Deep thoughts with interchange (Vol 1)

[interchange]

I have been niggled by something on this board. I come here in spurts, looking for topics which pique my interest to become involved in. Often, I can find something that presents a possible tangent for me to explore, though my efficacy in engaging others in a different approach is poor.

And this is my fault. As I have not created any posts for which I have set the initial framework for discussion.

That is not what has niggled me. What has niggled me is that this is a collective failing. You can scour this sub-forum, and you will almost never find a topic that is wholly sourced by an individual. Each has been set forth by a news article. Or an event. Or a theory about the behavior of others (particularly Trump). Or most often a combination of the 3.

If we are truly individuals with independent thought, ought we not reject this? I do not want to be complicit in the machinations of the media or to suck the teats of our political representatives whose interest is only in reinforcing that dependence. I feel it quite a trick of our education system to set forth a value of individuality and self-worth. So much so that each of us knows inherently we are a special snowflake, yet we can see so plainly the hypocrisy of that belief in our peers. Unfortunately, our minds or so self-preserving that we construct a reality in which we ourselves are the only ones with true independence, and that the 7.4 billion other people on this planet are cogs in a machine. Statistically, I cannot accept that to be true.

In that spirit, I would like to start a series of discussions from my own thoughts and experiences on topics that I have some ideas about. This is the first. I would like your help in deciding the next. I plan to put them out on a (roughly) weekly basis. Here are the things on my mind for the future. Please help prioritize my presentation of them and make suggestions for things I might consider as well.

Race relations in the US
Healthcare systems
Sudent loans
"Free market" economies
Social media
Radical Islam
Energy

 

[cbrunny]

You want to control the conversation on the internet? Have you ever met the internet?

I don't mean to be a downer but if you want a real conversation, go to a University. Everyone here shows up to wag dicks. There's no sense to be made.

 

[repoman0]

I think this is supposed to be the point of the discussion club subforum, but unfortunately it's not as active as this one. Then again, P&N is just a bunch of people "taking sides" and bashing each other, so it makes sense that it's more active.

Interesting thread though and I would like to see more.

 

[Moonbeam]

You want to control the conversation on the internet? Have you ever met the internet?

I don't mean to be a downer but if you want a real conversation, go to a University. Everyone here shows up to wag dicks. There's no sense to be made.

One time when Mulla Nasrudin was carrying a pallet of chickens in cages to sell at the market and became very fatigued from the weight he had an inspiration. He set the pallet on the ground and opened the cages proceeding to the walk to the market while the chickens just pucked about. He wqlked back and said to them, 'how is it that you know when the sun is coming up but you have no idea where I am going?'

One time a group of scholars came to Mulla Nasrudin's town to give a series of lectures for the public's edification. The Mulla went directly up onto the stage directly to the podium. They scholars ask what are you doing up here. 'I am here to answer the questions that baffle you learned gentlemen.' the Mulla said.

 

[Moonbeam]

If we are truly individuals with independent thought, ought we not reject this? I do not want to be complicit in the machinations of the media or to suck the teats of our political representatives whose interest is only in reinforcing that dependence. I feel it quite a trick of our education system to set forth a value of individuality and self-worth. So much so that each of us knows inherently we are a special snowflake, yet we can see so plainly the hypocrisy of that belief in our peers. Unfortunately, our minds or so self-preserving that we construct a reality in which we ourselves are the only ones with true independence, and that the 7.4 billion other people on this planet are cogs in a machine. Statistically, I cannot accept that to be true.

I know this feeling. If I want to have independent thought not arising out of some unconscious need, I must reject the specialness of my point of view to me. But where that leads me is to the notion that my feeling I should desire independent thought may be another of those snowflake things. In Zen I first was confronted with the notion that behind the hopelessness of my dreams there was a Strawberry.

'A man with tiring limbs, chased off a cliff by one tiger, hangs precariously to the root of a tree with another tiger paces below him. He spied a strawberry growing on the cliff face, and plucked it. It tasted so good.'

The topic I like best among those listed is Energy.

 

[interchange]

You want to control the conversation on the internet? Have you ever met the internet?

I don't mean to be a downer but if you want a real conversation, go to a University. Everyone here shows up to wag dicks. There's no sense to be made.

