- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you could choose one current "intellectual"
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:46 pm to inadaze
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:46 pm to inadaze
quote:
- if they are used to eating and drinking rich foods and drinks filled with sugar and various strange ingredients that make the product more palatable, the idea of transitioning to a bland diet of fruits and vegetables doesn't seem that appealing.
quote:
- if they are used to eating and drinking rich foods and drinks filled with sugar and various strange ingredients that make the product more palatable, the idea of transitioning to a bland diet of fruits and vegetables doesn't seem that appealing.
and that is their choice that they make themselves
the vast majority of poor people are poor b/c they make bad choices. i don't see why we're shocked this follows food choices
quote:
Many more people would eat better if they had the money and the access.
see again, i don't have a fatalistic/sheep attitude towards poor people. their markets serve their choices
those choices are for shitty-sugary foods (which are subsidized via government, which is another argument)
i guess a better way to put my argument than a sliding scale of 2 main points is to think of it as a chicken/egg argument
i see markets serving the choices, needs, and/or desires of consumers, with the belief/understanding that government interference affecting price, which in term is the biggest variable in affecting consumer choice
others see markets as institutions that force consumers into choices, and government should be used to attack these institutions (which leads to price-cost manipulation, which affects choice). government shepherding the flock.
*ETA: as stated earlier, and often ignored, this is NOT binary. it's a sliding scale, from pure anarchy to authoritarian
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 4:47 pm
0
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but to get back to my overall point about "sheep". this argument regarding PR is exactly the argument about sheep that i was discussing. sheep follow PR, so we have to enact policies to protect them (to summarize)
What types of policies are your referring to?
BTW, regarding all of this talk about PR and sheep, you might be interested in The Century of the Self.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:53 pm to inadaze
quote:
What types of policies are your referring to?
well whatever Noam discusses with regards to companies in his utopia...i'm not exactly sure what he wants
but his absolute distrust of a limited government shows that he believes government is needed to contain corporations
i cannot cite the exact policies, but he obviously desires government, in some form, to protect society
Posted on 2/17/14 at 4:58 pm to inadaze
quote:
BTW, regarding all of this talk about PR and sheep, you might be interested in The Century of the Self.
fwiw, i have been churning an idea around in my head about concepts similar to this regarding to the contemporary liberal-progressive mindset. psychology is behind things like business, marketing, PR, etc. the more we discover how our brains work, the better those who master psychology become at making the brain fire in ways that they want.
at it's heart, this is science. i'm fascinated by how certain science is seen as good/positive, to near religious levels within the lib-prog community (global warming is THE contemporary example) and how certain science is demonized (marketing, GMOs, etc).
i made a thread last year about the hypocrisy of liberals who love science and GMOs, but the psychology aspect is much more interesting (and has a lot of grey area that should spurn discussion)
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if big companies truly do tell consumers what to purchase, how can smaller companies ever become big?
Apple is certainly a company that broke through, game changing technology can do that, it also helps that big business saw the computer age as something that would benefit their own interests.
Take a product like industrial hemp, which uproots the power structure instead of aiding it and we get a different side of the story.
During the 30's we had just found a way to efficiently turn industrial hemp into usable textiles and commodities. The new machine that would make this possible was on the cover of a Popular Mechanics magazine that never reached store shelves because big business kept it from reaching the public. The headline on the magazine cover read "the next billion dollar crop."
Newspaper titan William Hurst had it all streamlined, from cutting down the trees, to turning them into paper, to finely be made into newspapers that he would sell. He got together with his buddies at DuPont, who's chemicals were needed in the process of turning trees into paper and together they played a significant role in getting industrial hemp banned along with cannabis.
Hemp is superior to everything it can replace, and the list is in the thousands. The business power structure kept it from being used.
So clearly if something is going to disrupt those in power, they'll try to stop it.
Today you have something like 5 media companies. Everything on your tv, radio, movies, entertainment of any kind is owned by a select few. These companies either own or indirectly benefit from the products being advertised through their media. That is a recipe for manipulating desires, without a doubt.
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:04 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Today you have something like 5 media companies.
on the flip side, today you have unlimited persona/unbiased news sources via the internet
the age of ignorance is over..or at least there is a social "ignorance tax"
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
Precisely why expecting good and honest dialogue with you is hopeless.
