John Turcot, our neighbourhoods may consist of some harsh and difficult people, but they are not running things. It is the billionaires and millionaires who are running things and they don't care a hoot about our neighbourhoods or the people in them. They care about what they see in the mirror and their bank accounts.
In the winter where we live, the homeless are instructed to use an area of town that is relatively safe for them. About 50 people live in tents in snowy conditions, but are asked every morning to take down their tents so as to not become too comfortable living on the streets. Without going into the intricacies involved in the city council decisions on this bylaw, city councillors are not billionaires or millionaires, but they do run municipal affairs and make by-laws which in this case make the poorest more miserable than they would otherwise be.
The above is but one example of making life miserable for the poor from people who are often just one paycheck away from also finding themselves in dire straights.
I wouldn't go as far as labelling such councillors narcissistic, but such by-laws are not enacted by billionaires. Councillors have a choice. ... and WE are THEM.
Yes, those councillors are some of the difficult people in our neighbourhoods. They are not the people who are running things on a larger level. They aren't, at this time, the ones who are deciding to involve us in wars. Their power is only in a small area. Nasty people, sometimes, but not the ones in control of countries.
I think that we are, all of us, the warriors that need councelling. Like a small fish will become a big fish, small wars will become big wars, nuclear wars. By definition, Webster's defines war as a state in which one's life is threatened by others, and if those miserable homeless people possibly freezing to death in my town are any examples of a society at war with its own people, city councillors are using their guns (by0laws) and firing on all fronts. AND they are not billionaires. If they were, they would not be sitting on city council seats, but in their private jets and yachts.
I do not see that the fact that councillors are nasty even though they are not billionaires is really relevant. When and if they make enough money they too will be able to buy their way into more power.
I have no disagreement that money runs everything..... and, like all astute politicians, they will hop on the gravy train when available.. Even though you suggested to include billionaires in this exchange, and although I did not imply that councillors are nasty, I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I am implying that billionaires are not necessarily guilty about the status quo of the human condition any more than others, but that all of us, including billionaires, share some responsibility for the way we do things a a species.
Do you know how many pawns are in a chess game? What is your probability of being in a Rook or Knight Line or circle? They are all exterminated before Bishops, King, or Queen.
The implication of your comment is that the virulent contempt for life that is playing out before our eyes is not the behavior of monsters, but of our siblings. I can agree. I would add that there is a divisive, destructive choice that can reduce our sense of oneness to an either/ or calculation, and I think we are there. The powers that allow and sponsor grotesque inhumanity may be our kin, but as such those powers are susceptible to the consequences of their complicity and inaction. I don’t think it follows that “we can do nothing.” The universe is vast and contains its own forces and counter forces.
Glad to see someone can agree with me on some points now and then.
I think the human condition is not that different from the harsh and unforgiving conditions found in nature itself. I.e., we walked out jungles, but the jungles came along for the ride. The sooner we recognize our links to gorillas, the sooner we may be able to figure out how to escape nature's legacy... i.e., ... a Survival of the Fittest legacy. .
We are intelligent enough to recognize our needs, but stupid enough to make nuclear arsenals, displaying the jungle mentality that still lurks under the veneer that we call civilization. . i.e., In 'The Descent of Man'''.. Darwin had it right.... It's up to us to evolve, or perish.
I don’t think that it’s the “we are stupid” problem. In America, the comfortable are vigilantly attuned to their rickety perches, and that is the stuff of emotionalism. This is where education as a social service has left a black hole in the national profile.
Capital punishment is predicated on bombarding voters with venomous visions of human depravity, and personalizing the anger that victims feel. There was a presidential candidate named Michael Dukakis who was destroyed in a debate when he was flummoxed by a question, which he clearly didn’t anticipate. The question was in regard to Dukakis’s opposition to capital punishment, and posed a scenario where the candidate’s wife was heinously murdered, and the candidate held firm, but didn’t engage the moment. The question was a classic example of the reporter calculating his own celebrity, and to me, that should have been the essence of the candidate’s response. Do we want victims to dictate our social norms? Put another way, can we agree that emotional reactions are not going to achieve sound policies.