I'm an assistant professor at a University. The unconscious agenda is mind-numbing, and since I am a player in the system I am pressured to be at least complicit enough in that agenda to advance within it. Universities are a bastion for people who want to support the idea that they think for themselves without actually testing it in reality. And because intelligence is the prerequisite for such a fantasy, I have a visceral rejection of defenses built upon it in order to exclude feelings.

No. The internet where people are anonymous and do not see each others faces and have no connection to each other except the one that we imagine is exactly the right place. It is the place where people's feelings drive the conversation, even if the vast majority lack awareness of this, and many still actively reject it when it is pointed out.

And I do not wish to control the conversation on the internet. I am here because it is the place where people are genuine with an aspect of themselves. I do wish to engage in conversations where my ideas about this intersect with others, and I wish to see if there will be something beyond dick wagging if I am the progenitor of a discussion rather than a participant.

 

[JSt0rm]

P&N is like warhammer 40k forums edition. Eternal war with your most hated enemies.

 

[Moonbeam]

P&N is like warhammer 40k forums edition. Eternal war with your most hated enemies.

So tell me what to do. The only enemy I have is myself.

I mean, really, why would I want to engage is a conversation with interchange where my unexamined assumptions could be challenged or exposed to the light. Can't you see I'm not worth it and would you want me to realize that? Let me wag my dick. It helps me focus on something else. The idea of thinking for myself is appealing on one level, but the facts are that anything Ii would genuinely think would be worthless.

 

[interchange]

So tell me what to do. The only enemy I have is myself.

I mean, really, why would I want to engage is a conversation with interchange where my unexamined assumptions could be challenged or exposed to the light. Can't you see I'm not worth it and would you want me to realize that? Let me wag my dick. It helps me focus on something else. The idea of thinking for myself is appealing on one level, but the facts are that anything Ii would genuinely think would be worthless.

Wait. You mean you don't want to challenge yourself to be better? You want instead to reinforce the notion that you can be just dandy without doing that?

Well, fuck. At least I'm gonna give you a choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wait. You mean you don't want to challenge yourself to be better? You want instead to reinforce the notion that you can be just dandy without doing that?

Well, fuck. At least I'm gonna give you a choice.

Hehehe, Read my sig and note my Avatar. One says I enjoy sarcasm and the other that I know what people will see in me if I speak truth to liars or lies to truthful people. I am a nobody and I do not matter. I have already taken you up on your offer. Just expressing in the mirror the reasons I feel some may want to resist. I seem to have both a sheep and a wolf and a ton of cabbage to care for that require harder work when I want to cross rivers and can carry only one at a time.

 

[JSt0rm]

So tell me what to do. The only enemy I have is myself.

I mean, really, why would I want to engage is a conversation with interchange where my unexamined assumptions could be challenged or exposed to the light. Can't you see I'm not worth it and would you want me to realize that? Let me wag my dick. It helps me focus on something else. The idea of thinking for myself is appealing on one level, but the facts are that anything Ii would genuinely think would be worthless.

Thought begets heresy: Heresy begets retribution.

 

[justoh]

hahaha. assistant professor.

 

[interchange]

Hehehe, Read my sig and note my Avatar. One says I enjoy sarcasm and the other that I know what people will see in me if I speak truth to liars or lies to truthful people. I am a nobody and I do not matter. I have already taken you up on your offer. Just expressing in the mirror the reasons I feel some may want to resist. I seem to have both a sheep and a wolf and a ton of cabbage to care for that require harder work when I want to cross rivers and can carry only one at a time.

I don't lack a sense of humor. Am I so serious here as for you to miss my participation in your fun?

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't lack a sense of humor. Am I so serious here as for you to miss my participation in your fun?

Only the awkward question; only the foolish ask twice.

 

[interchange]

hahaha. assistant professor.

Man, I don't have it in me today to poke fun at your ignorance. Assistant professor is the starting rank for tenure track. At my university, it explicitly requires 5 years at that rank regardless of performance to even be considered for advancement. Sorry I am too young to impress you.

 

[interchange]

Only the awkward question; only the foolish ask twice.

Where is the source of that nonsense? I'm a damn fool if true, and damn proud of it.

 

[werepossum]

P&N is like warhammer 40k forums edition. Eternal war with your most hated enemies.

Most hated enemies? Nah. How can I hate people I've never met? Besides, my most bitter opponent in one thread might well be in lockstep in the next. Assuming they are thinking, rational beings, no two people should agree on everything or disagree on everything. And the same goes for parties: If one believes that one party is always right and one is always wrong, one simply isn't thinking.

hahaha. assistant professor.

