Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » CIA vs Bush Administration (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: CIA vs Bush Administration
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, Fenring, removing the hypothetical, we can see this playing out in Putin's invasion of Ukraine unfolding right now. There isn't even a pretext there. The idea of a sovereign leader being brought up on war crimes is unusual bordering on the fantastic. Especially when that country is nuclear.

There is no legal comeuppance for breaking an international treaty, it is very much still a bigger bully issue. There are ramifications conducted under the rule of law, including economic sanctions. There is no court of jurisdiction, because there is no international system of law.

The closest thing to it is the ICC. In the case of the United States, we do not recognize its authority. Neither do Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India. Some of the most militarily active nations, in other words, and the ones holding nukes.

Part of the US issue would be ceding judicial authority to a body not elected by its citizens. So the only law which can apply to your hypothetical would be US law, although if there were a general international agreement sanctions against the US could be used as punishment.

Leaders of nations can invade other nations on a whim, a lie, or just about any other reason. If they are strong enough to resist internal and external pressures. Particularly if your state has a veto in the Security Council directly or by proxy. Fun fact, the International Court of Justice found the US an aggressor in Nicaragua. Guess who vetoed any sanctions in the Security Council and ignored the order for reparations to be paid?

So the short answer to your questions is, no there is no applicable international legal recourse toward individuals in the government, and even legal recourse toward the nation as a whole is unlikely to be put in effect.

While theoretically there might be recourse within the US, treason wouldn't be one. Overthrowing Saddam wasn't something that betrays US citizens or government. Lying to the Congress, there might be something there, I start to get out of my legal depth. But there would have to be a smoking gun, like if your transcript came from an oval office tape. Anything else is just a bad judgement - "we decided to believe Chalabi, and not the dozens of CIA and other intelligence officials assessments"

Then of course, there's Saddam's unwitting cooperation in the whole scheme above.

quote:
Hussein's fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. Iran and Iraq had fought a grinding eight-year war in the 1980s, and Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq -- which is largely Shiite. "Hussein viewed the other countries in the Middle East as weak and could not defend themselves or Iraq from an attack from Iran," Piro recounted in his summary of a June 11, 2004, conversation.

"The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors," Piro wrote. "Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq's weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html

Blix himself at the time said the following:

quote:
I think they could do more. We are not certain that they are hiding something, and we can't be certain that there are weapons hidden anywhere. But we cannot go to the [U.N. Security] Council and say that we are confident that there are none. They did have chemical weapons, they did have biological weapons, and they did have a lot of missiles. … They ought to be able to bring up documents that would be more telling than those that we've seen so far.
Echoed by the Onion in a funny, funny way.

quote:
Hussein has repeatedly refused weapons and contraband inspections.

"Most of the prisoners I've dealt with see the daily checks as routine," the soldier said. "But Saddam likes to complain about how we need evidence of wrongdoing before we can cross the cell's threshold."

Occasionally, guards have been forced to threaten Hussein with sanctions to get him to comply with inspections.

"Every couple of days, he refuses to let us look under his bed," an unnamed soldier said. "There's never anything under there, but sometimes he likes to make a big deal out of refusing."


Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake, I think you're right about there being no legal recourse for a foreign nation against the U.S., other than "bully can do what he wants." The U.S., for example, saw fit to try and execute Saddam, and the reason they had 'jurisdiction' over him was simply the fact that his nation was conquered and Iraqi rule of law was effectively whatever the U.S. stated. However then again the Israeli Mossad following WWII saw fit to race around the globe "extraditing" persons who they saw fit to try on Israeli soil. This can probably also be easily explained since a) the countries where the Nazi stayed were politically weak, and b) the allied forces were ok with it.

quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
Leaders of nations can invade other nations on a whim, a lie, or just about any other reason. If they are strong enough to resist internal and external pressures. Particularly if your state has a veto in the Security Council directly or by proxy. Fun fact, the International Court of Justice found the US an aggressor in Nicaragua. Guess who vetoed any sanctions in the Security Council and ignored the order for reparations to be paid?

Regarding this statement, what I question is the bolded part. In the case of a monarchical reign indeed the only thing stopping a monarch conducting any war he feels like is the strength of his opponent or anyone else who would stop him. However I don't think this parameter by itself should be sufficient to explain how the 'leader' of a democratic republic should be able to act. When such a 'leader' does something equivalent to what a monarch would do (i.e. whatever he wants) then there's a problem. As it is the President isn't actually the leader of the U.S., he's in charge of executing the laws and policy dictated by the Congress, who in turn are not leaders but rather are representatives.

I agree with you that internationally no one is strong enough to force the U.S. to do anything, so then we're back to local laws. I find it hard to believe that effectively acting as a monarch, e.g. deciding to conduct a personal war and then telling lies to trick the Congress into agreeing to it, isn't some kind of crime. My main question was "what kind of crime", and if we're going to dispense with the "international" element to my OP, which I agree in hindsight is a non-starter, then I'll restrict my question to "what kind of crime within the U.S."

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just got back from a business trip and wanted to chime in.
quote:
Do you agree with Donald and D.W. that it's too messy to try to prosecute and that it would be better left alone?
I’m not sure I would avoid prosecution because it is too messy. What I’m suggesting is the government is inclined, and prudent to spin or lie about the reasons we go to war. In so far as our nation has enemies, we portray ourselves as the hero. Defending our friends or acting preemptively against those who would strike us given the chance. We all but refuse to see ourselves as expansionist or economic barbarians storming the world. We DO fight wars for purely economic reasons. We do insert ourselves into conflicts for no good direct reasons but in that doing so will have indirect results that we do care about.

