Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

On Americans Joining the ISIS Cause

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:08:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, one of the most radical things that one can do is cultivate and share one's critical thinking.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 2:36:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 2:08:30 AM, charleslb wrote:
Yes, one of the most radical things that one can do is cultivate and share one's critical thinking.

Yes, critical thinking, give it a try conservatives.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Thoughts, anyone?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thoughts, anyone?

I think that before we applaud people for fighting for their convictions, that we ought to make an evaluation of those convictions first.
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:53:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thoughts, anyone?

I think that before we applaud people for fighting for their convictions, that we ought to make an evaluation of those convictions first.

I certainly, absolutely agree. My point was simply that it's patently inherently more morally laudable to fight for a cause than it is to enlist in the military merely because one has a macho mentality that sees it as a way of earning one's bona fides as a "man", and then find oneself haplessly taking part in an invasion/occupation motivated by corporate interests and because the likes of a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama ordains that the nation once again aggress against yet another Third-World victim.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2014 4:56:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:53:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thoughts, anyone?

I think that before we applaud people for fighting for their convictions, that we ought to make an evaluation of those convictions first.

I certainly, absolutely agree. My point was simply that it's patently inherently more morally laudable to fight for a cause than it is to enlist in the military merely because one has a macho mentality that sees it as a way of earning one's bona fides as a "man", and then find oneself haplessly taking part in an invasion/occupation motivated by corporate interests and because the likes of a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama ordains that the nation once again aggress against yet another Third-World victim.

I'd like people to join the US military because they feel a sense of duty to their country.
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 1:47:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:56:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:53:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thoughts, anyone?

I think that before we applaud people for fighting for their convictions, that we ought to make an evaluation of those convictions first.

I certainly, absolutely agree. My point was simply that it's patently inherently more morally laudable to fight for a cause than it is to enlist in the military merely because one has a macho mentality that sees it as a way of earning one's bona fides as a "man", and then find oneself haplessly taking part in an invasion/occupation motivated by corporate interests and because the likes of a George W. Bush or a Barack Obama ordains that the nation once again aggress against yet another Third-World victim.

I'd like people to join the US military because they feel a sense of duty to their country.

But if we're going to be honest we must admit that testosteronic teens and early-twenty-somethings often join to earn their props as "men", i.e. they're merely doing the macho thing. Also, a great many individuals, thanks to the recession, have been induced to enlist in the armed forces by economic circumstances. But of course those who "serve" prefer to hide their true motives behind dishonest & cliched apple-pie rhetoric about wanting to serve their country and defend democracy. No, alas, there's very little real nobility or ethical content, so to speak, to the choice of the average soldier, sailor, airman, or marine to join up. It all too often comes down to ego and economics. This is not cynicism, it's simply brutal realism (to use a word that some folks here like to cloak their point of view in). But of course the powers that be and our culture thoroughly indoctrinate us to balk at such realism and to glorify military "service", this is how the public is encouraged to offer up its sons and daughters as cannon fodder and to support our immoral wars and occupations. So no, I won't be at all surprised if few agree with my version of realism here. Oh well.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 5:48:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hmm, there seems to be a lack of interest in the topic.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 6:47:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 4:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thoughts, anyone?

I think that before we applaud people for fighting for their convictions, that we ought to make an evaluation of those convictions first.

This.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:25:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 6:47:17 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 10/8/2014 4:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/8/2014 3:50:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thoughts, anyone?

I think that before we applaud people for fighting for their convictions, that we ought to make an evaluation of those convictions first.

This.

I've already responded to "this". Care to expound your thoughts further?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 11:49:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, there seems to be a lack of interest in the topic.

Well, it's not exactly clear what are the points that you would like to discuss.

Are you saying america need to focus more on its domestic problem rather than overly energetic foreign policy?

Do you question the ethic of US government in their fight against radical Islam?

Do you seek the way to combat gangs problem?

or are you just don't trust big corporation?

The theme of your statement seem to contain all of these elements I posted above, and frankly I they are too diverse from each other and not sure wish one to engage.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 3:39:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 11:49:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, there seems to be a lack of interest in the topic.

Well, it's not exactly clear what are the points that you would like to discuss.

Are you saying america need to focus more on its domestic problem rather than overly energetic foreign policy?

