4 ms·

Inevitably, there will be eggs broken to make omelettes. I will consider the realignment successful if there is a reset in the current grift industrial complex

by ctrlp 2y ago

Inevitably, there will be eggs broken to make omelettes. I will consider the realignment successful if there is a reset in the current grift industrial complex and some interregnum until new patronage networks are established and corrupted that will, in their turn, be destroyed to make room for the next generation. If you think the issue is the amount of money spent on "gender studies" you really don't understand the far greater value of what the education of our children should consist in and who gets to decide what that education will be. Those are battles worth fighting over. Penny pinching is missing the point.

beepbooptheory 2y ago
> If you think the issue is the amount of money spent on "gender studies" you really don't understand the far greater value of what the education of our children should consist in and who gets to decide what that education will be. I can't parse this sentence at all. Are you maybe able to better articulate your point?
- ctrlp 2y ago
  Many people got a chance, during the pandemic, to see that contemporary K-16 education consists of a lot of political ideology (aka indoctrination). Many thought their kids were learning useful skills and were shocked, shocked, to find that they were being groomed to reject the worldview and values of their parents. They didn't like it no matter what it cost. It became a hot-button issue and an own-goal by the cultural gatekeepers, who consistently present themselves as our betters. Framing this as a cost issue is missing this critical fact. A majority doesn't care what it costs. They don't want it even if it's free.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    Considering the way things have played out, if they were trying to indoctrinate the kids all this time they must have been doing a pretty bad job! Its not like the dems have much good will with the kids or the left in general right now.. What a screw up! Only thing worse than facism is inpet facism perhaps, good to be out of the woods there.
    - ctrlp 2y ago
      Agreed there has been blowback, but the 20% of true believers don't accept its validity. But I would argue the indoctrination has been very effective.
      - beepbooptheory 2y ago
        Ok but what is the argument though? Culturally the left is weaker than it has ever been, to say the least! Possibly to preempt: I hope you can also understand that saying something like "look at these certain kids at a liberal arts school and their crazy ideology" is not going to be a satisfying argument by any measure. It really shouldn't be whichever side your on. We need to strive to be rational and look at actual data or otherwise evidence as much as possible. And again, the "left" that is probably in your mind absolutely hate the Democrats, so its just strange they could be cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids but at the same time be dumb enough to still presumably shoot themselves in the foot about it.. It just doesnt add up!. Also, I'm sorry, I don't want to be bugger in case english isn't your native language, but the subject and point of your first sentence is ambiguous and again hard to parse.
        ctrlp 2y ago
        I would distinguish between "the left" as a political persuasion and as a political movement, and between "the left" and "liberalism." Both versions of "the left" could further split into "left progressivism" and "left socialism." Or again, as "Progressives" and "Socialists" (or Communists). "Progressives" in my ontology are "left liberals" (as opposed to "right liberals/libertarians"). By "the left" do you mean "socialism" or "progressivism?" If socialism, then both as a political persuasion and political movement I agree that "the left" "hates" the Democratic party. For one, the Democratic party is not socialist. Two, they compete for mindshare and the socialists always lose. I did not bring up the "left/right" dichotomy in my comments and don't believe they are that helpful in the current context. That said, the socialists don't really matter. Socialists don't/can't/won't/shouldn't hold power so their only function is as a faction within the broader "left coalition" that has broken down since the 1990s when global liberalism reached its apex. That coalition is dominated by "left liberals" (aka Progressives). These are not all that different teleologically from Communists, but seek to push forward a type of Whig history. The representative expression of this Whig history is Obama's "The arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Sometimes, it doesn't bend fast enough and has to be bent by technocratic governance. And this can't be limited to the borders of a polity or nation, but logically requires a global scope. It is both interesting and convenient that such an ideology happens to provide cover for the administrative actions of global empire. It would be hard to convince the individual people to act against their better judgment. Much better if they believe they are a force for good. Hence the role of indoctrination towards ideological conviction. You see the effect when this fails while the government persists in the later stages of Soviet and Communist governance. The people just didn't believe it anymore. If interested, you can read a sociological study of this effect in Timur Kuran's "Private Truths, Public Lies". Nobody is "cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids." Holding to such formulations is obtuse and a trivial form of casuistry. Ideology and its supporting indoctrination programs are emergent in the modern era. That said, plenty of past Propaganda Ministers have existed who did take an active role in managing popular opinion. They don't call themselves that anymore, but they still exist. (Interesting books have been written on the topic[0].) In the modern context, propaganda may seem subtle until some kind of crisis occurs when all points converge and you get those hilarious memes of all news anchors somberly enacting the same exact text at the same moment. It is at those times that one sees behind the arras and understands that "news" is not organic nor is it independent. Editorial boards collude regularly to shape public opinion. (I would call it a subtler version of Pravda but people who lived under Eastern European propaganda have scoffed at the heavy-handedness of our version compared to the actual Soviet programs.) The breakdown of this function/ability is one of the more interesting phenomena of our current times. All that is to say that the process of indoctrination is not all that mysterious, but its conspiratorial aspects, while real, get too much attention imho. [0] For examples, see Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion", Edward Bernays' "Propaganda", Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda", Sheldon Wolin's "Democracy Incorporated", Martin Gurri's "The Revolt of the Public", etc...
amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Why would you think they are trying to get rid of grift? It seems fairly obvious they are moving in exactly the other direction.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  There will always be grift in a dynamic system. The problems occur when the grifts become formalized and encoded in law, as has been the case since at least 9/11. When that happens the institutions can't be reformed but must be replaced by a new institution or by complete personnel turnover. Over time, the energetic/ambitious/idealist contingent who achieved the revolution/coup/realignment/reset will grow old/wealthy/corrupt or be shoved aside by sharp-elbowed opportunists, hard-nosed pragmatists, or soft-shoe careerists. The process will repeat.