Could we prosecute those who lie to bring us into a conflict? Sure, but if we somehow managed to do so effectively what would the result be?

1. Our government is forced to expend a lot of effort making their lies far more believable. This means losing what little transparency we currently have.

2. The military arm of our government is brutally honest about why we do what we do and as such become less accountable and insulate themselves from public sentiment which would frequently oppose their decisions given a choice to reign them in.

3. Establishing scapegoats willing to be offered up to the public after business as usual becomes just part of the cost of going to war.

I don’t consider any of these things an improvement over the current state of affairs where we are lied to in order to protect our hero of the world national identity so many of us want to believe. The only positive outcome; that our politicians are honest with us and we become that benevolent force which only acts to protect at a net loss of treasure and lives; is a fantasy.

I don’t think a world power can operate effectively in the interest of its people if it must get permission or approval for any violence / force it must project. Unless of course it is FAR more isolationist and Far less ambitious than we are. You can’t have a free society which believes it’s government acts as tyrants. I’m not sure we the people would sacrifice our comforts gained through the spoils of war and influence balancing done around the world through the threat of force were we to adopt an isolationist policy which ALLOWED for total honesty in nation “defense”.

Fenring’s hypothetical is exactly the way I envision policy decisions to go.

[ June 08, 2015, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W., your points are reasonable, and the only thing I'll add would be one idealistic point and one pragmatic point:

1) Do we have to always be beholden to a government whose relationship with the people is adversarial, and which has to be allowed 'some space to lie and cheat a bit' so that it doesn't recoil and distance itself from the people further? If not, what can be done about it?

2) How close to revolution are the people at any given time? Since life in the suburbs and hanging out in malls appears to be nothing but docile one can miss undercurrents that can ebb and flow. Most of the time modern life prevents the average person from becoming a protester or otherwise 'taking on the system.' There is not even a clear mechanic for how to take on the system should a person decide he can afford to do so. But I would suggest that if a certain kind of outrageous abuse was made public it could foment riots or worse. The NSA thing was too nebulous and hypothetical to make people angry enough to do anything, and not even everyone is angry about it. But some other truth being revealed - did we mention the country being torn apart? It would be, but not in the nice, friendly way a political frenzy would cause.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1) Do we have to always be beholden to a government whose relationship with the people is adversarial, and which has to be allowed 'some space to lie and cheat a bit' so that it doesn't recoil and distance itself from the people further? If not, what can be done about it?
I don’t think it is adversarial. To an extent it is “us vs. them” (them being the government) it is intentional. We feel better when we can blame our problems on others. Rather than accusing our neighbors we blame “them”. It’s a way to vent frustration much of the time. The government, or at least our government, is actually a fairly representative one. The catch is, WE, as a collective, either do not understand or do not want to think about how to balance what we want vs. what it takes to achieve that.

I am suggesting that it’s not a question of if we must give “them” space to lie. I’m suggesting we WANT them to lie to us. That if we had to be faced with the reality of what a first world lifestyle costs we would hate ourselves. The more fortunate we are collectively the more we need to believe that those who are not as fortunate are either beyond our ability to help, deserver their lot in life or are our enemies and it’s us or them.

I don’t mean to say this is right or good. Just that is how I see any large enough body of people acting collectively. How larger our tribe becomes or the mix of people who make it up doesn’t change how we view the world. We choose to distance ourselves from “the government” because we do not want to take responsibility.

As to your second point; this is directly related to that same nationalized selfishness turned inward instead of outward. There will be no revolution due to an “unjust war” if the people at home are comfortable enough. The “NSA thing” exists because oddly it makes some people feel safer. A group of those who are offended by it still are at war with the idea that it is innocuous if you are a law abiding citizen. Then there are those offended by it because they see that there IS a war of “us vs. them” already within the country. The powerful and the weak, the rich and the poor. The internal squabbling between our two parties and various cultures and demographic areas have been distilled down.

Probably in large part to keep us distracted. When you are talking about how we pursue our national goals whether the president has a D or R behind their name hasn’t changed things a lot. Now however the level of comfort isn’t as high as most of us would like. For those to whom it has been low there was always the carrot on a string that it COULD be better soon with enough work. That belief has been weakened as well. So we are turning on each other. We certainly don’t want to hate or blame ourselves. We don’t really want to hate or blame people we know. Not our neighbors, not people sharing our experience in our cities. So we go larger. Either political parties, “the rich” or “the government” as a whole.

That leads us back to the first part. Giving us a boogey man in the form of a national enemy is a useful tool of government. A lie we can all gather round to feel unified rather than resentful of each other. We are more civilized than past empires and our standard of living is pretty impressive. What we want from the leadership is to make us the heroes of our own story. It's not like North Korea or Iran have cornered the market on that trick.

[ June 08, 2015, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
The government, or at least our government, is actually a fairly representative one. The catch is, WE, as a collective, either do not understand or do not want to think about how to balance what we want vs. what it takes to achieve that.

I have read reports, studies and other material recently that suggests America at present is not much of a representative government, and that it barely passes muster for the term "democratic country." Influence on policy from both public opinion and from private interests, when weighed, seem to weight heavily in favor of a few powerful private interests. This is part of the problem and why I think the system is adversarial. It's the people not fighting against the government, but fighting against other classes of people who try to take over the government on a regular basis.

quote:
Originally posted by D.W.
quote:

I am suggesting that it’s not a question of if we must give “them” space to lie. I’m suggesting we WANT them to lie to us. That if we had to be faced with the reality of what a first world lifestyle costs we would hate ourselves. The more fortunate we are collectively the more we need to believe that those who are not as fortunate are either beyond our ability to help, deserver their lot in life or are our enemies and it’s us or them.


