There's no mystery here, and indoctrination is unnecessary.
If human = animal + x, then being human as opposed to being animal is about being x.
If the animal is base (and that *does* fall in line with the commonly accepted definition of "base" since Shakespeare's time) then base are those who only appease their animal nature, and transcendent are those who transcend their animal nature.
It's called thinking. Try it some time.
The only indoctrination involved is the indoctrination fed us by the pleasure-seekers, who now dominate our society, and who denigrate anything - like duty, honor, responsibility, self-respect - which stands in the way of our short-term self gratification.
Re:Obligatory Bad Joke
on
Hacking Vodka
·
· Score: 1
Funniest Slashdot Soviet Russia joke ever! How ironic!
The technology uses light impulses to detect video recording devices.
That's a coincidence. My eyes use "light impulses" to see. So do cameras. Are we going to see another stupid patent now: "a method of procuring the location of objects by sensing light impulses"?
I don't know if astroturfing is the right term, but I certainly know what you mean. MS will idemnify customers against this non-existent threat, to draw a contrast with Linux users who have no such indemnification. Of course the fact that Linux users don't need no stinking indemnification is glossed over. They are merely capitalizing on the SCO FUD, and for free.
Impressed by Orwellian methods? Best Buy is the leastof your problems.Try this. --
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
We know for *certain*, through a survey reported here only a few days ago, that Republican voters are less well appraised (through selective listening) of the facts pertaining to Bush's conduct, the economy and the Iraq war etc. - than the rest of the population.
It's not a case of "we do and they don't" - it's just a matter of degree.
Obviously intelligent Republican voters do exist, and they must therefore continue to support the Republican movement in full knowledge of the moral ambiguity of doing so. It would take a pretty harsh and cynical view of the world to make this possible, so we must surely be talking about a small minority. The less well educated, less politically astute rural and backwater population vote they way they do because the Republican campaign was largely aimed at influencing their emotions, what with TV ads about deer and wolves and eagles etc.
Therefore your first sentence, while somewhat hyperbolic, does essentially capture the situation. Unfortunately.
Your second sentence is based on a false presumption. We don't fail to see the Republican point of view; those of us who despise Bushism understand it and because we understand it we reject it.
The bulk of Republican voters are not accustomed to critical thinking, don't understand the issues, and don't see why they should need to understand the issues. To them, it's about "loyalty" and "patriotism" and other things like that which are held by them to be more valuable than thinking.
If forced somehow to attain the same level of understanding - by pinning open their ears and eyes maybe - they could also be persuaded to reject it. But they don't want to do this, it's too painful to take responsibility, they are too comfortable accepting the soft lies they are fed.
What *really* disturbs me though is the woman who blogged that she was a Democrat who voted Republican because "at least Bush has values" and "at least I know where he stands". Values! Satan has "values" for fuck's sake. Everybody knows where Satan stands. That's no fucking reason to vote somebody as president. If the Democrats need to depend on people like that, the US is already doomed.
OTOH Things like demanding ID won't fly here... a lot of people don't carry any, and there's considerable resistance to any form of mandatory ID card.
Really? Gosh, somebody should tell David Blunkett.
Oh, they did. And he didn't care.
I don't think the UK government really give a toss about what the public thinks. And if you suppose that a Tory win next time would make any difference, think again. No government is going to turn down the chance to gain that sort of control over its subjects, especially when said opportunity is being handed to them on a plate with the pacification bit already mostly done.
The only way this can be averted is by a concerted, massively orchestrated effort involving mass demonstrations and possibly outbreaks of violence (as in the poll tax riots). Trouble is, the sheeple couldn't give a shit. What's liberty to them?
You forgot that education and intelligence are two different things. The exit polls reveal that there is not much of a correlation between political affiliation and education. They don't say anything about intelligence though.
Not surprising really - can you imagine the pollsters hanging around outside with their clipboards asking everyone: "hello? Who did you vote for? What? Are you stupid?"
Dunno where Prowse originally came from, but his accent is definitely West Country (think: corny pirate accent - ooh arr jim lad!). About as far away from Scots as you can get.
This company isn't really HP, it became something else when Carly Fiorina took over running the company. In any case, Carly Fiorina said at the beginning of this year, that she aimed to put rigorously enforced DRM on all HP's devices. Meanwhile MS is busting a gut trying to sell its new DRM technologies to everyone. It's easy to see how Linux just doesn't fit into that strategy particulary well, and Microsoft does.
