2 ms·

> “the system” doesn’t want you to know that’s how to change it I think even your own quotation marks show that "the system" is a weak concept. You can't think

> “the system” doesn’t want you to know that’s how to change it I think even your own quotation marks show that "the system" is a weak concept. You can't think of things as a "system" or "matrix" (if you're a right wing conspiracist) or "society" (if you're a left wing one) causing every ill.

happytiger 3y ago
I think of it as a military industrial complex with global financial elite through very effective public / private partnerships that seems to move towards constant war while espousing the need for peace, claim to support sustainability while owning and promoting the interests of the most deeply exploitive efforts and companies, espouse the reduction of income inequality even while they work against the economic interests of the majority to enrich themselves, and generally do so fairly consistently at every turn. How do you see the world? Is that vision of the current system particularly political, because I would consider it fairly objectivist based on my observations. The dominant paradigm is a system no matter what political ideology you use to interpret it. There is objectivism in “the system” as a nomenclature that shouldn’t be confused by one country’s domestic political paralysis. The assumption of every ill is a rather presumptuous broadening of what is obviously a rhetorical analysis. And remember that rhetoric is always intended to persuade so no term I write can be written without touching on the prior feelings you have based on your own rhetorical training. But that doesn’t eliminate objective reality: we need to account for it in our conversations. It isn’t healthy for a society to ignore the existence of governing bodies and their influences, whether you call them a matrix, a system, framework, a baked potato or any other term.

2 ms·

> “the system” doesn’t want you to know that’s how to change it I think even your own quotation marks show that "the system" is a weak concept. You can't think

by robertlagrant 3y ago

happytiger 3y ago
I think of it as a military industrial complex with global financial elite through very effective public / private partnerships that seems to move towards constant war while espousing the need for peace, claim to support sustainability while owning and promoting the interests of the most deeply exploitive efforts and companies, espouse the reduction of income inequality even while they work against the economic interests of the majority to enrich themselves, and generally do so fairly consistently at every turn. How do you see the world? Is that vision of the current system particularly political, because I would consider it fairly objectivist based on my observations. The dominant paradigm is a system no matter what political ideology you use to interpret it. There is objectivism in “the system” as a nomenclature that shouldn’t be confused by one country’s domestic political paralysis. The assumption of every ill is a rather presumptuous broadening of what is obviously a rhetorical analysis. And remember that rhetoric is always intended to persuade so no term I write can be written without touching on the prior feelings you have based on your own rhetorical training. But that doesn’t eliminate objective reality: we need to account for it in our conversations. It isn’t healthy for a society to ignore the existence of governing bodies and their influences, whether you call them a matrix, a system, framework, a baked potato or any other term.