5 ms·

They do not "like" it. It's just that, to be very blunt, most people are basically peasants at heart. They're going to go along with whatever the king says.

by smky80 13y ago

They do not "like" it. It's just that, to be very blunt, most people are basically peasants at heart. They're going to go along with whatever the king says. Twenty years ago, on that side of the line on a map, the people believed in capitalism, while on the other side the people believed in communism. On this side of the line people believed in this god, on that side, they believe in that god. It has nothing to do with some kind economists' "rational utilization maximization" function and everything to do with basically a "k-nearest neighbours" algorithm on their social graph for assigning beliefs. And that is precisely why control of the media is so important.

apineda 13y ago
Blame our compulsory state education? http://school.neocities.org/ http://school.neocities.org/
- HSO 13y ago
  You think trained submission to authority is scary? How about being trained for constantly being monitored and brain washed? […] as much as the program offers freedom and continuity, it also comes with a substantial monitoring component. The iPad keeps teachers and parents constantly informed about what children are doing, what they have learned and how they are progressing. Better technology in education is clearly the future and, in many ways, the way to go. The mind boggles with possibilities. But, but… we need to put much more thought into it than just the implementation of another nifty feature. We also need better laws and regulations that constrain the authority of the, uhm, authorities. And a government we can trust would be nice too. The way things stand today, this article just scared the bejesus out of me. _______________________________________ [1] M. Evers. Radical reform: Dutch iPad schools seek to transform education. Der Spiegel, Jun 28 2013. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-ipad-schools-in-holland-hope-to-revolutionize-education-a-907936.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-ipad-schools-...)
kevinmchugh 13y ago
This is a somewhat ugly and self-aggrandizing view. It's easy to let people you don't know and will never meet become sub-human, but it's dangerous and harmful. The relevant xkcd is of course, http://xkcd.com/610/ http://xkcd.com/610/. I don't presume to know why most people are not particularly vocal on these matters, but it's certainly not because they lack critical thought.
- chc 13y ago
  Describing them as sheep seems a lot less dehumanizing than depicting them as out of their minds with fear.
- endtime 13y ago
  Do you have an explanation for why OP is wrong beyond that you find his claim aesthetically displeasing?
  - czr80 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      If someone says "most people are peasants", why would that be a statement about their personality, rather than their situation? To me that's still an objection to something read into it.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  It's not wrong though. Most people don't care about politics. They don't research economics or anything like that, at best they hear the news sometimes and discuss stuff with their friends. That doesn't make them sub-human. There is no real incentive to care a lot about politics or do all the research and thinking necessary to come to correct conclusions. It's not like your vote is going to change the outcome of the election. But no it's not terribly self-aggrandizing to assume that most people don't have a lot of interest or education in politics. It's true.
tsotha 13y ago
They do not "like" it. It's just that, to be very blunt, most people are basically peasants at heart. I don't see any reason to believe this is true. The problem is most people don't have any contact with the police, and they're using a mental model that's about fifteen years out of date. They don't know what's happening out there. It's hard to imagine, but most normal people still get their news from television.
ryanSrich 13y ago
Well, "like" is a subjective term but for the most part people support it. I hear all the time..."It's for the better. It allows the government to keep track of the bad guys and if I have to be inconvenienced a few times out of the year that I travel than so be it." Or..."All I use email for is work and talking with family. If they want to read that stuff they can, I have nothing to hide. If it helps keep me safe then I'm comfortable." And the there's..."God forbid we have another 9/11 because too many people are worried about what the government does. There are somethings the government has to do in secrete, there are things they have to lie to us about in order to keep us safe." I'm 23 years old and I can't tell you where this mentality came from. I know when I was growing up my father showed me how to grow my own food, hunt, use a gun in a respectful mannor and always doubt the government. He told me that violence never solved any of his problems and it's doubtful it'd solve any of mine. He said in order for anyone to be safe they must have their freedom. The freedom to do whatever it is they seek to do. The government is only there to remove that freedom. They want to stifle your ambitions and control how you live. I know I'm not alone but I'm afraid we are outnumbered.
- dasil003 13y ago
  I think it's sad how a default distrust of the government gets one painted as a crazy gun-toting militiaman, or a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. These are after all, the people who founded America, not out of paranoia, but from deep reflection on the nature and history of government.
  - njharman 13y ago
    Default distrust everyone is one thing. But when you single out government (as if the "government" where a thing and not just comprised of people) and not recognizing government is a symptom of more fundamental causes that I'm gonna "default distrust you as a crazy at best, or ignorant at worst".
    - vadman 13y ago
      I think you are oversimplifying things. People comprising the government are not "just" people. They may have personality traits that compel them to seek out high-power positions. They may suppress their natural good intentions because where they work, "things are done that way and everybody does that". After several years of such cognitive dissonance, they may just completely change personality-wise. &c., &c.
Loughla 13y ago
Fascinating - I've honestly never actually considered that. How do you believe that social media and the like are playing into this long standing control of the media? What are the implications for the future (of both society and social media)?

