It’s bitter sweet. Many people don’t truly know hunger or fear or being in a situation where your actual survival hinges on your choices and ability to do what needs done. For most people the stakes are seldom ever truly high- pencils have erasers and you get to survive mistakes and learn from them as opposed to a mistake being the end. That causes so many people to be detached from certain fundamentals of harsher reality. It makes many sensitive, and without knowing truly “high” stakes and pressure, people tend to think that objectively frivolous things are huge and important things. Someone who thinks “violence is never the answer” can’t understand or realistically deal with someone who would need or seek to do violence. It can make it hard to communicate certain things between people of different circumstances. That said- the fact that so many people have the luxury to be detached from harsh and savage realities is kinda a good thing. I knew a guy who served air Cav in Vietnam-
We were talking about flag burning one time, something I do not condone- and he said to me that he was ok with it. He said that while he didn’t go to Vietnam for any reason other than he had to- that he had served his country and took pride in the principle of defending freedom even if that’s not what he believed that war was actually doing. He said that those people burning the flag was their freedom, a right he fought for along with the rights to do a whole lot of things he personally wouldn’t approve of.
And I suppose that’s a touch the same- the very symbol of the freedom that allows one to burn their nations flag and not be thrown in jail being burned using that freedom. So the fact that we have created a world where people can be so detached and oppose the very systems that make the life they live possible- there’s some form of symbolic victory there?
Like- the possibility that through their own efforts these people could destroy the things they take for granted exists- science deniers for example could set science back and harm the ability to provide enhanced standards of living through science… but they also could lead us to a better place. Science isn’t without its flaws. Some of those we see legitimately reflected in science denial. There are issues about the accessibility of information, about corruption and special interests and such which have eroded the trust of many in the sciences and experts. The entire situation points to underlying issues in our education system and curriculums- things like a need to better align standards across districts and questions of how we can create an education system that gives people the tools for proper critical thought and research or analysis vs. imparting memorized facts and such.
It shows at the very least that whatever we determine or theorize the factors to be- we have issue regarding the perceptions and understudying of certain critical “institutions” of society like science, education, and economics. There is a not terribly widely used saying I like: “innovators love complainers.” When people complain- it gives us a place we could improve. Not every complaint is valid or actionable- but for the most part, most complaints can be taken to some root, and addressing the root might not solve all the complaints but does tend to create better products and systems. If everyone tells us something we make is amazing- that doesn’t give us much room to improve.
Not everyone has the capacity or ability at least in a specific moment to give “constructive feedback,” but those who lead should have the ability to uncover the constructive aspect of even something like “this sucks…”
"Give me Liberty or give me death". A famous quote though mostly not understood today simply because of the things you've said. Context is everything.
noun: liberty
1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
In today's society people equate it to things like wearing a mask. Yes, it can be taken that way but what the person at the time meant was the freedom to not have your house burnt down or arrested and thrown in prison because you might be a criminal or related to one. I whole heartedly agree it's phenomenal that this is not the case, at least in the US. But we also need to be vigilant we don't recreate the same type of society that birthed that quote. I don't want to see that other famous quote come to fruition either. "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times."
Well said. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom- another good quote. The older I’ve gotten the less I’ve seen a point in getting riled up though. We inherit the world our parents and such created as they tried to make the world THEY wanted to live in. Then we come of age and we try to make the world we want to live in. New kids come and try to change it. Old people with the least time left to have to live in the world usually try to stop kids from changing the world because even if the world isn’t the one the old folks wanted to create, it’s the one they got used to and makes sense to them. Most people try to teach their kids values to continue building the parents idea of the world. It doesn’t make sense to me. I used to get really upset. I’d think how I needed to fight so the future generations could have these things I thought were important. The idea that society was tipping towards trading freedom for a sense of security really bothered me, and I still don’t particularly..