Do you question the ethic of US government in their fight against radical Islam?

Do you seek the way to combat gangs problem?

or are you just don't trust big corporation?

How about all of the above.

The theme of your statement seem to contain all of these elements I posted above, and frankly I they are too diverse from each other and not sure wish one to engage.

These are in fact all interrelated issues. Domestic socioeconomic problems, and of course the establishment's interest in diverting the public's consciousness away from domestic socioeconomic problems by focusing us on a sham war on Islamist terror; the policies, neocolonialism, and aggressions of the United States in the Mideast that have generated and fueled "radical Islam"; the social problem known as "the gang problem": the influence & power of megacorporations; all of this etiologically traces back to a system driven by certain economic dynamics and geared for the interests and the expression of the power of economic elites. In short, and to oversimplify somewhat, money is indeed the root of all of the above evils. To borrow from James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid" (I'm not actually calling you stupid, it's an expression). We can treat the economics underlying our geopolitical and domestic troubles as unrelated, or as an elephant in the room, but then we'll never make too much progress toward deep and lasting solutions.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 1:56:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 3:39:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 11:49:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, there seems to be a lack of interest in the topic.

Well, it's not exactly clear what are the points that you would like to discuss.

Are you saying america need to focus more on its domestic problem rather than overly energetic foreign policy?

Do you question the ethic of US government in their fight against radical Islam?

Do you seek the way to combat gangs problem?

or are you just don't trust big corporation?

How about all of the above.

The theme of your statement seem to contain all of these elements I posted above, and frankly I they are too diverse from each other and not sure wish one to engage.

These are in fact all interrelated issues. Domestic socioeconomic problems, and of course the establishment's interest in diverting the public's consciousness away from domestic socioeconomic problems by focusing us on a sham war on Islamist terror; the policies, neocolonialism, and aggressions of the United States in the Mideast that have generated and fueled "radical Islam"; the social problem known as "the gang problem": the influence & power of megacorporations; all of this etiologically traces back to a system driven by certain economic dynamics and geared for the interests and the expression of the power of economic elites. In short, and to oversimplify somewhat, money is indeed the root of all of the above evils. To borrow from James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid" (I'm not actually calling you stupid, it's an expression). We can treat the economics underlying our geopolitical and domestic troubles as unrelated, or as an elephant in the room, but then we'll never make too much progress toward deep and lasting solutions.

hmnn... what about this? I often heard that the big corporation in the US has been suffering from the trust related problem from this past decades (which I believe is true based on your attitude as well as a lot more people in this site), is there any particular reason why do you don't trust them so much? Aside from they're being very influential in politic.

I mean, in Asia this is far less of the case (based on the research I read and also my personal experience). The corporations are know to be greedy and not exactly charitable but that's it, even though they are even more influential in politics (sometime, even one and the same) and compare to their more questionable practices - I would say that BP looks like an angel. But no one seem to care that much, why these issues has received so much attention in America?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2014 2:29:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 1:56:26 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/10/2014 3:39:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 11:49:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, there seems to be a lack of interest in the topic.

Well, it's not exactly clear what are the points that you would like to discuss.

Are you saying america need to focus more on its domestic problem rather than overly energetic foreign policy?

Do you question the ethic of US government in their fight against radical Islam?

Do you seek the way to combat gangs problem?

or are you just don't trust big corporation?

How about all of the above.

The theme of your statement seem to contain all of these elements I posted above, and frankly I they are too diverse from each other and not sure wish one to engage.

These are in fact all interrelated issues. Domestic socioeconomic problems, and of course the establishment's interest in diverting the public's consciousness away from domestic socioeconomic problems by focusing us on a sham war on Islamist terror; the policies, neocolonialism, and aggressions of the United States in the Mideast that have generated and fueled "radical Islam"; the social problem known as "the gang problem": the influence & power of megacorporations; all of this etiologically traces back to a system driven by certain economic dynamics and geared for the interests and the expression of the power of economic elites. In short, and to oversimplify somewhat, money is indeed the root of all of the above evils. To borrow from James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid" (I'm not actually calling you stupid, it's an expression). We can treat the economics underlying our geopolitical and domestic troubles as unrelated, or as an elephant in the room, but then we'll never make too much progress toward deep and lasting solutions.

hmnn... what about this? I often heard that the big corporation in the US has been suffering from the trust related problem from this past decades (which I believe is true based on your attitude as well as a lot more people in this site), is there any particular reason why do you don't trust them so much? Aside from they're being very influential in politic.