Yes, we learn in Orwell that the people really do love Big Brother, it's not a trick. The people are made to feel safe knowing that the war will eventually be won and that the security measures are a success. The people rejoice to learn that their standard of living is 'constantly increasing' and that the economy is a success. None of this is faking - they really do rejoice.

I think I've made my point here; people feeling good about certain abuses does not justify the abuses, it just means that when you control information you can also control how thoughts are formed. Some people who do see a real struggle between people, government, and other people are not merely aggrieved, they are 'awake.' Do many or most people want to be asleep? Yes. But that doesn't mean I'll be happy to write them off and say "go ahead and enslave them, I don't care" because after them it will be me. This is part of the danger of not protecting small minorities when they're trod on, because the effect always snowballs and multiplies and comes around.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think I've made my point here; people feeling good about certain abuses does not justify the abuses,
I agree 100% How I think things ARE is not the same as how I think they should be.

Will we reach a point where enough people are 'awake' to make a difference? Quite possibly. I think that a lot more people are waking up as of late due to the information age and the speed of social media. Right now those who want to 'go back to sleep' and those who benifit from not being challenged are scrambling to change the game to fit the new reality. Distraction is the only credible tactic when isolation fails.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just read a piece on Cracked that seemed rather relevent to my own rambling.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Great article. Anyone see any direct reflection in certain Ornery posts?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think the divide and conquer method is one of the most prominent in the America scene right now, where various groups who are not at the top of the food chain are pitted against each other. I do see some Ornery topics revolve around "which side is right" (e.g. the Iran discussion, the Hillary discussions, and others) in cases where both sides are only having the argument due to misdirection from the real issue.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Just read a piece on Cracked that seemed rather relevent to my own rambling.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/

It's interesting how that article frames it as "powerful people" manipulating things, but the article itself disregards its own premise and seems instead to be focused on basic human behaviors regardless of station. In short, this article should really should be called "5 ways people dismiss problems".
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Josh
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Just read a piece on Cracked that seemed rather relevent to my own rambling.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-powerful-people-trick-you-into-hating-underdogs/
It's interesting how that article frames it as "powerful people" manipulating things, but the article itself disregards its own premise and seems instead to be focused on basic human behaviors regardless of station. In short, this article should really should be called "5 ways people dismiss problems".

True but it is those with money and power that have the ability to shape the messages.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
In short, this article should really should be called "5 ways people dismiss problems".

I'd probably rename it will a hidden subtitle, "How I'm going to convince you that you should dismiss the arguments of the people I disagree with."

It's a well written piece of psychological manipulation. Essentially demonstrate that the secret bad guy rulers won't argue in good faith, and give easy ways to identify "bad faith" arguments rather than engaging on the substance. Layer enough facts into it that your assumptions and arguments can be imputed valid by association.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that part of the point of the article is that these "secret bad guy rulers" aren't actually making arguments; they are undermining the valid arguments made against the status quo. Does anyone disagree with this? What argument, for example, was made for the rampant institutionalized racism in Ferguson?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with your characterization. Should we really accept that the over play on the 24 hour media of violence at protests is the result of campaign to avoid discussing the issues? It certainly has that effect, but it's a leap to impute a cause or a thinking malice to the effect.

Could it not be that there is in fact a fundamental disagreement over WHY the people protesting are in a circumstance that they find intolerable? Or that the relief they are demanding would help? Isn't it just as likely that the protests are ignored, not because people just won't pay attention to the legitimate issues, but because they disagree that the issues or the resolutions are legitimate or appropriate?

In fact, the violence is newsworthy, in the same police reports are (or aren't), in a way that the issues themselves may not be. It's not like our 24 hour coverage ever gets in front of other important issue and covers them thoughtfully for anyone. Not even the secret elites.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was (and still is) my view that misdirection and message formation was heavily at work in the Ferguson incident. Whether it was "bad guy rulers", lobbyists, or others perpetuating the message, they managed to create a social meme overnight centered first around racism in Ferguson, which then ballooned into "racism in America", and spread into "check your privilege" and "blacklivesmatter."

Not that any of these notions were necessarily false outright, but this manner of framing that one incident allowed specific defocus from issues such as poverty, police militarization and corruption, and created a paradigm of blacks versus whites (not rich whites, mind you, but poor and middle class whites). Divide and conquer, tunnel focus on each other.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Should we really accept that the over play on the 24 hour media of violence at protests is the result of campaign to avoid discussing the issues?
Not a campaign no. Our desire to see ourselves as a proud nation which holds itself to a higher standard than the rest of the world, where hard work and personal responsibility is all it takes to succeed, makes us react in horror to violent protest. First it makes us face our own inperfection as a country / state / city / community and then makes us face that we will turn on each other rather than solve the problems calmly within the system we idealize as the means to prevent injustice.

"The powerful", and in many cases the rich, are those who understand human nature and decide to use it to their advantage. It's pretty to think it takes some grand conspiracy to trick and opress people. I'm not saying we shouldn't try and stop people from using us, but they aren't Bond villans meeting in secret board rooms controlling the media. We see what we want to see and dismiss or hate those who show us what we don't want to face. Those who want to make a buck will keep giving feeding those desires.

[ June 10, 2015, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
True but it is those with money and power that have the ability to shape the messages.