Why is that funny? Maybe it's just engineering (or even just the UT system) but when I was in college, anyone starting out was an assistant professor, anyone without a PhD was limited to assistant professor no matter how intelligent or accomplished, and anyone with a PhD, no matter how little accomplished or downright stupid*, was on track to become a full professor. through sheer persistence. I don't see why that should be held against him. Thus I've had assistant professors who were lead engineers on major, impressive projects and full professors whose most impressive accomplishment would literally make a 'C' eighth grade science project. *Note that with PhD engineers, as with lawyers in my experience, "downright stupid" is still pretty sharp.

I would certainly be interested in reading your thoughts, Interchange, and perhaps contributing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

hahaha. assistant professor.

And the joke is? Do you think every prof starts out as tenured?

 

[Moonbeam]

And the joke is? Do you think every prof starts out as tenured?

Personally, I don't believe his comment has an explanation in some error in his thinking, but in sone hostility in his feelings arising out of some kind of fear, the typically some repressed sense of inferiority he has learned to mask bt belittling other people. Furthermore, I would suggest that this is a common manifestation and a major reason why serious discussions are derailed.

People have immature emotional needs tha clamor for satisfaction fas in excess of any need to understand things.

The natural reaction to such folk is to respond with opposite derision but how can a person do that knowing how sad such people are inwardly.

 

[agent00f]

I'm an assistant professor at a University. The unconscious agenda is mind-numbing, and since I am a player in the system I am pressured to be at least complicit enough in that agenda to advance within it. Universities are a bastion for people who want to support the idea that they think for themselves without actually testing it in reality. And because intelligence is the prerequisite for such a fantasy, I have a visceral rejection of defenses built upon it in order to exclude feelings.

No. The internet where people are anonymous and do not see each others faces and have no connection to each other except the one that we imagine is exactly the right place. It is the place where people's feelings drive the conversation, even if the vast majority lack awareness of this, and many still actively reject it when it is pointed out.
And I do not wish to control the conversation on the internet. I am here because it is the place where people are genuine with an aspect of themselves. I do wish to engage in conversations where my ideas about this intersect with others, and I wish to see if there will be something beyond dick wagging if I am the progenitor of a discussion rather than a participant.

The reason why the academy can appear to shun original thinking is that training noobs in anything can often be an inherently mundane process. The same is visibly true for a sport, let's say soccer, where at least at first the trainees mostly practice basic dribbling & such. Similarly, undergrad classes & more still mostly teach the basic accumulation of knowledge & analytical methods heretofore. For example, justoh above perfectly illustrates the results when basic background is lacking.

The state of the art in many of these topics are advanced, and frankly it's more a matter of people coming to learn them instead of creating anything novel. That said, there's nothing wrong with summarizing or or otherwise creating easier explanations, which for anyone who's ever taught is the real challenge far as education is concerned.

One time when Mulla Nasrudin was carrying a pallet of chickens in cages to sell at the market and became very fatigued from the weight he had an inspiration. He set the pallet on the ground and opened the cages proceeding to the walk to the market while the chickens just pucked about. He wqlked back and said to them, 'how is it that you know when the sun is coming up but you have no idea where I am going?'

One time a group of scholars came to Mulla Nasrudin's town to give a series of lectures for the public's edification. The Mulla went directly up onto the stage directly to the podium. They scholars ask what are you doing up here. 'I am here to answer the questions that baffle you learned gentlemen.' the Mulla said.

That question has a reasonable answer. The underlying mechanics at play in astrophysics are much simpler than in neuroscience.

 

[agent00f]

Personally, I don't believe his comment has an explanation in some error in his thinking, but in sone hostility in his feelings arising out of some kind of fear, the typically some repressed sense of inferiority he has learned to mask bt belittling other people. Furthermore, I would suggest that this is a common manifestation and a major reason why serious discussions are derailed.

People have immature emotional needs tha clamor for satisfaction fas in excess of any need to understand things.

The natural reaction to such folk is to respond with opposite derision but how can a person do that knowing how sad such people are inwardly.

On the internet instead of a classroom there's a tangible difference between participants, often massively so not unlike elementary vs college. For whatever reason, I suspect mostly in people who were never good at anything, many in practice are not cognizant of this. Again, perfectly illustrated by justoh who will probably just get angry when this is suggested for reasons he won't understand himself.