I mean, in Asia this is far less of the case (based on the research I read and also my personal experience). The corporations are know to be greedy and not exactly charitable but that's it, even though they are even more influential in politics (sometime, even one and the same) and compare to their more questionable practices - I would say that BP looks like an angel. But no one seem to care that much, why these issues has received so much attention in America?

Well, your experience is your experience, but I assure you that there are plenty of people all around the world who aren't terribly happy with the corporate & financial elites, as they do have a rather negative impact on people's well-being. How? Let me count some of the ways. There's, in general terms, an ongoing precarization and immiseration of working-class people combined with the economically self-aggrandizing MO of the fat cats; which is a fancy way of saying that workers and the poor are getting poorer, while CEOs shamelessly pay themselves $109 million golden parachutes. More specifically, there's the heartless MO of vulture capitalists, which puts workingpeople in the unemployment line. There's stagnating and declining wages. There's a national and global recession caused by the malfeasant shenanigans of investment bankers and wall-streetski krvopijci (Wall Street bloodsuckers). There's the exploitation of sweatshop labor in the Third World. There's the horrendous effects of the neoliberalism imposed by the IMF and World Bank on a great many countries. There are all of the cruel effects of the globalization of American-style capitalism, etc., etc.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 1:03:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey, "libertarian" types, and anyone concerned about the supposed threat posed by Americans and Westerners joining ISIL, read this, http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 10:35:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/11/2014 2:29:31 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2014 1:56:26 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/10/2014 3:39:53 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/10/2014 11:49:17 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 10/9/2014 5:48:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hmm, there seems to be a lack of interest in the topic.

Well, it's not exactly clear what are the points that you would like to discuss.

Are you saying america need to focus more on its domestic problem rather than overly energetic foreign policy?

Do you question the ethic of US government in their fight against radical Islam?

Do you seek the way to combat gangs problem?

or are you just don't trust big corporation?

How about all of the above.

The theme of your statement seem to contain all of these elements I posted above, and frankly I they are too diverse from each other and not sure wish one to engage.

These are in fact all interrelated issues. Domestic socioeconomic problems, and of course the establishment's interest in diverting the public's consciousness away from domestic socioeconomic problems by focusing us on a sham war on Islamist terror; the policies, neocolonialism, and aggressions of the United States in the Mideast that have generated and fueled "radical Islam"; the social problem known as "the gang problem": the influence & power of megacorporations; all of this etiologically traces back to a system driven by certain economic dynamics and geared for the interests and the expression of the power of economic elites. In short, and to oversimplify somewhat, money is indeed the root of all of the above evils. To borrow from James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid" (I'm not actually calling you stupid, it's an expression). We can treat the economics underlying our geopolitical and domestic troubles as unrelated, or as an elephant in the room, but then we'll never make too much progress toward deep and lasting solutions.

hmnn... what about this? I often heard that the big corporation in the US has been suffering from the trust related problem from this past decades (which I believe is true based on your attitude as well as a lot more people in this site), is there any particular reason why do you don't trust them so much? Aside from they're being very influential in politic.

I mean, in Asia this is far less of the case (based on the research I read and also my personal experience). The corporations are know to be greedy and not exactly charitable but that's it, even though they are even more influential in politics (sometime, even one and the same) and compare to their more questionable practices - I would say that BP looks like an angel. But no one seem to care that much, why these issues has received so much attention in America?

Well, your experience is your experience, but I assure you that there are plenty of people all around the world who aren't terribly happy with the corporate & financial elites, as they do have a rather negative impact on people's well-being. How? Let me count some of the ways. There's, in general terms, an ongoing precarization and immiseration of working-class people combined with the economically self-aggrandizing MO of the fat cats; which is a fancy way of saying that workers and the poor are getting poorer, while CEOs shamelessly pay themselves $109 million golden parachutes. More specifically, there's the heartless MO of vulture capitalists, which puts workingpeople in the unemployment line. There's stagnating and declining wages. There's a national and global recession caused by the malfeasant shenanigans of investment bankers and wall-streetski krvopijci (Wall Street bloodsuckers). There's the exploitation of sweatshop labor in the Third World. There's the horrendous effects of the neoliberalism imposed by the IMF and World Bank on a great many countries. There are all of the cruel effects of the globalization of American-style capitalism, etc., etc.

hmn.. ok, honestly I don't really agree with the notion of class and struggle in communist fashion in principle. In fact, we're probably disagree in most of the point but I will try to prevent some reasons as objective as possible.

