This article is a sad way to look at the world
Executing strategy #5, I see.
Plans you're not supposed to talk about
101–110 of 675 posts
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty LOL okay I literally can't go any further than the first sentence. Very good much wow so projection. I like the document title, though. "Microsoft Word - Document1". Very classy.
Didn't even bother to read the citation for that statement? > This has now been true for over a century, and as early as 1855 J. S. Mill could say (see my John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London and Chicago, 1951], p. 216) that "almost all the projects of social reformers of these days are really liberticide." > I like the document title, though. "Microsoft Word - Document1". Very classy. Textbook example of an a…
That's pretty loaded language, but it makes sense.
When an area is sparsely populated it doesn't matter as much how people behave. They aren't harming other people because there are none around.
As the population density increases the same actions like emitting pollution of one kind or another (air, sound, light, etc...) becomes a problem and all of the other people come together to ask you to stop, thus infringing on your liberties.
All of society is just people trying to get along with your neighbors. The more people you live near with the harder it is to stay on good relations with all of them. As the population continues to grow it becomes increasingly difficult to not live near other people, effectively impossible for an ever growing percentage of the population.
Some of this may even partially explain the rural/urban divide in politics.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#103As an authorial technique starting off with a just so story about how marriage came to be that lasts several paragraphs and is obviously not at all how marriage came to be and doesn't even have the excuse of referencing some sort of supernatural source for being wrong might seem interesting but bored me too much to continue.
I'm supposing the rest of it is also wrong and badly argued.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit. But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and…
So when people say "save the planet" they also mean preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a good one. To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race to do that either.
How about transforming an unsustainable standard of living into a sustainable one?
"Kill all humans" is so defeatist. So is "kill most humans and go back to being hunter/gatherers". That's not even trying. That is flipping the board because you think you're losing.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#105The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…
While practical and maybe inevitable, this approach will alienate exactly the kind of people you want on your side if you want to _actually_ reach your goal and course correct when needed. Instead you will attract people who will happily pretend to be on the right path and will keep performing rain dances on titanic. What you propose can work if it is a technocratic conspiracy where people who know what's going on ma…
[deleted]
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#106Neat article. I don’t understand what he’s saying for number 4 though.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider that causing 1% of the group's population to die might not weaken the group and in fact might make the group stronger.
Disease doesn't kill "weaker" members of a group, it kills susceptible ones. The Spanish Flu notably had a much higher mortality amongst younger, healthier people.
COVID however is most fatal to the eldery. Letting it simply rage out of control could push back the social security crisis a few years.
I don't think anything as Machiavellian as this is going on. I think it was all just a culmination of decades anti-expert propaganda and knee-jerk obstructionism coming to a head in a terribly fatal way.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#108The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…
There's a term for this and it's called 'Public Communications' sometimes into the domain of propaganda.
This is not a 'new' concept it's as old as time and 100% of people with real power have an awareness of this, it's almost a defining feature of an elite class.
Policy should obviously be guided by 'Truth' and we need transparency, at the same time, irrespective of how smart individuals are, as crowds, we act with a lowest-common-demoninator IQ and things need to be communicated effectively.
A great example of 'Truths We Cant't Handle' are vaccination-caused deaths.
All the vaccines cause death, and AZ is particularly tricky. But it's really hard to find exact data on that because it's very well suppressed. I suggest it's probably available with some digging but if you imagine a 'chain of communications' from the doctors, to health officials, to politicians to media, all of whom are ostensibly trying to act in the interest of the 'Public Good' - it's not going to come out.
Bonnie Henry in BC is a great Public Health official, I listen to her communications almost weekly, very smart, generally open, data-driven, smart journalists asking good questions - but they have never broached the subject of 'How many have died form vaccines'. The information is just too explosive. So they don't talk about it. We're learn more about it after the pandemic.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#109This reminds me of a set of poems, Knots, by R.D. Laing, the first of which goes: > They are playing a game > They are playing, at not playing a game > If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. > I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. It's a lovely collection, and though I haven't thought about it recently, I think there's a lot of value in considering these kinds…
I lost the game.
Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about
#110This reminds me of a set of poems, Knots, by R.D. Laing, the first of which goes: > They are playing a game > They are playing, at not playing a game > If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. > I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game. It's a lovely collection, and though I haven't thought about it recently, I think there's a lot of value in considering these kinds…
Thanks for sharing! Knots has lovely metre, which feels/sounds like the famous Bene Gesserit litany against fear.
I must not reveal the game / Revelation makes me the rule breaker / Revelation means alienation that brings total ostracization