.. support the idea personally- but I got to a point where I was like… “so what?” If the weak men create hard times- they are living the life they chose, maybe not the one they wanted to choose, but the consequences of their choices and values. We can’t protect ourselves let alone the future from the causality of our choices. So if the kids being born today decide thinking is too hard, they want a dictator or queen or an AI robot that runs society based on cold machine efficiency- that sounds like a sci fi horror nightmare to me- but if they choose that world- let ‘em have it. If them or their kids hate that world, they can fight to change it. There’s actually another post more recent than this- but a popular sentiment is that the “founding fathers” shouldn’t be considered infallible- they are 200+ year old dead guys who didn’t have electricity etc…
By the same token- each of us right now will be a 200+ year old corpse someday. It isn’t really my right to try and decide how people live 30 years from now let alone 200. I guess there’s some nuance- I mean- the humanitarian in me feels like we can change whatever rules we want as long as we keep the rules in a way that allows people to choose their own paths and protects the human rights of all people- but I mean… that’s king and nuanced and full of problems. Lol.
The whole point of the scientific method is to find better solutions through better understanding. Sure, capitalism has it's points but we can't just take an economic system created in the 1700's for trading slaves and assume it's has achieved peak efficiency.
I see a lot of what's tagged as "anti-science" as actually being "anti-bad-science."
Example--"Global Warming has been *proven*." Well, "scientific proof" requires experimental confirmation, which can't happen. The same with evolution.
We may believe that science "indicates" some conclusion, but we often used "proved" incorrectly. That opens the door to an argument about the scientific method and not about the thing that was the original topic. It also doesn't help that we hear "trust the science" from someone who earlier or later doesn't go by the science but by emotion. For example, Kamala Harris said that she would never take a COVID vaccine during the previous administration, but was on the side of forced vaccinations under her own administration.
I largely agree. I don’t necessarily expect every single person to use correct and precise language in informal settings, but conflating “evidence” and “proof” are major issues in general across topics at the moment, as is defining “evidence” vs. “possibility” or “assumption.” We walk into a sticky wicket though. I see the problem being in where specialists meet generalists. “Executive bullet point.” An analyst might spend thousands of hours pouring over data and come up with 50 scenarios full of caveats. In most cases, the generalist doesn’t have time or knowledge to walk through all the information. To non specialists or non technical experts the information needs to be presented differently than it would be to peers. Something more akin to worst/good/better/best. If an audience has the knowledge we can present data and let them create the conclusion. If an audience is seeking knowledge we must present our conclusions for consideration. So scientifically we can’t really “prove”…
.. anything beyond a specific case. I can prove a pencil will fall by dropping it. I can prove it will most probably fall every time in common earth conditions through repetition. I can’t prove it will always fall even in common conditions because there’s always some chance it wouldn’t at some point on a line to infinity. I cannot prove gravity exists or makes it fall- but a substantial body of evidence and repeatable predictions indicates that unless/until we contradict existing information- we are best suited to assume gravity exists and our understanding is functionally correct in practical context.
This is problematic to most minds because we function by assuming we know the “rules,” and where the rules of reality are fluid or undefined, humans tend not to function well. In other words, people need a strong world view, a concept of reality as they understand it, and we tend to reject that which contradicts our established reality because it is a fundamental threat to identity.
So we run into an issue when it comes to policy or action. The overwhelming majority of people are incapable of following a scientific paper or specialized data, or at the least do not have time or inclination to sort through doctoral level thesis length information on every one of the myriad of ever increasing issues to consider in the world and relating to existence. Those who advocate/implement policy or action or provide information for mass consumption must do so in a manner which a mass audience can consume and which provides some sort of context to understanding. This of course leads to the introduction of bias- whomever is relating the information, “translating” to an easily understandable and consumable form meant to be acted upon or influence action, will introduce their own biases generally.
The most common bias by far being self interest. As a general rule we can’t expect a “healthy” and logical human mind to act against its self interest. It can happen, but in most cases where it does appear to happen we can see that self interest is actually at work in some way.