1. The notion of working class is at best, ambiguous: Does it refer to the way people make a living (using capital vs using labour)? or does it simply refer to procession of wealth?

Not all capitalists are fat cat, rich, and comfortable. In fact, many of them are struggling even more so than a valued labourer ion many respect - for example a small business owners (at least in my case) will generally have to wake up even earlier than their employers to open up the shop or set up the office, leave the job much later (at least to recheck your account balance), and have to be every body advisor in addition to do some top level sale jobs, and even that, still earned just a bit more than, construction technicians. They can earned significantly more over time but that is because they keep on pressing for more orders. Likewise, some labourer even more so of a fat cat than business people, especially those who work as an engineer, doctor, or accountant who get paid a lot for just a few hours of their time. Capitalist is not always necessitated richness and comfort, in fact, someone I know who try to start his business live with less than 1000 USD for year, significantly lose his body mass and working 12 hours a day every days to get it up and running.

On the other hands, we only classified people into rich and poor, and you have problem with someone is richer than you - that's a simple jealousy, and making them poorer will not make you any richer.

2. CEO get paid million because they're making in billion for the corporation - True, given the size of trillion multinational company, making just a billion is not that difficult. Still, it required some skill and positions like that are limited, those who are there will have to prove that they are the best of the very best to be there. Let's say you're a worker in some factories, and you're angry because the company hasn't been doing well yet he still paid himself a million while you don't even have bonus, so you're getting rid of him and grant those job to some of your working friends - you're saving million but your people can't get even close to a billion your ex-boss used to make. In the end you're losing money even more, and of course, no one can afford to have any bonus for that consecutive year.

3. From what I read, it seem you only distrust your corporation because you're losing wage or being disemploy - but the economic has been bad, and I doubt communist approach will make it any better. Yes, there can be economic recession, even in the idea communist society (which might came from famine, natural disaster, or, very likely resources mismanagement), and even if everything is owned by one central government you're going to experience some decline in your daily rations anyway. The underline is how to get rid of that recession as soon as possible, and generally it can be done by produce as many resources as possible to offset the losses - in that matter, I've never seen any economic system that can outproduce capitalist economy.

Perhaps the reason why in Asia, people are less distrust of giant corporations is because they are yet to fail us economically. But I doubt anyone can make a trust in the recession.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 4:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 10:35:28 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

hmn.. ok, honestly I don't really agree with the notion of class and struggle in communist fashion in principle.

Yes, there are all too many women who don't agree with feminism and its notions about male dominance and the need to struggle against it. There are all too many people in this country of African descent who lack the political consciousness to support the activism of so-called "militants". There are all too many oppressed and immiserated people in societies all over the world who self-defeatingly, tragically resist becoming politicized, "radicalized" against an unjust status quo. And, alas, there are all too many smart individuals such as yourself who've bought too far into the theory of capitalism and who are intellectually disinclined to grasp or agree with criticisms of it, with the idea of structural economic oppression under capitalism, class, and class struggle.

In fact, we're probably disagree in most of the point but I will try to prevent some reasons as objective as possible.

Hmm, you will "try" to be "as objective as possible"? Does this mean that you have to strain to be objective when disagreeing with someone of my point of view, that you're resisting an urge to emotionally attack my opinions? That is, do you harbor such a strong, visceral bias that it's necessary to make a great effort to not overtly succumb to it?

1. The notion of working class is at best, ambiguous:

Only when folks in the pro-capitalist camp overcomplicate it and split hairs to make it seem ambiguous.

Does it refer to the way people make a living (using capital vs using labour)? or does it simply refer to procession of wealth? Not all capitalists are fat cat, rich, and comfortable...