by ctrlp 2y ago

beepbooptheory 2y ago

> If you think the issue is the amount of money spent on "gender studies" you really don't understand the far greater value of what the education of our children should consist in and who gets to decide what that education will be. I can't parse this sentence at all. Are you maybe able to better articulate your point?

ctrlp 2y ago
Many people got a chance, during the pandemic, to see that contemporary K-16 education consists of a lot of political ideology (aka indoctrination). Many thought their kids were learning useful skills and were shocked, shocked, to find that they were being groomed to reject the worldview and values of their parents. They didn't like it no matter what it cost. It became a hot-button issue and an own-goal by the cultural gatekeepers, who consistently present themselves as our betters. Framing this as a cost issue is missing this critical fact. A majority doesn't care what it costs. They don't want it even if it's free.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Considering the way things have played out, if they were trying to indoctrinate the kids all this time they must have been doing a pretty bad job! Its not like the dems have much good will with the kids or the left in general right now.. What a screw up! Only thing worse than facism is inpet facism perhaps, good to be out of the woods there.
  - ctrlp 2y ago
    Agreed there has been blowback, but the 20% of true believers don't accept its validity. But I would argue the indoctrination has been very effective.
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
      Ok but what is the argument though? Culturally the left is weaker than it has ever been, to say the least! Possibly to preempt: I hope you can also understand that saying something like "look at these certain kids at a liberal arts school and their crazy ideology" is not going to be a satisfying argument by any measure. It really shouldn't be whichever side your on. We need to strive to be rational and look at actual data or otherwise evidence as much as possible. And again, the "left" that is probably in your mind absolutely hate the Democrats, so its just strange they could be cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids but at the same time be dumb enough to still presumably shoot themselves in the foot about it.. It just doesnt add up!. Also, I'm sorry, I don't want to be bugger in case english isn't your native language, but the subject and point of your first sentence is ambiguous and again hard to parse.
      - ctrlp 2y ago
        I would distinguish between "the left" as a political persuasion and as a political movement, and between "the left" and "liberalism." Both versions of "the left" could further split into "left progressivism" and "left socialism." Or again, as "Progressives" and "Socialists" (or Communists). "Progressives" in my ontology are "left liberals" (as opposed to "right liberals/libertarians"). By "the left" do you mean "socialism" or "progressivism?" If socialism, then both as a political persuasion and political movement I agree that "the left" "hates" the Democratic party. For one, the Democratic party is not socialist. Two, they compete for mindshare and the socialists always lose. I did not bring up the "left/right" dichotomy in my comments and don't believe they are that helpful in the current context. That said, the socialists don't really matter. Socialists don't/can't/won't/shouldn't hold power so their only function is as a faction within the broader "left coalition" that has broken down since the 1990s when global liberalism reached its apex. That coalition is dominated by "left liberals" (aka Progressives). These are not all that different teleologically from Communists, but seek to push forward a type of Whig history. The representative expression of this Whig history is Obama's "The arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Sometimes, it doesn't bend fast enough and has to be bent by technocratic governance. And this can't be limited to the borders of a polity or nation, but logically requires a global scope. It is both interesting and convenient that such an ideology happens to provide cover for the administrative actions of global empire. It would be hard to convince the individual people to act against their better judgment. Much better if they believe they are a force for good. Hence the role of indoctrination towards ideological conviction. You see the effect when this fails while the government persists in the later stages of Soviet and Communist governance. The people just didn't believe it anymore. If interested, you can read a sociological study of this effect in Timur Kuran's "Private Truths, Public Lies". Nobody is "cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids." Holding to such formulations is obtuse and a trivial form of casuistry. Ideology and its supporting indoctrination programs are emergent in the modern era. That said, plenty of past Propaganda Ministers have existed who did take an active role in managing popular opinion. They don't call themselves that anymore, but they still exist. (Interesting books have been written on the topic[0].) In the modern context, propaganda may seem subtle until some kind of crisis occurs when all points converge and you get those hilarious memes of all news anchors somberly enacting the same exact text at the same moment. It is at those times that one sees behind the arras and understands that "news" is not organic nor is it independent. Editorial boards collude regularly to shape public opinion. (I would call it a subtler version of Pravda but people who lived under Eastern European propaganda have scoffed at the heavy-handedness of our version compared to the actual Soviet programs.) The breakdown of this function/ability is one of the more interesting phenomena of our current times. All that is to say that the process of indoctrination is not all that mysterious, but its conspiratorial aspects, while real, get too much attention imho. [0] For examples, see Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion", Edward Bernays' "Propaganda", Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda", Sheldon Wolin's "Democracy Incorporated", Martin Gurri's "The Revolt of the Public", etc...

amanaplanacanal 2y ago

Why would you think they are trying to get rid of grift? It seems fairly obvious they are moving in exactly the other direction.

ctrlp 2y ago
There will always be grift in a dynamic system. The problems occur when the grifts become formalized and encoded in law, as has been the case since at least 9/11. When that happens the institutions can't be reformed but must be replaced by a new institution or by complete personnel turnover. Over time, the energetic/ambitious/idealist contingent who achieved the revolution/coup/realignment/reset will grow old/wealthy/corrupt or be shoved aside by sharp-elbowed opportunists, hard-nosed pragmatists, or soft-shoe careerists. The process will repeat.