a "bad actor". They've used all sorts of manufactured consensus techniques to get us into unjust wars

You've failed to make the case that the government is not a "bad actor". They've used all sorts of manufactured consensus techniques to get us into unjust wars or to give up our liberties (i.e. mass surveillance, lockdowns, etc) for over-blown threats. We aren't going to get education from the government. Open debate and discussion are really the only cure for propaganda.

whoisburbansky 6y ago
Not disagreeing with most of what you're saying here, just wondering if you mean manufactured consent, like the Herman and Chomsky book, not consensus.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Yes, I was referring to Chomsky's "manufactured consent", but I suppose consensus works as well here.
CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago
> Open debate and discussion are really the only cure for propaganda. I think "cure" is too strong a word; certainly it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient. (See: the state of most debate and discussion.) I don't know what would be a cure, or even if that's even possible. Censorship definitely seems to be the wrong approach. Since it's hard to improve what you can't measure, perhaps this attempt to measure censorship will be helpful.
- Clubber 6y ago
  It takes time, but it does cure it. The biggest problem with censorship is it locks a state into conservatism. What is conservative now was liberal 20-50 years ago. When you censor new ideas, you're stuck 20-50 years ago.
- Pokepokalypse 6y ago
  . . . for example: "open debate" will accomplish nothing, if we are continually spending time debating whether or not racism and genocide are immoral. We fought wars over this. I am very much for "free speech" - but at some point, you have to shut certain topics out of reasonable debate, because at the end of the day, if we have to keep debating things like this, we've learned nothing.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    You're not really for free speech if you're arguing that any topic is off limits. Sometimes even playing the devil's advocate for a "bad" topic can be illuminating and can help strengthen and deepen your own understanding of why racism or genocide are immoral.
p1necone 6y ago
What benefit do you think the government gets out of lockdowns? (other than the obvious one of stopping the spread of the pandemic).
- DickingAround 6y ago
  Some people debate the ROI of pandemic controls. Also, not all lockdowns are pandemic lockdowns. There have also been curfews unrelated to the pandemic and in some cases predating it.
- konjin 6y ago
  Mandatory real time tracking of every citizen. Sounds insane? So did the patriot act in the 90s.
  - fantod 6y ago
    Not every lockdown entails tracking of individuals.
    - konjin 6y ago
      And 9/11 would have not been stopped by forcing everyone to take their shoes off before getting on the plane. Yet here we are 20 years later still doing it.
      - Clubber 6y ago
        That was technically done by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. That incident started the shoe thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid One guy later was the underwear bomber. Thank God that didn't take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        Yeah, another 9/11 was basically stopped by adding locked compartments and training the pilots in self-defense techniques, some of which are even armed.
joe_the_user 6y ago
You've failed to make the case that the government is not a "bad actor". I think a close reading of the OP would show they aren't portraying the state with great friendliness. Some run the show for the benefit of powerful forces and to various extents try to think about long term goals. "Bad Actors" is a decent shorthand for group trying also serving the wealthy and themselves but with a destructively short term agenda. The key point the GP makes and I think you're missing is that stop manipulation isn't a matter of removing "tyrants" but creating an active, educated population.
eikenberry 6y ago
I don't think they were trying to make the case that the government wasn't a bad actor. I read it more to mean that they liked it better when they were the only bad actor.

whoisburbansky 6y ago

Not disagreeing with most of what you're saying here, just wondering if you mean manufactured consent, like the Herman and Chomsky book, not consensus.

chrisco255 6y ago
Yes, I was referring to Chomsky's "manufactured consent", but I suppose consensus works as well here.

CrazyPyroLinux 6y ago

> Open debate and discussion are really the only cure for propaganda. I think "cure" is too strong a word; certainly it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient. (See: the state of most debate and discussion.) I don't know what would be a cure, or even if that's even possible. Censorship definitely seems to be the wrong approach. Since it's hard to improve what you can't measure, perhaps this attempt to measure censorship will be helpful.

Clubber 6y ago
It takes time, but it does cure it. The biggest problem with censorship is it locks a state into conservatism. What is conservative now was liberal 20-50 years ago. When you censor new ideas, you're stuck 20-50 years ago.
Pokepokalypse 6y ago
. . . for example: "open debate" will accomplish nothing, if we are continually spending time debating whether or not racism and genocide are immoral. We fought wars over this. I am very much for "free speech" - but at some point, you have to shut certain topics out of reasonable debate, because at the end of the day, if we have to keep debating things like this, we've learned nothing.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  You're not really for free speech if you're arguing that any topic is off limits. Sometimes even playing the devil's advocate for a "bad" topic can be illuminating and can help strengthen and deepen your own understanding of why racism or genocide are immoral.

p1necone 6y ago

What benefit do you think the government gets out of lockdowns? (other than the obvious one of stopping the spread of the pandemic).

DickingAround 6y ago
Some people debate the ROI of pandemic controls. Also, not all lockdowns are pandemic lockdowns. There have also been curfews unrelated to the pandemic and in some cases predating it.
konjin 6y ago
Mandatory real time tracking of every citizen. Sounds insane? So did the patriot act in the 90s.
- fantod 6y ago
  Not every lockdown entails tracking of individuals.
  - konjin 6y ago
    And 9/11 would have not been stopped by forcing everyone to take their shoes off before getting on the plane. Yet here we are 20 years later still doing it.
    - Clubber 6y ago
      That was technically done by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. That incident started the shoe thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid One guy later was the underwear bomber. Thank God that didn't take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar_Farouk_Abdulmutallab
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Yeah, another 9/11 was basically stopped by adding locked compartments and training the pilots in self-defense techniques, some of which are even armed.

joe_the_user 6y ago

You've failed to make the case that the government is not a "bad actor". I think a close reading of the OP would show they aren't portraying the state with great friendliness. Some run the show for the benefit of powerful forces and to various extents try to think about long term goals. "Bad Actors" is a decent shorthand for group trying also serving the wealthy and themselves but with a destructively short term agenda. The key point the GP makes and I think you're missing is that stop manipulation isn't a matter of removing "tyrants" but creating an active, educated population.

eikenberry 6y ago

I don't think they were trying to make the case that the government wasn't a bad actor. I read it more to mean that they liked it better when they were the only bad actor.