No I agree, but what does convince people that you are right?
For people who posses intelligent, analytical minds and who are prepared to approach the subject without prejudice, then calm reasoned debate ought to work.
Of course most people do not possess intelligent, analytical minds and they do not see the world through spectacles of rationality. For them, 2 + 2 = x where x is whatever the establishment told them to believe. Convincing them of something involves programmed manipulation of their perceptions and emotions over a period of time.
The Bush White House team is very, very good at this.
Then there are the people who fail the second test and who may or may not be intelligent and rational, but who are prejudiced. They're a bit harder to reach. Generally it takes about a decade or two of social engineering to stamp out a society's most popular prejudices. It's worth pointing out that whether or not the Bush administration actually manages to solve America's problems, they will certainly change America's perceptions and predilections substantially over the course of their 8-year rule.
This is exactly what happened in the UK during Margaret Thatcher's reign: she forced the entirety of British politics to move to the right. The end result was the death of Old Labour and the birth of New Labour, as Old Labour spoke in a language that had become alien to the right-shifted electorate. New Labour begins from a point that largely accepts the precepts of Thatcherism.
Considering the Democrats' failure to convince anybody last night, it looks like a similar transformation is inevitable for the Democrats in the US, if they are survive at all as a political force.
They are normal, intelligent, considerate people that disagree with them.
I'd have to disagree with that on the following grounds: 1. Bush is hurting the US with his military adventurism and big spending and many other things 2. Therefore, to vote Bush is stupid. 3. Therefore, people who vote for Bush are acting stupidly. QED.
The "fanatic terrorist threat" has been massively overblown, from a US standpoint. Bin Laden got lucky with the twin towers, now that particular route has been closed off. You may sleep safely; you are more likely to die crossing the street than from a terrorist attack. Even without turning your country into a prison.
The UK lived with Irish terrorism for thirty years, including several pretty horrific bomb attacks and they didn't lose their lunch over it like you have. Funny, isn't it, that the US likes to brag how tough it is while carpet bombing Muslim civilians from a safe distance, while tough guys like Bruce Willis cringe from getting on a plane. It's all just hysteria. No doubt Bin Laden will be mighty pleased with all this.
Er, I'm almost sure that by that ground zero remark he actually meant an accidental detonation in N Korea itself, and that the village idiot referred to was the jumpsuit-clad Kim Jong II. It *was* a bit obscure. But I think you are reacting oversensitively (and showing paranoia, unwarranted hostility and aggression) in choosing the very worst interpretation.
The EU. It's not a continent, it's a Federal alliance not so dissimilar in structure to an early version of your United States. Population about 50% larger than your own.
Dunno about the economic figures, but a comparison would be moot anyway, since most of US wealth is imaginary, existing only in the form of reams of government-printed dollars. You guys are living large on borrowed money right now, and your chickens are going to come home to roost sooner than you think unless you learn to tighten spending and increase productivity. Unfortunately your continuing president doesn't seem to think that should be a priority.
The problem for the rest of the world is going to be that historically, cash-strapped superpowers tend to rely more and more on military force to protect their interests and keep themselves going.
But the metal entity with your memories would be very different in many ways.
You're making unwarranted assumptions about the details of a hypothetical technology that doesn't exist yet!
The question whether he "is" "you" is useless semantics IMO.
I'm glad you have grasped this crucial philosophical point. Most people don't. Even (ironically enough) William Gibson.
The real question is: given the choice, would you like to create a second you with all your memories and should society permit you to do that.
If the technology was up to the task, and if I had sufficient reason to (any of those I enumerated previously would do), then yes why not. As to society...society will ultimately decide under what circumstances the benefits outweigh any drawbacks. eg: if I am mortally injured/terminally ill, my death will impoverish my wife and young children and place a burden of care on the State. If the State allows me to extend my life so I can continue to provide for them, surely that's a good thing? It apparently is, because the state (any state) already allows the ill and injured to receive life-saving surgery. Same thing.
While Iraq continues to be the focus of terrorist attacks, they are also enjoying refurbished schools, utilities, road systems, and a host of other benefits lacking under Hussein.
Well, some of them are enjoying those things. But there are approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians who can't enjoy those things because they are now dead as a direct result of the your military intervention. Left under Sadaam some of them might have suffered but the great majority of them would still be alive. And there are also the deceased's even more numerous relatives and close friends, who very likely would happily tell you to stuff your schools, utilities and road systems - most of which building is only necessary to repair what you blew up anyway. (We've all had to sit through the before, during and after pictures over and over again so don't bother trying to deny it).