So a politician will generally do what serves their interests, oppose a “good” idea because it would be “bad” for them, or because they know that others will want to see it happen and they support it anyway, but by acting as though they oppose they have leverage to gain some concessions for doing something they would have done anyway. These games and “politics” are one of the few ways to use peoples action in self interest as a tool. The general application of power not requiring violence or allegiance is simply to create a situation in which the pursuit of self interests of others provides a greater benefit to your self interest.
So we have these major factors- the barrier of communicating complex or technical data and concepts, inherent bias, and strong tendency towards self interest and survival. We can mitigate these fairly simply in many ways- in essence we can make “lying” or “dishonesty” unlawful- that’s complex and problematic. I won’t go too deep- but we can theoretically define specific criteria of what is not allowed and for whom and related parameters- an example being that we could place liability in news or “newsertainment” media which sets up criteria for integrity, sourcing, accuracy, bias, etc. and open civil suits and penalties to be brought against violating media. There’s still a lot of ambiguity to those things though, and who makes the decisions and how do we mitigate bias or corruption there…?
We could require politicians to wear body cameras and pass laws which restrict the ability of those in office, leaving office, or entering office to accumulate wealth or potential conflicts of interest to the public good. A double edged sword. We can argue that if we make politics a job no sane person would want (it already effectively is if you remove the grifts and possibilities for self enrichment) perhaps only people who genuinely want to serve the public will enter. However… as we’ve seen with other “critical” professions of service like teaching- it’s also arguable that making politics a field of simple living for service and calling could discourage the “best and brightest” from the field and create problems and resentment. We could pass laws like those possible in media which levy fines, suspension, bans etc. on those who don’t adhere to codified professional standards in the accuracy, veracity, truthfulness, or other standards of information- there isn’t anything particularly
Distopian with such standards for government employees. Employment is voluntary so no rights are taken, like most every job certain freedoms are voluntarily suspended relating to performance of one’s profession. We again run into issues of bias and politics and such though- I mean- we have several recent presidents of both political parties and countless lower politicians of all parties who have public ally been exposed for lies, crimes, derivation of duty, etc. and legal action against many, let alone any tangible consequence, are hard fought and seldom won. The system serves the self interest of those with most direct control and influence within the system. We don’t even need a “conspiracy” for that to work- a rising tide raises all ships.
That is the nature of human civilization. We figured out that self interest can most often be best served by grouping up. “Us” and “them.” What benefits those most like us tends to benefit us the same as what harms those most like us can tend to harm us. Senators passing a law that can be used to unseat senators can be used as a weapon against enemies but can also be used against the senator that voted for it. A District Attorney is a politician and likely has business interests and secrets and dirt. Throwing the book at a mayor can set a precedent which could hurt them now or later (like if they become mayor) or of other powerful people see this person will come after them. Early humans learned- groups can help us better achieve self interests but they require managing relationships within a group to be able to reap the most rewards.
So while there may be no “Illuminati” or what have you- it’s simple reasoning and nature that those in power enjoying the lifestyle that provides will set up the system to keep themselves in power- which will generally help keep others like them in power, and thusly one had washed the other, not because it wants to help the other hand, but because it needs to other hand to help it wash itself.
Essentially what this boils down to is that any real change would be a radical change that acted against the self interests of not only a whole bunch of wealthy powerful people, but such a change which relied upon those same people and the systems of government and media they control in order to ever happen.
So while it isn’t as simple as “make it illegal to be dishonest,” we can oversimplify a slew of possible solutions which could work and be constitutional that loosely fall under that very simple and and broad tag line. It just probably wouldn’t happen. We can’t even entirely blame…
.. those in power. Most of us don’t want honesty. It isn’t that there is no truth to be found, we tend to stop looking when we find the truth that suits us. It’s back to our worldview and need to support it. There really isn’t a way to “fix” people in that sense asides slow and steady social and evolutionary changes that might take millions or billions of years if ever. More fast acting, radical and highly ethically questionable or repugnant possibilities exist, but ethics asides, we run in to bias again. Who decides what should be the standard of a human who is “not flawed” in such senses? We can’t even “cure” depression and we don’t have any known and reliable system to take an “idiot” and turn them into a rocket scientist- so we just don’t have the tools to measure or influence fundamental cognition and logical process of the mind to eliminate such problems.