Well, if one wishes to somewhat facilely dismiss the whole concept of a working class one can, as some in fact are wont to, argue that we're all workers. Sure, in the loosest sense every action is work and everyone who isn't comatose performs various actions and is technically engaged in "working". Scratching one's derriere is work, being a plantation owner in the ante-bellum American South and overseeing slaves who performed the real toil was work, being a boss under capitalism involves work, etc., etc. From the homeless panhandler holding up a cup to receive your change and counting his nickels and dimes to the CEO counting the millions in profits earned for him by the labor of his employees, we're all workers!

But let's refrain from being so literalistic in our use of the word, shall we. A worker, i.e. a member of the working class is simply someone who is employed directly and immediately creating goods or performing services, as opposed to someone who controls access to such employment and who oversees those who produce & serve. In short, those who control other people's access to a livelihood are bosses and capitalists, and those who are reduced to depending on others to provide the means of being productive are workers. Those who, in the economic sphere, use others are capitalist class, those who get used are working class. Those who exercise economic and workplace dominance over their fellow man & woman are capitalists and their minions (managers), even if they don't always qualify as "fat cats"; and those on the receiving end of their dominance, those subject to being bossed around but who have no one below them in the pecking order to boss around are workers. Quite simply, in the definition of Wikipedia, the working class consists of " individuals who sell their labor power for wages and who do not own the means of production." This should all clarify what's meant by the term working class well enough.


Not all capitalists are fat cat, rich, and comfortable. In fact, many of them are struggling even more so than a valued labourer ion many respect - for example a small business owners (at least in my case) will generally have to wake up even earlier than their employers to open up the shop or set up the office, leave the job much later...

Yes, this is a typical tactic of pro-capitalists, focus on painting a poignant picture of the industrious and struggling small business proprietor. Well, the fact that there are petit bourgeoisie, small businessmen & women who have a hard time of it doesn't change the fact that the capitalist system is defined by asymmetrical socioeconomic power relations, i.e. that it's a system divided into bosses and peons, dominant owners-executives-managers and dominated employees, the rich & powerful and the insolvent & disenfranchised, capitalist who sit in the catbird seat even if they're not always fat cats and workers at their mercy. Well, many of us, who are in favor of concepts such as democracy, human dignity, and the universal right of human beings to dignity, self-determination, and well-being find such a system to be quite unacceptable.

On the other hands, we only classified people into rich and poor, and you have problem with someone is richer than you - that's a simple jealousy,

This is simple and simplistic amateur psychoanalysis. But since turnabout is fair play, I would point out that a great many working-class and small-business-owning individuals who are staunchly free-marketarian and play apologist for the capitalist system and its elite also have a bit of psychology going on behind their pro-capitalist ideologizing; that is, they seem to be vicariously identifying with the rich and successful, even if it means becoming a turncoat to their own class. And I should also clarify that what you malign as the workingperson's "jealousy" of those who are better off is in fact righteous resentment against the unjust income inequality that prevails under capitalism and that's become quite obscene under late capitalism.

and making them poorer will not make you any richer.

But a system geared for the sharing of economic wealth & power will indeed ameliorate the lot of a great many currently struggling and put upon human beings.

2. CEO get paid million because they're making in billion for the corporation -

Correction, CEOs get paid gross sums and absurd golden parachutes because they're in positions of power that enable them to remunerate themselves in such a greedy fashion. This is the simple and morally unacceptable truth of it.

3. From what I read, it seem you only distrust your corporation because you're losing wage or being disemploy

Continue reading.

but the economic has been bad, and I doubt communist approach will make it any better. Yes, there can be economic recession, ...

Capitalism is an inherently crisis prone system, and its crises are of the artificial making of its own internal dynamics, i.e. they're not naturally occurring crises. Therefore one can't really say that "Well, all economic systems will now and then experience recessions and capitalism isn't any worse in this regard than any other system". No, actually capitalism is worse in this regard, much worse, and inherently worse.

The underline is how to get rid of that recession as soon as possible, and generally it can be done by produce as many resources as possible to offset the losses - in that matter, I've never seen any economic system that can outproduce capitalist economy.

Ultimately, in fact, it's precisely the drive for overproduction, overaccumulation, and growth, i.e. the self-destructive and ecologically destructive internal dynamic of capitalism, that will prove it to be an unsustainable system and that will prove to be its undoing.