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but as I read through that article (which I think is pretty apt) and considered shady actors behind things... well, in the apocryphal words of LaPlace on the existence of God: "I had no need of that hypothesis". Everything in the article is emergent from ordinary tribalism in human behavior. "Secret bad guys" are an attractive thing to want to blame, but I deeply suspect all these dramas would take place quite naturally with or without them, assuming one has a media at all. It doesn't take much convincing for people to want to protect 'their tribe', be they underdogs or elites.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How many protests occur every day? It's not possible to give them the kind of attention and prominence that accrued to the protests in Ferguson. These things aren't ignore out of malice, or because they aren't important issues, they are ignored because in a nation of 300 plus million people where everyone has their own problems people legitimately make choices about which problems are most important.

Like I implied, violence goes into a different attention bucket than issues.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only change to come of modern media is the ability to overwhelm people. If you don't want to think about an issue you can very easily choose a "more important" issue to focus on.

If you want a reason to object to something but have even a tiny bit of guilt over that objection, you can find a bad actor to poison that movement / thing and justify your opposition.

If something is so obviously "bad" but you feel helpless to do anything about it, you can loose yourself in all the other things going on. Maybe it's "just one more bad thing in a storm of bad things" so you can write off trying to fix it as futile.

We are forced to rationalize more or distract ourselves more because we have more information. This COULD make us better people and more empathetic to those outside of our tribes or it just means we must work harder to insulate ourselves somehow for the benifit of our own tribes.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Should we really accept that the over play on the 24 hour media of violence at protests is the result of campaign to avoid discussing the issues? It certainly has that effect, but it's a leap to impute a cause or a thinking malice to the effect.
We know that police and the FBI regularly insert ringers into protests, both to obtain information on protesters and to provoke protesters into criminal activity. While of course part of the "benefit" of the latter is that grounds become available for arrest, it seems to me like willful naivete to assert that they have not considered the value of having protesters appear to the public as more violent than they actually are.

Consider the massive protests in Madison a few years ago, when Walker first started raping Wisconsin. You couldn't turn on Fox News without hearing about the violence and fear (and, I should note, seeing images of palm trees in their video clips, which were generally taken from protests elsewhere) -- but as someone who attended the actual protests, I can tell you it was not only absurdly peaceful but almost cordial; lots of people brought their children and were having picnics on the square.

-----------

quote:
Everything in the article is emergent from ordinary tribalism in human behavior.
I don't think the article is trying to insist that it takes some kind of special, secret bad guy to attempt to manipulate the public in favor of a majority narrative. Rather, it was merely laying out the ways in which the public is manipulated in favor of that narrative. That this narrative is generally supported by rich bad guys in secret is just the truth, but it's not the point of the article.

[ June 10, 2015, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I don't think the article is trying to insist that it takes some kind of special, secret bad guy to attempt to manipulate the public in favor of a majority narrative. Rather, it was merely laying out the ways in which the public is manipulated in favor of that narrative. That this narrative is generally supported by rich bad guys in secret is just the truth, but it's not the point of the article.

Well, you know, except for the title of the article and the first paragraph. I would have preferred that the article replace "Powerful People" with "you". As in, "how you trick yourself".
For what its worth, I also believe people are tricked (and trick themselves) into rooting FOR underdogs.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I would have preferred that the article replace "Powerful People" with "you". As in, "how you trick yourself".
Except that's not the truth. The point is that these traits you keep asserting are universal elements of human nature are deliberately exploited. Which they are. I don't understand why you'd be invested in challenging that obvious fact.

quote:
For what its worth, I also believe people are tricked (and trick themselves) into rooting FOR underdogs.
Oh, no argument. You'll note that at least two of the methods discussed in the article even amount to convincing someone that the position possessed of the greatest power is actually an "underdog."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Should we really accept that the over play on the 24 hour media of violence at protests is the result of campaign to avoid discussing the issues? It certainly has that effect, but it's a leap to impute a cause or a thinking malice to the effect.
We know that police and the FBI regularly insert ringers into protests, both to obtain information on protesters and to provoke protesters into criminal activity.
I almost addressed this ahead of time. Somewhere you've leaped from a few anecdotal claims about the police infiltrating protests to spark violence, to presenting as fact that it routinely occurs. There is no evidence of this. The fact that the police use undercover agents to investigate illegal activity is not proof that they instigate violence. Certainly no where near a claim that they are a primary cause (in fact your claim has more in common with what the article warns against than anything else).

There's also the evidence that people interested in spreading the message through violence travelled between certain of these riots, which is a more plausible explanation than any you've been able to come up with for the police doing it.

What's key to me though, is the presence of violence has lead to a false claim that the "violence is distracting from the message of the Ferguson protests." The fact is, without the violence the message there is barely or never heard, it's not wall to wall covered for days. The only reason the message got out - at all - is from the attention the violence generated.
quote:
While of course part of the "benefit" of the latter is that grounds become available for arrest, it seems to me like willful naivete to assert that they have not considered the value of having protesters appear to the public as more violent than they actually are.
Who is "they" to which you refer? It's blatantly obvious that anyone wanting to justify their own violent reaction to a protest will want to make it appear more violent. Anyone wanting to dismiss the issues will do so as well. It's also obvious that people on the other side have an interest in dismissing or under playing the violence (even as they bask in the extra attention it generates).