If your informative post to me saying exactly what I had just said wasn't enough of a clue.
If your informative post to me saying exactly what I had just said wasn't enough of a clue.
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:13 pm to Sleeping Tiger
you're awesome
agreeing with you = terrible
disagreeing with you = "good and honest dialogue" is impossible
i love you, bro
agreeing with you = terrible
disagreeing with you = "good and honest dialogue" is impossible
i love you, bro
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
disagreeing with you = "good and honest dialogue" is impossible
No, you skip posts that don't have an easy counterpoint, you often omit 95% of a post and the larger context so you can quote snipe and alter the flow of a conversation.
Enjoy the rest of play time on the poli board.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:24 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
No, you skip posts that don't have an easy counterpoint, you often omit 95% of a post and the larger context so you can quote snipe and alter the flow of a conversation.
What's wrong with that? It's easy to drive the narrative your way when doing so..
ANN ROMNEY HAS A HORSE!
ROMNEY WANTS TO KILL BIG BIRD!
This post was edited on 2/17/14 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
No
It's not your fault
quote:
you skip posts that don't have an easy counterpoint,
It's not your fault
quote:
you often omit 95% of a post and the larger context
It's not your fault
quote:
so you can quote snipe and alter the flow of a conversation.
It's not your fault
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:32 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Take a product like industrial hemp, which uproots the power structure instead of aiding it and we get a different side of the story.
During the 30's we had just found a way to efficiently turn industrial hemp into usable textiles and commodities. The new machine that would make this possible was on the cover of a Popular Mechanics magazine that never reached store shelves because big business kept it from reaching the public. The headline on the magazine cover read "the next billion dollar crop."
Newspaper titan William Hurst had it all streamlined, from cutting down the trees, to turning them into paper, to finely be made into newspapers that he would sell. He got together with his buddies at DuPont, who's chemicals were needed in the process of turning trees into paper and together they played a significant role in getting industrial hemp banned along with cannabis.
Hemp is superior to everything it can replace, and the list is in the thousands. The business power structure kept it from being used.
So clearly if something is going to disrupt those in power, they'll try to stop it.
This is a great example of monopolies of power and manipulation/propaganda of the public.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:33 pm to inadaze
it's an example of crony capitalism, which i reject (and can only be solved by limiting the power of government, which chomsky rejects)
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the age of ignorance is over
Depends on how we define the age of ignorance.
The information is more widely available through technology, but - 1 in 4 Americans Apparently Unaware the Earth Orbits the Sun
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
(and can only be solved by limiting the power of government, which chomsky rejects)
You're saying that Chomsky rejects limiting the power of government? From what I understand, he supports a limited government.
I'm going to need a link on your assertion.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:42 pm to inadaze
go read the quote i posted earlier about how libertarianism (of the USA) is a form of tyranny
it's tyranny b/c limited government = rule by corporations
it's tyranny b/c limited government = rule by corporations
Posted on 2/17/14 at 5:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
go read the quote i posted earlier about how libertarianism (of the USA) is a form of tyranny
it's tyranny b/c limited government = rule by corporations
I did read it. You're making a bridge without sufficient information.
What's missing is Chomsky saying that he considers the government in America to be limited. From that, you imply that Chomsky favors MORE government.
He is using different meanings for the terms than you are. Why would he be aligned with libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism if he wanted a huge tyrannical government?
You've got him mixed up.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 6:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's an example of crony capitalism, which i reject
You can't give examples like Apple, saying they overcame barriers and became a big business because the consumers decide the market and then reject the hemp example as crony capitalism when both examples occurred in the same system.
You can't say that consumers are driving the market, and then when shown an example of how they're not revert to blaming the system that you say is working.
I'm on board with the idea that anarchist capitalism, pure libertarianism, creates a corporate tyranny.
At the same time it's impossible to suggest capitalism can be uncorrupt and pure while government exists.
Seems like there is a problem with capitalism.
Posted on 2/17/14 at 6:06 pm to inadaze
quote:
What's missing is Chomsky saying that he considers the government in America to be limited. From that, you imply that Chomsky favors MORE government.
more government than libertarianism, obviously
quote:
Why would he be aligned with libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism if he wanted a huge tyrannical government?
why does he believe libertarianism would lead to tyranny of corporations?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News