Most notably, an operating democratic government with scheduled elections and a leader who is not practicing genocide.
Once the US and allies withdraw - and they do have to withdraw or else your pretensions of having "liberated" Iraq are exposed as nonsense - any elected government will immediately find themselves under siege by insurgents. As the supply of rebels still seems pretty strong even after all this time, I doubt we'll be seeing an "outbreak of democracy" in the region any time soon. More likely the democratic government will be slaughtered and a new dictatorship installed (a fundamental islamic one this time, as we all know, and solidly Jihad-oriented, to boot).
Afghanistan has already had its elections--something you don't see heavily publicized.
Possibly because they didn't change anything, in that the same crooks are still running the country. But even if Afghanistan were truly democratic now and or ever after, it doesn't excuse what you did in Iraq.
Liberal spin? That's just neocon talk for "absence of correct neoconservative spin". Or thoughtcrime, as it is sometimes called.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no mystery here, and indoctrination is unnecessary.
If human = animal + x, then being human as opposed to being animal is about being x.
If the animal is base (and that *does* fall in line with the commonly accepted definition of "base" since Shakespeare's time) then base are those who only appease their animal nature, and transcendent are those who transcend their animal nature.
It's called thinking. Try it some time.
The only indoctrination involved is the indoctrination fed us by the pleasure-seekers, who now dominate our society, and who denigrate anything - like duty, honor, responsibility, self-respect - which stands in the way of our short-term self gratification.
Funniest Slashdot Soviet Russia joke ever! How ironic!
People like you, weak-kneed apologists for base behaviour, are the cause of most of society's ills.
If it stops the polar ice caps melting, wouldn't that be a good thing? Build them, I say!
That's a coincidence. My eyes use "light impulses" to see. So do cameras. Are we going to see another stupid patent now: "a method of procuring the location of objects by sensing light impulses"?
I don't know if astroturfing is the right term, but I certainly know what you mean. MS will idemnify customers against this non-existent threat, to draw a contrast with Linux users who have no such indemnification. Of course the fact that Linux users don't need no stinking indemnification is glossed over. They are merely capitalizing on the SCO FUD, and for free.
--
We know for *certain*, through a survey reported here only a few days ago, that Republican voters are less well appraised (through selective listening) of the facts pertaining to Bush's conduct, the economy and the Iraq war etc. - than the rest of the population.
It's not a case of "we do and they don't" - it's just a matter of degree.
Obviously intelligent Republican voters do exist, and they must therefore continue to support the Republican movement in full knowledge of the moral ambiguity of doing so. It would take a pretty harsh and cynical view of the world to make this possible, so we must surely be talking about a small minority. The less well educated, less politically astute rural and backwater population vote they way they do because the Republican campaign was largely aimed at influencing their emotions, what with TV ads about deer and wolves and eagles etc.
Therefore your first sentence, while somewhat hyperbolic, does essentially capture the situation. Unfortunately.
Your second sentence is based on a false presumption. We don't fail to see the Republican point of view; those of us who despise Bushism understand it and because we understand it we reject it.
The bulk of Republican voters are not accustomed to critical thinking, don't understand the issues, and don't see why they should need to understand the issues. To them, it's about "loyalty" and "patriotism" and other things like that which are held by them to be more valuable than thinking.
If forced somehow to attain the same level of understanding - by pinning open their ears and eyes maybe - they could also be persuaded to reject it. But they don't want to do this, it's too painful to take responsibility, they are too comfortable accepting the soft lies they are fed.
What *really* disturbs me though is the woman who blogged that she was a Democrat who voted Republican because "at least Bush has values" and "at least I know where he stands". Values! Satan has "values" for fuck's sake. Everybody knows where Satan stands. That's no fucking reason to vote somebody as president. If the Democrats need to depend on people like that, the US is already doomed.
Oh, they did. And he didn't care.
I don't think the UK government really give a toss about what the public thinks. And if you suppose that a Tory win next time would make any difference, think again. No government is going to turn down the chance to gain that sort of control over its subjects, especially when said opportunity is being handed to them on a plate with the pacification bit already mostly done.
The only way this can be averted is by a concerted, massively orchestrated effort involving mass demonstrations and possibly outbreaks of violence (as in the poll tax riots). Trouble is, the sheeple couldn't give a shit. What's liberty to them?