I also recall, on the other side of the coin, how Tea Party rallies were depicted as "racist" on the flimsiest of attributions in a similar manner to the depiction of violence here, so it's not like this isn't a two way street.
quote:
Consider the massive protests in Madison a few years ago, when Walker first started raping Wisconsin.
Lol, yes the self interested turned out in mass to protect their unjust and unaffordable entitlements, the unwinding of their own pillaging that was encoded in law previously. Not sure it counts a raping, to unrape the other sides prior actions, but please continue the inappropriate hyperbole.
quote:
You couldn't turn on Fox News without hearing about the violence and fear (and, I should note, seeing images of palm trees in their video clips, which were generally taken from protests elsewhere) -- but as someone who attended the actual protests, I can tell you it was not only absurdly peaceful but almost cordial; lots of people brought their children and were having picnics on the square.
Can anyone else confirm that violence and fear were the message here? I honestly don't recall it. I think you're remembering things through glasses colored by your known dislike of Walker.
quote:
I don't think the article is trying to insist that it takes some kind of special, secret bad guy to attempt to manipulate the public in favor of a majority narrative. Rather, it was merely laying out the ways in which the public is manipulated in favor of that narrative.
The point is to delegitimize those that put forward arguments against the protestors. This is the first step in dismissing rather than refuting their claims.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I would have preferred that the article replace "Powerful People" with "you". As in, "how you trick yourself".
Except that's not the truth. The point is that these traits you keep asserting are universal elements of human nature are deliberately exploited. Which they are. I don't understand why you'd be invested in challenging that obvious fact.

Because I'm more interested in inoculating, educating and advancing the general public than chastising invisible people at the top. The more people can be made media-aware and the more they identify (and resist) their own tribal-motivations, the better the outcomes will get.

I used to think it was mostly futile to try to educate the general population in such a way in the face of constant propaganda, but I've seen evidence (of new general, emergent understandings of certain things by the public) that gave me hope.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because I'm more interested in inoculating, educating and advancing the general public than chastising invisible people at the top.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand human nature, here, then.

Because you won't motivate the general public to look at things more critically unless you give them a reason, and pointing out (truthfully) that they are being manipulated gives them a reason to consider changing their behavior.

If you just settle for telling them to improve themselves, rest assured that those invisible people will just work that into their narratives.

What we need -- what we as a country really, truly need -- is to remind people that they should hate and despise the puppetmasters, and teach them how to recognize both the puppeteers and their methods.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What we need -- what we as a country really, truly need -- is to remind people that they should hate and despise the puppet masters, and teach them how to recognize both the puppeteers and their methods.
Hating them won't help if you feel helpless. People will put up with being puppets if it's "not really THAT bad" or if it's "too hard" (or even impossible) to stop.

What we NEED to do is remove the strings not villainize those who manipulate us with them. It isn't impossible but there is going to be more blatant and stronger attempts to do so by would be puppet masters as it becomes more likely we can cut those strings.

Comfort is the enemy of self reflection.

[ June 10, 2015, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In a way it is hard to blame the "puppet masters" when most people WANT to remain ignorant. If we take a look at the white middle class it is easy. We rarely see any of the issues associated with race or poverty first hand. Out of sight out of mind.

On the other hand when I read about huge amounts of money coming from the anti-global warming crowd not to fund scientific studies to disprove it but to market their point of view I have to wonder.

Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is no evidence of this.
This is untrue. Almost every large protest in the last two decades has seen this. It doesn't necessarily happen with the small, piddly ones -- although there are certainly cases where it has -- but it is a routine practice in law enforcement where large protests are expected. It's literally textbook counter-insurgency.

quote:
There's also the evidence that people interested in spreading the message through violence travelled between certain of these riots...
You may want to examine some of the prejudices exposed by your wording, here. [Smile]

quote:
The fact is, without the violence the message there is barely or never heard, it's not wall to wall covered for days.
This is only true if traffic stoppages are considered violence -- or, I suppose, if something isn't "heard" until it's on Fox News. That said, yes, it certainly got more press once people started throwing rocks and looting.

quote:
I also recall, on the other side of the coin, how Tea Party rallies were depicted as "racist" on the flimsiest of attributions
You mean the speakers calling Obama a "nigger" and posters depicting him as a monkey or as a fat-lipped caricature behind bars? Yeah, that's pretty flimsy.

quote:
Can anyone else confirm that violence and fear were the message here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RClJ6vK9x_4
You can actually look at the footage above. The clip there, labeled "union protest," is not of the Madison protest, despite the fact that actual clips of the Madison protest aired in the same segment. Pay attention to O'Reilly's questioning, too: he's playing up the Republican-favorite "professional protester" line, although his sock puppet doesn't want to actually name any of the organizations who bussed in protesters because it would make it too obvious that this particular saw was rather unfounded in this case. He's asking whether the governor still controls the capitol. If you dig up the rest of the clip, you'll find questions about riots, property damage, etc. -- and you'll hear a quote for damage to the capitol building itself that was spread by the governor's office and, six months later, was revealed to be fully a hundred times higher than the actual cost of damage (almost all of which came in the form of garbage collection.)

quote:
the self interested turned out in mass to protect their unjust and unaffordable entitlements
Question: at what point did you become a knee-jerk, partisan troll, Seriati? It's a genuine shame, and it makes it kind of hard to talk with you. I expect that kind of crap from a few posters here, but even now it's always jarring and more than a little depressing when I see you do it. You're capable of better.

quote:
This is the first step in dismissing rather than refuting their claims.
Again, what claims? What arguments were made in favor of racism in Ferguson?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Because I'm more interested in inoculating, educating and advancing the general public than chastising invisible people at the top.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand human nature, here, then.

Because you won't motivate the general public to look at things more critically unless you give them a reason, and pointing out (truthfully) that they are being manipulated gives them a reason to consider changing their behavior.

If you just settle for telling them to improve themselves, rest assured that those invisible people will just work that into their narratives.

What we need -- what we as a country really, truly need -- is to remind people that they should hate and despise the puppetmasters, and teach them how to recognize both the puppeteers and their methods.

