4 ms·

Stories can be true. But I could just as easily say that a rise in unfettered capitalism led to a loss of public good research combined with regulatory capture

Stories can be true. But I could just as easily say that a rise in unfettered capitalism led to a loss of public good research combined with regulatory capture and large corporations pushing against any research that disagreed with them. Then there was the rise of corporate media which further eroded public inquiry to ensure that the large corporations could maintain their control over narratives. This control by the corporate media necessarily required that the viewers be trained to follow directions rather than promoting curiosity. What I said above is true also, but does not say anything about religion. So how can you say that the reason for loss of rationality is caused by the group you mention, rather than the expansion of capitalism as I have mentioned? My point is that we can say something that is definitely true but that does not prove it is the primary cause. Proving something is the primary cause in a complex system is extremely difficult.

unity1001 4y ago
> But I could just as easily say that a rise in unfettered capitalism led to a loss of public good research combined with regulatory captur These are the very lot who pushed all the deregulations and created the movement to go back to 19th century capitalism by dismantling what little social democracy the US had. So if you approach it from that angle, they again come up as the source of the problem. Of course, the mechanics of the phenomenon are self-reinforcing: This religious lot deregulating capitalism causes more poverty, and poverty pushes more people to the arms of religious sects like them for support and aid.
- TaylorAlexander 4y ago
  Sure, I agree with all that. But what I’m saying is that there are so many factors that all contribute to the problem, that you might be able to say certain factors were more influential than others, but I don’t think it’s really correct to point at one factor and say “this is the cause”.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > But what I’m saying is that there are so many factors that all contribute to the problem This kind of overcomplicating the problem makes finding the solution more difficult. Regardless of many smaller factions converging in different major groups in the US, the general, society-wide dynamics follow a given pattern. This pattern is exactly the same with the religious sects or far-right nationalist cliques taking over societies that suffer from extreme inequality and strong influence of religion. In fact, I would suggest to simplyf the picture even further: The mid 19th century dynamics in which the anti-intellectual, religious lot that populated the middle parts of the country, the east coast, 'old money' type aristocrats dominated the eastern part, and the nascent Californian West that wasnt able to put itself to somewhere in that spectrum, still are the major factions that collide with each other in the US. Birchers started the movement to roll back the scientific, enlightenment ideals and left wing egalitarianism that got strengthened due to the scientific revolution and the popular movements succeeding in pushing left wing social and economic policies after World War II. It grew into Reaganites. Then when it was losing steam, its spearhead morphed into Tea Partiers and then Trumpers.

unity1001 4y ago

> But I could just as easily say that a rise in unfettered capitalism led to a loss of public good research combined with regulatory captur These are the very lot who pushed all the deregulations and created the movement to go back to 19th century capitalism by dismantling what little social democracy the US had. So if you approach it from that angle, they again come up as the source of the problem. Of course, the mechanics of the phenomenon are self-reinforcing: This religious lot deregulating capitalism causes more poverty, and poverty pushes more people to the arms of religious sects like them for support and aid.

TaylorAlexander 4y ago
Sure, I agree with all that. But what I’m saying is that there are so many factors that all contribute to the problem, that you might be able to say certain factors were more influential than others, but I don’t think it’s really correct to point at one factor and say “this is the cause”.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > But what I’m saying is that there are so many factors that all contribute to the problem This kind of overcomplicating the problem makes finding the solution more difficult. Regardless of many smaller factions converging in different major groups in the US, the general, society-wide dynamics follow a given pattern. This pattern is exactly the same with the religious sects or far-right nationalist cliques taking over societies that suffer from extreme inequality and strong influence of religion. In fact, I would suggest to simplyf the picture even further: The mid 19th century dynamics in which the anti-intellectual, religious lot that populated the middle parts of the country, the east coast, 'old money' type aristocrats dominated the eastern part, and the nascent Californian West that wasnt able to put itself to somewhere in that spectrum, still are the major factions that collide with each other in the US. Birchers started the movement to roll back the scientific, enlightenment ideals and left wing egalitarianism that got strengthened due to the scientific revolution and the popular movements succeeding in pushing left wing social and economic policies after World War II. It grew into Reaganites. Then when it was losing steam, its spearhead morphed into Tea Partiers and then Trumpers.