Perhaps the reason why in Asia, people are less distrust of giant corporations is because they are yet to fail us economically. But I doubt anyone can make a trust in the recession.

Don't presume to speak for everyone in the developing world.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggressions that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2014 6:13:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.

And that's when I would start saying that you were exaggerating the situation. Is the American "government"--assuming one believes that the government is a unity and not a bungled mess of competition and conflict--using the crisis in Iraq and Syria to avoid dealing with crime rates in the US? Perhaps, but this is far from being something routine, much less systematic: you are giving politicians too much credit if you think that anything they do is systematic, they are opportunists they take whatever happens to be useful at the time.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 12:46:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/13/2014 6:13:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.

And that's when I would start saying that you were exaggerating the situation. Is the American "government"--assuming one believes that the government is a unity and not a bungled mess of competition and conflict--using the crisis in Iraq and Syria to avoid dealing with crime rates in the US? Perhaps, but this is far from being something routine, much less systematic: you are giving politicians too much credit if you think that anything they do is systematic, they are opportunists they take whatever happens to be useful at the time.

Well, I certainly don't deny that they are opportunists, but there's also method to their opportunism, and they in fact often create their own opportunities to exploit.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 6:46:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 12:46:01 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 6:13:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.

And that's when I would start saying that you were exaggerating the situation. Is the American "government"--assuming one believes that the government is a unity and not a bungled mess of competition and conflict--using the crisis in Iraq and Syria to avoid dealing with crime rates in the US? Perhaps, but this is far from being something routine, much less systematic: you are giving politicians too much credit if you think that anything they do is systematic, they are opportunists they take whatever happens to be useful at the time.

Well, I certainly don't deny that they are opportunists, but there's also method to their opportunism, and they in fact often create their own opportunities to exploit.

That would be true, yes, any politician needs to look for opportunities to benefit himself.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2014 7:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 6:46:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:46:01 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 6:13:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.

And that's when I would start saying that you were exaggerating the situation. Is the American "government"--assuming one believes that the government is a unity and not a bungled mess of competition and conflict--using the crisis in Iraq and Syria to avoid dealing with crime rates in the US? Perhaps, but this is far from being something routine, much less systematic: you are giving politicians too much credit if you think that anything they do is systematic, they are opportunists they take whatever happens to be useful at the time.

Well, I certainly don't deny that they are opportunists, but there's also method to their opportunism, and they in fact often create their own opportunities to exploit.

That would be true, yes, any politician needs to look for opportunities to benefit himself.

Well, I'm glad that we've been able to agree a bit here.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2014 6:48:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/14/2014 7:17:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/14/2014 6:46:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:46:01 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 6:13:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.

And that's when I would start saying that you were exaggerating the situation. Is the American "government"--assuming one believes that the government is a unity and not a bungled mess of competition and conflict--using the crisis in Iraq and Syria to avoid dealing with crime rates in the US? Perhaps, but this is far from being something routine, much less systematic: you are giving politicians too much credit if you think that anything they do is systematic, they are opportunists they take whatever happens to be useful at the time.

Well, I certainly don't deny that they are opportunists, but there's also method to their opportunism, and they in fact often create their own opportunities to exploit.

That would be true, yes, any politician needs to look for opportunities to benefit himself.

Well, I'm glad that we've been able to agree a bit here.

Indeed! A sign of progress, perhaps?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2014 2:14:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/15/2014 6:48:28 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 7:17:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/14/2014 6:46:32 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/14/2014 12:46:01 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 6:13:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:55:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:51:19 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:25:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/13/2014 5:14:08 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/12/2014 8:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2014 7:41:11 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 10/8/2014 12:15:51 AM, charleslb wrote:
Well, apparently a young American Muslim attempting to travel to Syria and enlist in ISIL was intercepted and apprehended by the FBI a couple of days ago, and of course the so-called "news" media is sensationalizing the heck out of the story, making a humongous hype fest, a major melodramatic deal out of it. The individual in question is being portrayed as a potential evildoer thwarted in the nick of time, but in fact he is not a "terrorist" who was caught planting a bomb in the subway, or in any other nefarious act. And, ethically speaking, his choice to enlist in ISIL and fight for his convictions is more admirable and laudable than a typical testosteronic American teenager's decision to join the marines merely because it's a macho thing to do, merely to embark on a masculine ego trip.