I feel that as social creatures we can recognize that certain principles like fairness and equanimity are more basic and critical than the satisfaction bequeathed by identity politics. Essentially, conducting elections via TV is closing the barn door after the horses have fled. Sound and fair policies are NEVER achieved in a sealed corporate bubble that peddles its narratives to entertain and distract. George Monbiot has argued that our present level of technology could proficiently articulate our collective needs and priorities and wills. That would only exist in a society hungry for peace and democracy.
Nice try7 unwarranted... but not enough bananas... No matter how you try to analyze it, aiming 15,000 nuclear warheads at each other, knowing that using most of the weapons in national arsenals could cause human extinction, is as stupid as it gets.
Webster defines stupidity as lacking intelligence or common sense. In that sense, it implies that intelligence would prevent humans from making nuclear weapons, and so if we are intelligent beings making nuclear weapons, we are therefore Stupid.
I think we may be individually intelligent, but collectively stupid,.... i.e., the lemming syndrome. If you know there are enough nuclear arsenals to end human existence, and you say nothing or do nothing about it, then the collective is you.
To me there’s no shame and no controversy in recognizing our ancestry and primordial roots. I suspect that you are either exhausted with human attempts at self- reflection, self-improvement and social justice, or you are possibly ideologically conservative, embracing a theological fatalism regarding temporal human existence. All humans struggle and I believe that a collective awareness of our shared options and limitations is available through institutional mediation and intervention.
I think the Austrian/American attraction to corporate socialization and value inculcation has proven over decades to be hugely successful, as Americans regurgitate the mindless, apolitical worldview that they are fed. America has been dumbed down intentionally and socially neutered by design.
I think it’s too easy to look at American society and draw negative conclusions about human nature and capacities.
Susan....
"Sadly, our society is run by sociopathic narcissists." Are the narcissists from Planet Mork, or from our neighborhoods?
John Turcot, our neighbourhoods may consist of some harsh and difficult people, but they are not running things. It is the billionaires and millionaires who are running things and they don't care a hoot about our neighbourhoods or the people in them. They care about what they see in the mirror and their bank accounts.
Susan T.
In the winter where we live, the homeless are instructed to use an area of town that is relatively safe for them. About 50 people live in tents in snowy conditions, but are asked every morning to take down their tents so as to not become too comfortable living on the streets. Without going into the intricacies involved in the city council decisions on this bylaw, city councillors are not billionaires or millionaires, but they do run municipal affairs and make by-laws which in this case make the poorest more miserable than they would otherwise be.
The above is but one example of making life miserable for the poor from people who are often just one paycheck away from also finding themselves in dire straights.
I wouldn't go as far as labelling such councillors narcissistic, but such by-laws are not enacted by billionaires. Councillors have a choice. ... and WE are THEM.
Yes, those councillors are some of the difficult people in our neighbourhoods. They are not the people who are running things on a larger level. They aren't, at this time, the ones who are deciding to involve us in wars. Their power is only in a small area. Nasty people, sometimes, but not the ones in control of countries.
Susan T..
I think that we are, all of us, the warriors that need councelling. Like a small fish will become a big fish, small wars will become big wars, nuclear wars. By definition, Webster's defines war as a state in which one's life is threatened by others, and if those miserable homeless people possibly freezing to death in my town are any examples of a society at war with its own people, city councillors are using their guns (by0laws) and firing on all fronts. AND they are not billionaires. If they were, they would not be sitting on city council seats, but in their private jets and yachts.
I do not see that the fact that councillors are nasty even though they are not billionaires is really relevant. When and if they make enough money they too will be able to buy their way into more power.
I have no disagreement that money runs everything..... and, like all astute politicians, they will hop on the gravy train when available.. Even though you suggested to include billionaires in this exchange, and although I did not imply that councillors are nasty, I'm not sure what we are arguing about. I am implying that billionaires are not necessarily guilty about the status quo of the human condition any more than others, but that all of us, including billionaires, share some responsibility for the way we do things a a species.