Yes, but not much of one. Many of the figures are close enough to 50% that you could write it off as noise or sampling error.
You forgot that education and intelligence are two different things. The exit polls reveal that there is not much of a correlation between political affiliation and education. They don't say anything about intelligence though.
Not surprising really - can you imagine the pollsters hanging around outside with their clipboards asking everyone: "hello? Who did you vote for? What? Are you stupid?"
Dunno where Prowse originally came from, but his accent is definitely West Country (think: corny pirate accent - ooh arr jim lad!). About as far away from Scots as you can get.
Submarine patent.
The closest conjuction was before dawn this morning.
Oh and by the way - emacs may beat vi, but gvim beats the pants off of emacs. ;o)
It's getting there. Slowly, and with far too much complaining from the British people IMHO - but one day....
This company isn't really HP, it became something else when Carly Fiorina took over running the company. In any case, Carly Fiorina said at the beginning of this year, that she aimed to put rigorously enforced DRM on all HP's devices. Meanwhile MS is busting a gut trying to sell its new DRM technologies to everyone. It's easy to see how Linux just doesn't fit into that strategy particulary well, and Microsoft does.
No I agree, but what does convince people that you are right?
For people who posses intelligent, analytical minds and who are prepared to approach the subject without prejudice, then calm reasoned debate ought to work.
Of course most people do not possess intelligent, analytical minds and they do not see the world through spectacles of rationality. For them, 2 + 2 = x where x is whatever the establishment told them to believe. Convincing them of something involves programmed manipulation of their perceptions and emotions over a period of time.
The Bush White House team is very, very good at this.
Then there are the people who fail the second test and who may or may not be intelligent and rational, but who are prejudiced. They're a bit harder to reach. Generally it takes about a decade or two of social engineering to stamp out a society's most popular prejudices. It's worth pointing out that whether or not the Bush administration actually manages to solve America's problems, they will certainly change America's perceptions and predilections substantially over the course of their 8-year rule.
This is exactly what happened in the UK during Margaret Thatcher's reign: she forced the entirety of British politics to move to the right. The end result was the death of Old Labour and the birth of New Labour, as Old Labour spoke in a language that had become alien to the right-shifted electorate. New Labour begins from a point that largely accepts the precepts of Thatcherism.
Considering the Democrats' failure to convince anybody last night, it looks like a similar transformation is inevitable for the Democrats in the US, if they are survive at all as a political force.
I'd have to disagree with that on the following grounds:
1. Bush is hurting the US with his military adventurism and big spending and many other things
2. Therefore, to vote Bush is stupid.
3. Therefore, people who vote for Bush are acting stupidly. QED.
The "fanatic terrorist threat" has been massively overblown, from a US standpoint. Bin Laden got lucky with the twin towers, now that particular route has been closed off. You may sleep safely; you are more likely to die crossing the street than from a terrorist attack. Even without turning your country into a prison.
The UK lived with Irish terrorism for thirty years, including several pretty horrific bomb attacks and they didn't lose their lunch over it like you have. Funny, isn't it, that the US likes to brag how tough it is while carpet bombing Muslim civilians from a safe distance, while tough guys like Bruce Willis cringe from getting on a plane. It's all just hysteria. No doubt Bin Laden will be mighty pleased with all this.
Er, I'm almost sure that by that ground zero remark he actually meant an accidental detonation in N Korea itself, and that the village idiot referred to was the jumpsuit-clad Kim Jong II. It *was* a bit obscure. But I think you are reacting oversensitively (and showing paranoia, unwarranted hostility and aggression) in choosing the very worst interpretation.
The EU. It's not a continent, it's a Federal alliance not so dissimilar in structure to an early version of your United States. Population about 50% larger than your own.
Dunno about the economic figures, but a comparison would be moot anyway, since most of US wealth is imaginary, existing only in the form of reams of government-printed dollars. You guys are living large on borrowed money right now, and your chickens are going to come home to roost sooner than you think unless you learn to tighten spending and increase productivity. Unfortunately your continuing president doesn't seem to think that should be a priority.
The problem for the rest of the world is going to be that historically, cash-strapped superpowers tend to rely more and more on military force to protect their interests and keep themselves going.
Liberal spin? That's just neocon talk for "absence of correct neoconservative spin". Or thoughtcrime, as it is sometimes called.