If you remove them, some new ones will simply emerge to take their place. Unless you actually concern yourself with the very nature of the governed, they will always allow themselves to be so. Even a rebellion can be packaged and sold into the same system, complete with iconic "heroes" and eventual hypocrisies. It was my favorite part of the Hunger Games, to see Katniss reduced to a product by the very people she wanted to liberate. The problem wasn't "the authority" but rather "the people's need for authority".

This is to say nothing of the fact that I don't even actually view those with authority as "bad guys". They are not some monocled, mustache-twirling caricatures. They are very real, faulty people with their own sicknesses to contend with. Most of the so-called "underdogs" would behave just like them if given the opportunity.

"You can die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"...

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are not some monocled, mustache-twirling caricatures.
To be fair, some of them are. [Smile]

But, yes, when allowed, those who manage to wrest power and money from the moneyed and powerful ultimately accrue more power and money and thus turn into monsters, sometimes within the same lifetime. Thomas Jefferson made the same observation; so did Pliny and Plato. It would be nice to think that people can be trained to avoid this trap, but eight thousand years of recorded history suggests otherwise.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
They are not some monocled, mustache-twirling caricatures.
To be fair, some of them are. [Smile]

But, yes, when allowed, those who manage to wrest power and money from the moneyed and powerful ultimately accrue more power and money and thus turn into monsters, sometimes within the same lifetime. Thomas Jefferson made the same observation; so did Pliny and Plato. It would be nice to think that people can be trained to avoid this trap, but eight thousand years of recorded history suggests otherwise.

That being said, if you had to attribute the relative lack of violence (global and local) in the past century compared with those that came before, on what would you pin the differences? I would propose that it is not due to the behaviors of those at the top, but rather that it is due to an increase in the general public's collective "understanding" of some things. It does appear as though the population can "learn" things, much like an individual organism obviously does. There is a collective wisdom out there that is striving to fight back against more tribal behavior.

Ultimately, we have been moving from a culture of violence to a culture of victimhood. It's a better place, admittedly, and everybody now realized that being a victim is preferable to being a perpetrator (which is part of the article), but I think we will eventually have to realize that a culture focused on victim/victimizer dynamics is also too limited.

I was just reading this link which I thought was appropriate...

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you had to attribute the relative lack of violence (global and local) in the past century compared with those that came before, on what would you pin the differences?
Increased prosperity and the threat of mutual annihilation. When people have more to lose than gain through conflict, and aren't pushed to acts of desperation, they're generally content to suck it up.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Somewhere you've leaped from a few anecdotal claims about the police infiltrating protests to spark violence, to presenting as fact that it routinely occurs. There is no evidence of this.
This is untrue.
I've restored part of the quote you cut. Because it's not untrue. If such were true, you could demonstrate it easily. Not to mention, what you suggest would be criminal so we'd see trial after trial, or is it your assertion that there are no liberal prosecutors any where in the nation that would take on the police?
quote:
Almost every large protest in the last two decades has seen this.
Translation, you're going to assert that almost "every large" protest, out of how many in the last 20 years? 4 or 5 thousand? more? How big to meet your criteria?
quote:
It doesn't necessarily happen with the small, piddly ones -- although there are certainly cases where it has -- but it is a routine practice in law enforcement where large protests are expected. It's literally textbook counter-insurgency.
Then provide the literal textbook that shows that law enforcement should infiltrate protests and start the violence themselves. This one of the most nonsensical points you assert as unquestionable fact. That somehow there are official guides that the police should engage in illegal behavior to make situations more violent, notwithstanding its not in the interests of any local authorities (who they almost always work for) to actually have a violent protest on their hands.

You know I actually lived next to the UN for a while, there are 2-3 protests every day at or around the UN, some of which shut down Manhattan avenues for periods of time. Even in the city, you hear about less than 1 in hundred, outside the city even less than that. Violent ones though everyone hears about, how does it benefit the forces of suppression of issues to MAKE the protest into bigger news items?
quote:
quote:
There's also the evidence that people interested in spreading the message through violence travelled between certain of these riots...
You may want to examine some of the prejudices exposed by your wording, here. [Smile]
Why? The common core in the protests that turned into riots appears to be persons motivated to use violence to call attention to the issues. Are you suggesting that me calling them riots, which was intentional description not unconscious bias is somehow revealing? I think you just find it "revealing" that I need to actually see proof of things you've internalized as tenants of faith.
quote:
quote:
The fact is, without the violence the message there is barely or never heard, it's not wall to wall covered for days.
This is only true if traffic stoppages are considered violence -- or, I suppose, if something isn't "heard" until it's on Fox News. That said, yes, it certainly got more press once people started throwing rocks and looting.
Umm.. no, it's true either way. Without the violence in Ferguson the issue is much less covered, and the follow on protests and riots in other cities likely aren't covered at all (if they even occur without the instigation).
quote:
quote:
I also recall, on the other side of the coin, how Tea Party rallies were depicted as "racist" on the flimsiest of attributions
You mean the speakers calling Obama a "nigger" and posters depicting him as a monkey or as a fat-lipped caricature behind bars? Yeah, that's pretty flimsy.
And you question me being a partisan troll? Lol. I'm talking about the rallies where the charge was "I heard someone in the crowd (unidentified) using a racial slur." Lol.
quote:
quote:
Can anyone else confirm that violence and fear were the message here?
Pay attention to O'Reilly's questioning, too
Umm... why? You're assertion was "You couldn't turn on Fox News without hearing about the violence and fear" how does a youtube clip get you to proving this claim? Answer - it doesn't - which is why I asked for the impressions of others. Your claim is an overstatement, which ties into another theme of the article about citing on an extremist or in this case minority of air time event and pretending it covers the whole thing.
quote:
quote:
the self interested turned out in mass to protect their unjust and unaffordable entitlements
Question: at what point did you become a knee-jerk, partisan troll, Seriati?
Maybe next time don't start out with a claim that politic disagreement and solutions you don't approve of to ACTUAL problems are rape and I won't react as harshly. I agree it is a real shame that provocative language and unproven assertions pretending to be "facts" have become the norm around here.