Without addressing this basic reality, discussions are derailed as you might similarly imagine in a game between kiddie soccer and serious players.

 

[Craig234]

What poor replies to the OP.

I'd say his post raises some important issues and I don't mean the topics he lists. I mean things like our theory of democracy being some enlightened voters deciding things - that resembles so little of what happens, from the voters to how the policies are made.

A good example is this presidential election.

Things in the US have both gotten very good in ways, but also quite bad in ways - this isn't about those specifics but to note that there was a candidate, Berne Sanders, who I think had some good basic reforms that would have been good to select, over the complete nut that is trump, who beat almost 20 terrible Republicans, and Hillary, who has not done much but 'play the game'.

It's be hard to describe how dysfunctional the voters who picked trump are, but in the voters who picked Hillary I see a lot of 'low information voters' - and affinity voters and people who respond to pandering - and those voters are furious when told this opinion.

Where is the 'discussion' of a rational democracy, either among the people or the media that is so powerful? It's in a small minority of the political discussion.

The thing is, what's to be done?

This is a reason why I think there gets to be a lot of cynicism among leaders, feeling they become ranchers and not thinking the people can 'rule' much.

And hasn't this really been the case in history?

'Bread and circuses' for the Romans. 'He's the king, what are you going to do'. In our own revolution, a few men creating the country while a third opposed them, a third supported them, and a third were neutral. Not exactly a great discussion among the public, though there was some.

This sort of leads to a basic problem today:

It's one thing when leaders are trying to act in the public interest, at least somewhat. They might get it right or wrong.

But it's quite another when powerful interests get active politically and dominate the politics. And that's what's happened more since the 1970's, when business interests used their wealth to get politically organized - starting to fund things that are in their interest.

And not things that are in both their interest and the public's - no need to pay for those - but things not in the public interest. And we've seen the growth of funded 'opinion shaping' - from the creation of the propaganda in 'think tanks' to the buying of influencers and the talking head industry to the media to the lobbying system over half of Congress joins for payment.

That is the tail wagging the dog, and it's our current politics. And there seems to be little fix likely - the 'fix' is to steer the dissatisfaction into phony alternatives, like the 'tea party' or a demagogue like trump as a rarity, more usually one of those other 18 or so servants to the plutocrats who ran.

Affinity politics seems on the rise to me - you support black rights if you are a minority, you are on 'the other side' if you're white; you support gay rights if you are or care about someone gay, you are on 'the other side' if not, and so on. With exceptions. That's not rational or principled.

And it's bad on 'both sides'. I can go on progressive sites and things that bash whites and men seem to be quite popular, and vice versa on right-wing sites.

Anyway, the OP, I'll make a comment on the first topic for now: race relations in the US.

It's a complicated topic.

Let's start with the root: the history.

For centuries, blacks were treated terribly as inferior people. That meant slavery, a horrific institution, but more than that.

This had practical effects: while white families generation after generation could get more educated, more prosperous, black families were not allowed.

And this leads to a basic issue today: not appreciating the effect of that history on people now.

For many white people, it's simply, 'ok, we made the laws not racist anymore, so the problem is fixed. If you still complain, you are just asking for free things.'

There is no real appreciation of the history's legacy on people.

And that's the better part of the issue - putting aside the portion of people who are racist now and want racial inequality to continue.

And the issue seems so rarely discussed rationally - so often it's just 'I don't like those protests' and 'what's good for my family?'

There is a real lack of constructive discussion on issues such as, 'ok, black crime is high - what are things to help with that?'

Even that issue includes both the knee-jerk response - more police and prison are the answer - and ignorance on things such as how our criminal justice system is unfair at times.

Why does it seem to take a black president and two black Attorneys General to make more of an issue of that? That goes back to the affinity point.

In short, we would benefit from, I think, both a much stronger affirmative action policy, and leadership that helps the public adopt a racially just country as a plan.

We have neither and there is neither the public support nor the leadership advocacy for either.

And the media's interests seem to be simply looking for stories to sell - so acts of violence and conflict are what get covered.

 

[werepossum]

Good post, Craig. I'll suggest one fix - decriminalization of drugs. Drugs indirectly cause a lot of societal ills, but not everyone hooked on drugs commits crimes, and for those who do, we already have penalties. Drug laws disproportionately affect blacks because blacks tend to be more poor, and access to wealth is the primary variable in whether that possession arrest becomes a felony record or a pre-trial diversion and/or treatment that goes away without leaving a record. Decriminalization of drugs would leave a lot fewer young black men barred from most good jobs, which makes job training and education much more effective.