It all goes around in circles when we throw in ideas of freedom or human rights. Do people need to pass a test to prove they are informed and capable enough to have a vote or a voice? How do we deal with people who have been deemed unfit to speak on an issue who lobby their opinions as a private citizens to those who are “fit”? Adults behave like children when it comes to basic wants and needs. On the whole we are poor at delayed gratification or long term large scale thinking. We want the things we want and will destroy our world to enjoy them while we complain for someone to fix the consequences of our actions without requiring us to change or sacrifice. A “mommy knows best” state where the government forces people to go to bed on time and exercise and study and make smart long term decisions fixes this (assuming it isn’t corrupt and mismanaged- which historically it would be..) but then we lose freedom, we lose the choice to decide we don’t want to have those priorities etc.
It’s all a very sticky wicket. Regardless- whatever the mechanism, it would be very nice if need and politicians could stop using such hyperbole, manipulating facts, trying to influence others to their bias through various forms of deception, and putting their politics and personal interests ahead of the duty or functions they are supposed to serve. It’s a tall order and I don’t know how to get there, but I doubt we will try very hard either lol.
And I suppose that’s a touch the same- the very symbol of the freedom that allows one to burn their nations flag and not be thrown in jail being burned using that freedom. So the fact that we have created a world where people can be so detached and oppose the very systems that make the life they live possible- there’s some form of symbolic victory there?
Not everyone has the capacity or ability at least in a specific moment to give “constructive feedback,” but those who lead should have the ability to uncover the constructive aspect of even something like “this sucks…”
noun: liberty
1. The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
In today's society people equate it to things like wearing a mask. Yes, it can be taken that way but what the person at the time meant was the freedom to not have your house burnt down or arrested and thrown in prison because you might be a criminal or related to one. I whole heartedly agree it's phenomenal that this is not the case, at least in the US. But we also need to be vigilant we don't recreate the same type of society that birthed that quote. I don't want to see that other famous quote come to fruition either. "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times."
Example--"Global Warming has been *proven*." Well, "scientific proof" requires experimental confirmation, which can't happen. The same with evolution.
We may believe that science "indicates" some conclusion, but we often used "proved" incorrectly. That opens the door to an argument about the scientific method and not about the thing that was the original topic. It also doesn't help that we hear "trust the science" from someone who earlier or later doesn't go by the science but by emotion. For example, Kamala Harris said that she would never take a COVID vaccine during the previous administration, but was on the side of forced vaccinations under her own administration.
This is problematic to most minds because we function by assuming we know the “rules,” and where the rules of reality are fluid or undefined, humans tend not to function well. In other words, people need a strong world view, a concept of reality as they understand it, and we tend to reject that which contradicts our established reality because it is a fundamental threat to identity.
So a politician will generally do what serves their interests, oppose a “good” idea because it would be “bad” for them, or because they know that others will want to see it happen and they support it anyway, but by acting as though they oppose they have leverage to gain some concessions for doing something they would have done anyway. These games and “politics” are one of the few ways to use peoples action in self interest as a tool. The general application of power not requiring violence or allegiance is simply to create a situation in which the pursuit of self interests of others provides a greater benefit to your self interest.
Essentially what this boils down to is that any real change would be a radical change that acted against the self interests of not only a whole bunch of wealthy powerful people, but such a change which relied upon those same people and the systems of government and media they control in order to ever happen.
So while it isn’t as simple as “make it illegal to be dishonest,” we can oversimplify a slew of possible solutions which could work and be constitutional that loosely fall under that very simple and and broad tag line. It just probably wouldn’t happen. We can’t even entirely blame…