I match actual arguments with arguments, heck I usually even match the first few instances of snark with actual arguments, even the first few instances of attempts at changing the definitions to moot the arguments with arguments. But I don't feel like I'm obligated to continue making substantive points, when the responses are non-substantive assertions.
quote:
quote:
This is the first step in dismissing rather than refuting their claims.
Again, what claims?
The claims that what the protesters want is not the right solution (e.g. don't break the justice system to force a specific result in one case), or that they bear responsibility for their own situation (e.g. by for instance attacking a police officer), or that the issues while important are part of a bigger picture (remember the stink of the distinction between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter).
quote:
What arguments were made in favor of racism in Ferguson?
I don't recall anyone, anywhere making arguments in favor of racism. If you want to know why we aren't having pleasant discourse, take a look at the implications you're making here. You're not entitled to pretend you're on the side that is anti-racist when BOTH sides are in truth anti-racist, and their disagreement is how to best achieve the result.

[ June 10, 2015, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Seriati ]

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
if you had to attribute the relative lack of violence (global and local) in the past century compared with those that came before, on what would you pin the differences?
Increased prosperity and the threat of mutual annihilation. When people have more to lose than gain through conflict, and aren't pushed to acts of desperation, they're generally content to suck it up.
Prosperity alone doesn't explain why nations where gay marriage was once unthinkable are now moving to change that, or why even the civil rights movement was possible. You could argue (and I would agree) that prosperity created a good ecosystem in which to learn about each other... much better to foster subtle empathies in a peaceful world than a warring one, but I think that's just one element of it. You don't just need prosperity - you need a culture that promotes and rewards acts of empathy. Prosperity is necessary, but not sufficient. Some of the "bad actors" are the most prosperous of all and they aren't any more empathic for it.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Prosperity alone doesn't explain why nations where gay marriage was once unthinkable are now moving to change that, or why even the civil rights movement was possible.
You can file that under "social mores change as people encounter the Other," I think. Once might also wonder why the legal and cultural ages of marriage have shifted, or why we no longer burn witches, or why miniskirts came in, then out, then back in style. Exposure to difference is the driver, there, which is why what has happened to modern news delivery -- which allows people to never encounter a contrasting opinion that they feel they need to take seriously -- is so potentially pernicious.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
That being said, if you had to attribute the relative lack of violence (global and local) in the past century compared with those that came before, on what would you pin the differences? I would propose that it is not due to the behaviors of those at the top, but rather that it is due to an increase in the general public's collective "understanding" of some things. It does appear as though the population can "learn" things, much like an individual organism obviously does. There is a collective wisdom out there that is striving to fight back against more tribal behavior.

The amazing thing about the changes in modern life is that are they not at all a result of people knowing more than they used to. In some senses I would say people as a whole know far less than they used to about real life and how things work, even if at the same time they are filled with useless trivia and technical details that don't actually inform their moral and political lives. I would pin the decrease in international aggression, as Tom does, to WWI and WWII, where the world learned that it is no longer possible to attack another nation of comparable power and come out with few losses and large gains. Where we do tend to see invasion is where the attacker is vastly stronger than the defender and risks losing little. In all cases huge casualties seem to be deemed as unacceptable these days.

In social life the lack of overt violence is, I think, attributable to both an increased standard of living (which in turn is due to production technology) as well as to an increase in tools of pacification and socialization. Entertainment, possessions and a far more effective policing method make small-time violence far too costly to engage in for the average person. I attribute roughly zero of modern 'civility' to some kind of enlightenment of the population at large; in general I believe that most people are capable of turning savage on a moment's notice if their things are taken away from them.

On the broader topic I agree with JoshCrow that the problem is the system, rather than those particular individuals that abuse it. However it bears mentioning that when the system itself is regularly changed by those individuals then you have a feedback loop and it's incorrect to either tunnel on the individuals or the system; it's both. If we imagine a scenario where the system functions well then we must be on our guard for those who would subvert it. The fact of that system having already been subverted doesn't mean we should ignore those trying to subvert it further.

I also agree with Tom that some of these people are almost literally the cartoon-style moustachio-twirlers. To ignore the possibility that we're dealing with real psychopaths and would-be despots is not only ignoring a serious danger but also, I think, forgetting some facts about the darker side of human kind as well. It doesn't do us any favors to think that the plutocrats are "just ordinary people like you and me, imperfect and trying to make the best of things for themselves." They aren't.

quote:
From Frank Herbert's Chapterhouse: Dune
quote:
"Isn't it odd, Dama[,]how rebels all too soon fall into old patterns if they are victorious? It's not so much a pitfall in the path of all governments as it is a delusion waiting for anyone who gains power."

"Hah! And I thought you would tell me something new. We know that one: 'Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.'"

"Wrong, Dama. Something more subtle but far more pervasive: Power attracts the corruptible."


The types that are compelled to enslave others already exist, they must merely be resisted. Preventing there being a position from which they can do this is one thing; preventing them creating such a station for themselves is another.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Seriati, I missed your most recent update.


quote:
Not to mention, what you suggest would be criminal so we'd see trial after trial...
No, sadly. It's not at all illegal to infiltrate an organization, or even necessarily to provoke that organization into crime. You remember very recently, during the Oakland protests, when two undercover cops were outed when one of them pulled a gun on the crowd after that crowd, becoming suspicious after one of them exhorted them to crime too eagerly, accused them of being police? Neither officer in that scenario was ever disciplined. When asked at the time, California CHP admitted that they had been regularly stationing police in "observation" roles for at least a month prior to the discovery in Oakland.