by smky80 13y ago

apineda 13y ago

Blame our compulsory state education? http://school.neocities.org/ http://school.neocities.org/

HSO 13y ago
You think trained submission to authority is scary? How about being trained for constantly being monitored and brain washed? […] as much as the program offers freedom and continuity, it also comes with a substantial monitoring component. The iPad keeps teachers and parents constantly informed about what children are doing, what they have learned and how they are progressing. Better technology in education is clearly the future and, in many ways, the way to go. The mind boggles with possibilities. But, but… we need to put much more thought into it than just the implementation of another nifty feature. We also need better laws and regulations that constrain the authority of the, uhm, authorities. And a government we can trust would be nice too. The way things stand today, this article just scared the bejesus out of me. _______________________________________ [1] M. Evers. Radical reform: Dutch iPad schools seek to transform education. Der Spiegel, Jun 28 2013. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-ipad-schools-in-holland-hope-to-revolutionize-education-a-907936.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-ipad-schools-...)

kevinmchugh 13y ago

This is a somewhat ugly and self-aggrandizing view. It's easy to let people you don't know and will never meet become sub-human, but it's dangerous and harmful. The relevant xkcd is of course, http://xkcd.com/610/ http://xkcd.com/610/. I don't presume to know why most people are not particularly vocal on these matters, but it's certainly not because they lack critical thought.

chc 13y ago
Describing them as sheep seems a lot less dehumanizing than depicting them as out of their minds with fear.
endtime 13y ago
Do you have an explanation for why OP is wrong beyond that you find his claim aesthetically displeasing?
- czr80 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    If someone says "most people are peasants", why would that be a statement about their personality, rather than their situation? To me that's still an objection to something read into it.
Houshalter 13y ago
It's not wrong though. Most people don't care about politics. They don't research economics or anything like that, at best they hear the news sometimes and discuss stuff with their friends. That doesn't make them sub-human. There is no real incentive to care a lot about politics or do all the research and thinking necessary to come to correct conclusions. It's not like your vote is going to change the outcome of the election. But no it's not terribly self-aggrandizing to assume that most people don't have a lot of interest or education in politics. It's true.

tsotha 13y ago

They do not "like" it. It's just that, to be very blunt, most people are basically peasants at heart. I don't see any reason to believe this is true. The problem is most people don't have any contact with the police, and they're using a mental model that's about fifteen years out of date. They don't know what's happening out there. It's hard to imagine, but most normal people still get their news from television.

ryanSrich 13y ago

Well, "like" is a subjective term but for the most part people support it. I hear all the time..."It's for the better. It allows the government to keep track of the bad guys and if I have to be inconvenienced a few times out of the year that I travel than so be it." Or..."All I use email for is work and talking with family. If they want to read that stuff they can, I have nothing to hide. If it helps keep me safe then I'm comfortable." And the there's..."God forbid we have another 9/11 because too many people are worried about what the government does. There are somethings the government has to do in secrete, there are things they have to lie to us about in order to keep us safe." I'm 23 years old and I can't tell you where this mentality came from. I know when I was growing up my father showed me how to grow my own food, hunt, use a gun in a respectful mannor and always doubt the government. He told me that violence never solved any of his problems and it's doubtful it'd solve any of mine. He said in order for anyone to be safe they must have their freedom. The freedom to do whatever it is they seek to do. The government is only there to remove that freedom. They want to stifle your ambitions and control how you live. I know I'm not alone but I'm afraid we are outnumbered.

dasil003 13y ago
I think it's sad how a default distrust of the government gets one painted as a crazy gun-toting militiaman, or a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. These are after all, the people who founded America, not out of paranoia, but from deep reflection on the nature and history of government.
- njharman 13y ago
  Default distrust everyone is one thing. But when you single out government (as if the "government" where a thing and not just comprised of people) and not recognizing government is a symptom of more fundamental causes that I'm gonna "default distrust you as a crazy at best, or ignorant at worst".
  - vadman 13y ago
    I think you are oversimplifying things. People comprising the government are not "just" people. They may have personality traits that compel them to seek out high-power positions. They may suppress their natural good intentions because where they work, "things are done that way and everybody does that". After several years of such cognitive dissonance, they may just completely change personality-wise. &c., &c.

Loughla 13y ago

Fascinating - I've honestly never actually considered that. How do you believe that social media and the like are playing into this long standing control of the media? What are the implications for the future (of both society and social media)?