 

[agent00f]

What poor replies to the OP.

I'd say his post raises some important issues and I don't mean the topics he lists. I mean things like our theory of democracy being some enlightened voters deciding things - that resembles so little of what happens, from the voters to how the policies are made.

A good example is this presidential election.

Things in the US have both gotten very good in ways, but also quite bad in ways - this isn't about those specifics but to note that there was a candidate, Berne Sanders, who I think had some good basic reforms that would have been good to select, over the complete nut that is trump, who beat almost 20 terrible Republicans, and Hillary, who has not done much but 'play the game'.

It's be hard to describe how dysfunctional the voters who picked trump are, but in the voters who picked Hillary I see a lot of 'low information voters' - and affinity voters and people who respond to pandering - and those voters are furious when told this opinion.

Where is the 'discussion' of a rational democracy, either among the people or the media that is so powerful? It's in a small minority of the political discussion.

The thing is, what's to be done?

This is a reason why I think there gets to be a lot of cynicism among leaders, feeling they become ranchers and not thinking the people can 'rule' much.

And hasn't this really been the case in history?

'Bread and circuses' for the Romans. 'He's the king, what are you going to do'. In our own revolution, a few men creating the country while a third opposed them, a third supported them, and a third were neutral. Not exactly a great discussion among the public, though there was some.

This sort of leads to a basic problem today:

It's one thing when leaders are trying to act in the public interest, at least somewhat. They might get it right or wrong.

But it's quite another when powerful interests get active politically and dominate the politics. And that's what's happened more since the 1970's, when business interests used their wealth to get politically organized - starting to fund things that are in their interest.

And not things that are in both their interest and the public's - no need to pay for those - but things not in the public interest. And we've seen the growth of funded 'opinion shaping' - from the creation of the propaganda in 'think tanks' to the buying of influencers and the talking head industry to the media to the lobbying system over half of Congress joins for payment.

That is the tail wagging the dog, and it's our current politics. And there seems to be little fix likely - the 'fix' is to steer the dissatisfaction into phony alternatives, like the 'tea party' or a demagogue like trump as a rarity, more usually one of those other 18 or so servants to the plutocrats who ran.

If you recall, there was a pretty smart guy called Marx back in the day who predicted that economics trumped everything and the capitalist system led to a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It wasn't exactly a coincidence that was correct given he was arguably the first to apply considerable empiricism to socioeconomics.

There is a real lack of constructive discussion on issues such as, 'ok, black crime is high - what are things to help with that?'

Even that issue includes both the knee-jerk response - more police and prison are the answer - and ignorance on things such as how our criminal justice system is unfair at times.

Why does it seem to take a black president and two black Attorneys General to make more of an issue of that? That goes back to the affinity point.

In short, we would benefit from, I think, both a much stronger affirmative action policy, and leadership that helps the public adopt a racially just country as a plan.

We have neither and there is neither the public support nor the leadership advocacy for either.

And the media's interests seem to be simply looking for stories to sell - so acts of violence and conflict are what get covered.

Support for social justice has only ever been increasing with younger generations.

Good post, Craig. I'll suggest one fix - decriminalization of drugs. Drugs indirectly cause a lot of societal ills, but not everyone hooked on drugs commits crimes, and for those who do, we already have penalties. Drug laws disproportionately affect blacks because blacks tend to be more poor, and access to wealth is the primary variable in whether that possession arrest becomes a felony record or a pre-trial diversion and/or treatment that goes away without leaving a record. Decriminalization of drugs would leave a lot fewer young black men barred from most good jobs, which makes job training and education much more effective.

Drug criminalization and the law&order approach to justice isn't really a practical solution but rather fundamentally based on the religious ideology of punishing deviants. Therefore arguing the practical benefits of alternatives is futile.

 

[Craig234]

Drug criminalization and the law&order approach to justice isn't really a practical solution but rather fundamentally based on the religious ideology of punishing deviants. Therefore arguing the practical benefits of alternatives is futile.

I don't think that's really accurate.

Practical policy approaches happen all the time. Remember what happened with prohibition?

Unfortunately, there's another factor as well.

When it was blacks and crack, the response was 'cops and jail'. Now, it's whites and opiates.