You really should do research on this. I'm serious. Counterintelligence is very much a thing, and I suspect that it's responsible for a great deal of evil.

quote:
you're going to assert that almost "every large" protest, out of how many in the last 20 years? 4 or 5 thousand?
*laugh* I would say that there have been about thirty large American protests in the last 20 years, and probably only ten or twelve notable ones.

quote:
Then provide the literal textbook that shows that law enforcement should infiltrate protests and start the violence themselves.
*sigh* You know I don't do links. Google "FBI COINTELPRO methods" if you want the most obvious stuff.

quote:
Maybe next time don't start out with a claim that politic disagreement and solutions you don't approve of to ACTUAL problems are rape and I won't react as harshly.
No, see, we're talking actual rape. All the money "saved" by robbing K-12 teachers, unionized employees, and colleges has already been spent by a) long-term debt, renegotiated to make it appear that short-term deficits have been reduced; and b) literal gifts to donating corporations, including sports teams, major Walker donors, and out-of-state companies (who are also Walker donors). This is not an exaggeration. Walker has not saved the state money; he has cost it money, while simultaneously ignoring and voiding the contracts of hundreds of thousands of workers to give it to corporations who have, so far, created fewer jobs than the national average and have defaulted on those "loans" without any punishment at a rate of about 40%. I think the term "rape" is pretty accurate.

quote:
Why? The common core in the protests that turned into riots appears to be persons motivated to use violence to call attention to the issues....
This is, indeed, one of the prejudices revealed by your choice of terms.

quote:
I'm talking about the rallies where the charge was "I heard someone in the crowd (unidentified) using a racial slur."
I can't find a complaint of that type being repeated by any national media. I did find complaints about speakers and posters, and blogs in which people described the tenor of the crowd as overwhelmingly white and hostile to minorities, but no scenario in which the national media said anything like "the Tea Party is racist in intent because this member of the crowd used a racial slur."

quote:
The claims that what the protesters want is not the right solution (e.g. don't break the justice system to force a specific result in one case), or that they bear responsibility for their own situation (e.g. by for instance attacking a police officer), or that the issues while important are part of a bigger picture (remember the stink of the distinction between Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter).
Heh. Okay, so I'm intrigued: how do you get from the article, then, to an attack on those positions? Because that's the point, right -- that that article is somehow an attempt to diminish the attention paid to someone saying "you made your own bed; lay in it?" Are you suggesting that those people saying that are engaging in the sort of intentional deception and minimization discussed by the article?

quote:
You're not entitled to pretend you're on the side that is anti-racist when BOTH sides are in truth anti-racist
Bull. ****. Both sides? Seriati, you need to actually open your eyes, man. At best, at best, you might argue that both sides contained people who were equally prejudiced, but that one side was defending the institutional racism pervasive in the status quo and the other side was protesting it. There is no possible construction any intellectually honest person can put on the Ferguson situation in which both sides are "anti-racist."

[ June 10, 2015, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:

In social life the lack of overt violence is, I think, attributable to both an increased standard of living (which in turn is due to production technology) as well as to an increase in tools of pacification and socialization. Entertainment, possessions and a far more effective policing method make small-time violence far too costly to engage in for the average person. I attribute roughly zero of modern 'civility' to some kind of enlightenment of the population at large; in general I believe that most people are capable of turning savage on a moment's notice if their things are taken away from them.

Entertainment is something I'm glad you mentioned, because therein lies a great deal of the enlightenment I allude to. People don't understand homosexuality because of policing or technological breakthroughs - they understand it because they watched Will & Grace, had a beer with the gay guy next door, and inevitably had a cousin they love come out of the closet. These things are only possible in peacetime and in the presence of prosperity (I'll grant that), but I genuinely do think there is such a thing as a "national conversation" and a growing societal awareness. It is also in PLAIN sight if you look at how comedy has evolved (for better or worse).

While I won't dispute that people can become savages under duress, and civility is a delicate veneer, it does nevertheless express increasing degrees of enlightenment about the Other (as a general rule) wherever prosperity and peace bring different people into contact with each other. It also moves faster in urban areas for that proximity reason.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshCrow,

You and Tom are surely right that exposure to The Other has been a force for acceptance. But this kind of 'experiential training', which largely happens passively due to environment, is of the same type as the training given by Hollywood and TV. You see tropes and patterns, and the more you see them the more you accept them as reality and normal. That's brainwashing, basically. Now, you may find many of these tropes to be positive, and indeed some kinds of narratives may be 'nice', while others may be manipulative and unhealthy. But overall I don't think this kind of passive training bears any relationship with enlightenment, the latter of which requires active work done on the part of the thinker and also requires the ability to reject wholesale the material one is exposed to on critical grounds. The critical rejection of what one is seeing is the opposite of what tends to happen in entertainment viewing.

Overall I think the entertainment industry does far more to keep people asleep then it does to wake them up, notwithstanding certain artists and directors that do try to make a serious point. But I would say the vast majority of entertainment is either intentional or unintentional propaganda, and serves very well to make the average person feel that everything is ok.

The fact of socialization and normalization occurring very quickly in urban areas is precisely why there is so much uniformity of thought in areas where there should rightly be huge disagreement. But mysteriously we tend to only hear exactly two opposing positions on every topic. Hmm....

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1