At any rate, driven by the adverse economic conditions, social decay, and general urban blight of a late-capitalist society, every year thousands of American young people enter the ranks of the Gangster Disciples, the Crips, 18th Steet, PEN1, etc., and make a much greater contribution to making our society an unsafe place, a much larger adverse impact on our security than a handful of American Muslims traveling to the Middle East to join a distant jihad. But of course the Islamist "terrorist" is the bogeyman of the hour, and the scapegoat for the insecurity of America in a post-9/11 world, so of course the rare individual who attempts to make his way to Syria to take up arms for ISIL receives massive coverage, while the gang problem constantly festering in the inner cities of our nation, the ongoing recruitment of young people to become street soldiers for dangerous criminal organizations seldom even comes close to making headlines.

But we don't have to allow our worldview to be molded by the "news". Rather than allowing our consciousness to be misdirected by the corporate-owned media and corporate-owned government into an obsession with "terrorism"; diverted from our own socioeconomic ills, manifesting in gang behavior, in a high crime rate, in a multibillion dollar illegal drug industry, etc.; we all need to make more of an effort to keep critical attention focused on our own ruling class and the very concrete ways in which it operates to undermine our economic, social, and physical security by generating unemployment and poverty at home, and by provoking the anti-American hostility abroad that fosters and feeds into to "terrorism".

If you had said that the media should focus more on gang-crime, and should pressure the government to increase its efforts in fighting against crime, or that violent criminals should be treated in the same way as terrorists, I might have agreed with you.

However, I will not agree with what seems to be your position: that we should ignore what is going on in the ME, and abandon our Kurdish and Arab allies, and instead focus only on what is happening in the US. Such a policy would not only be too parochial and nationalistic, but also potentially deadly.

And no, there is nothing laudable in people joining a terrorist group that wants to take the Middle East back to the stone age (ISIS), a group that is nihilistic and misogynistic and racist and homophobic and barbaric.

The other points in your post need no reply.

I'm not advocating isolationism, I leave that to the uncaring likes of Rand Paul. My point is merely that the big business-big government-mass media complex uses foreign threats to divert and condition John & Jane Q. Public's thinking so as to keep them from focusing too much critical attention on the flaws and inequities of our society, and to scare-manipulate us into complicit compliance with the aggression that this country perpetrates in the name of national security; and, of course, with the expansion of the national security state that threatens to erode into oblivion our civil liberties. I hope that this adequately clarifies my views.


I welcome the clarification, though I do not think that the government purposely focuses on terrorism to distract the public from high-crime rates. I agree with your points, that public opinion is based on really faulty information. and no one seems to care about national surveillance; but those seem to be separate issues.

And I welcome your input. As for whether government leaders purposely and cynically attempt to misdirect the public's attention, well, I think that they sometimes clearly do, and other times they're guilty of practicing this MO quite unconsciously. In either case I think that it's a fairly frequently practiced MO, that in recent years has certainly incorporated the use of "terrorists" as a nicely serviceable bogeyman, and the "war on terror" as the successor smokescreen to the Cold War.

In some instances, yes I would agree, although I think that every government requires that sort of mild manipulation of the public--I am only outraged when it goes beyond being mild.

Your comparison to the perpetual Red Alert of the Cold War is spot on though. In both cases the West faced a rather distasteful ideology, or rather, the more unpleasant mutations of that ideology, and occasionally indulged in the guilty pleasure of using that threat to break some laws.

I would substitute the words routinely and systematically for the word "occasionally" above.

And that's when I would start saying that you were exaggerating the situation. Is the American "government"--assuming one believes that the government is a unity and not a bungled mess of competition and conflict--using the crisis in Iraq and Syria to avoid dealing with crime rates in the US? Perhaps, but this is far from being something routine, much less systematic: you are giving politicians too much credit if you think that anything they do is systematic, they are opportunists they take whatever happens to be useful at the time.

Well, I certainly don't deny that they are opportunists, but there's also method to their opportunism, and they in fact often create their own opportunities to exploit.

That would be true, yes, any politician needs to look for opportunities to benefit himself.

Well, I'm glad that we've been able to agree a bit here.

Indeed! A sign of progress, perhaps?

Let us hope.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.