Do you know how many pawns are in a chess game? What is your probability of being in a Rook or Knight Line or circle? They are all exterminated before Bishops, King, or Queen.
The implication of your comment is that the virulent contempt for life that is playing out before our eyes is not the behavior of monsters, but of our siblings. I can agree. I would add that there is a divisive, destructive choice that can reduce our sense of oneness to an either/ or calculation, and I think we are there. The powers that allow and sponsor grotesque inhumanity may be our kin, but as such those powers are susceptible to the consequences of their complicity and inaction. I don’t think it follows that “we can do nothing.” The universe is vast and contains its own forces and counter forces.
unwarranted...
Glad to see someone can agree with me on some points now and then.
I think the human condition is not that different from the harsh and unforgiving conditions found in nature itself. I.e., we walked out jungles, but the jungles came along for the ride. The sooner we recognize our links to gorillas, the sooner we may be able to figure out how to escape nature's legacy... i.e., ... a Survival of the Fittest legacy. .
We are intelligent enough to recognize our needs, but stupid enough to make nuclear arsenals, displaying the jungle mentality that still lurks under the veneer that we call civilization. . i.e., In 'The Descent of Man'''.. Darwin had it right.... It's up to us to evolve, or perish.
I don’t think that it’s the “we are stupid” problem. In America, the comfortable are vigilantly attuned to their rickety perches, and that is the stuff of emotionalism. This is where education as a social service has left a black hole in the national profile.
Capital punishment is predicated on bombarding voters with venomous visions of human depravity, and personalizing the anger that victims feel. There was a presidential candidate named Michael Dukakis who was destroyed in a debate when he was flummoxed by a question, which he clearly didn’t anticipate. The question was in regard to Dukakis’s opposition to capital punishment, and posed a scenario where the candidate’s wife was heinously murdered, and the candidate held firm, but didn’t engage the moment. The question was a classic example of the reporter calculating his own celebrity, and to me, that should have been the essence of the candidate’s response. Do we want victims to dictate our social norms? Put another way, can we agree that emotional reactions are not going to achieve sound policies.
I feel that as social creatures we can recognize that certain principles like fairness and equanimity are more basic and critical than the satisfaction bequeathed by identity politics. Essentially, conducting elections via TV is closing the barn door after the horses have fled. Sound and fair policies are NEVER achieved in a sealed corporate bubble that peddles its narratives to entertain and distract. George Monbiot has argued that our present level of technology could proficiently articulate our collective needs and priorities and wills. That would only exist in a society hungry for peace and democracy.
Nice try7 unwarranted... but not enough bananas... No matter how you try to analyze it, aiming 15,000 nuclear warheads at each other, knowing that using most of the weapons in national arsenals could cause human extinction, is as stupid as it gets.
Webster defines stupidity as lacking intelligence or common sense. In that sense, it implies that intelligence would prevent humans from making nuclear weapons, and so if we are intelligent beings making nuclear weapons, we are therefore Stupid.
I think we may be individually intelligent, but collectively stupid,.... i.e., the lemming syndrome. If you know there are enough nuclear arsenals to end human existence, and you say nothing or do nothing about it, then the collective is you.
No offense... just my thoughts...
To me there’s no shame and no controversy in recognizing our ancestry and primordial roots. I suspect that you are either exhausted with human attempts at self- reflection, self-improvement and social justice, or you are possibly ideologically conservative, embracing a theological fatalism regarding temporal human existence. All humans struggle and I believe that a collective awareness of our shared options and limitations is available through institutional mediation and intervention.
I think the Austrian/American attraction to corporate socialization and value inculcation has proven over decades to be hugely successful, as Americans regurgitate the mindless, apolitical worldview that they are fed. America has been dumbed down intentionally and socially neutered by design.
I think it’s too easy to look at American society and draw negative conclusions about human nature and capacities.