Support for all my British friends

[dimreepr]

 

Parents strove for their children to become educated even if they were not, so that their children could have access to better lives.

 

I think this deserves a new topic.

 

Perhaps based on the writings of John Steinbeck.

[KipIngram]

I wouldn't do well there - aside from The Great Gatsby I've read very little Steinbeck. I believe I may have read an abridged version of East of Eden as a high school assignment, but that nearly 40 years ago.

 

What I cited was present in my own family, at least - both of my grandfathers were farmers / laborers, but both wanted their children to go to college. And both of my parents did; my dad wound up with a PhD in organic chemistry and my mom with a master's degree that led to an elementary school teaching career.

[dimreepr]

I wouldn't do well there - aside from The Great Gatsby I've read very little Steinbeck. I believe I may have read an abridged version of East of Eden as a high school assignment, but that nearly 40 years ago.

 

What I cited was present in my own family, at least - both of my grandfathers were farmers / laborers, but both wanted their children to go to college. And both of my parents did; my dad wound up with a PhD in organic chemistry and my mom with a master's degree that led to an elementary school teaching career.

 

Nevertheless it is a tangent best dealt with in another thread.

[Delta1212]

Um, the same thing that we did for hundreds of years prior? Your point is good re: "knowledge for the sheer sake of knowledge," but for ages upon ages people recognized that knowledge brought benefits as well as having a cost. Parents strove for their children to become educated even if they were not, so that their children could have access to better lives.

 

Of course that is still why those that pursue these management paths do it - they've watched TV show after TV show where handsome / beautiful people in their 20's hold all the power and call all the shots. Absolutely not an accurate depiction of the world, nor should it be. Right along with it they've watched show after show teaching them that all that matters is coming out on top. Concepts such as honor and values have become passe. Results are all that matter to them, as opposed to the notion of a "life well lived."

 

There is a danger here in romanticizing the past. For hundreds of years, the people who mostly pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge were people for whom the cost was not a factor, usually members of a wealthy leisure class or of a, generally, religious order whose cost was supported by the community to allow them to dedicate time toward study rather than survival.

 

For everyone else, the most pervasive view has always been that education is a ticket to greater opportunity rather than something to seek for its own sake, and that is still precisely the view you are observing yourself. It's unfortunate but also understandable from a practical perspective.

 

I always thought of that as a bedrock of American thinking. But then we get 9/11 and what do we go and do? The Patriot Act.

And this is precisely why attacks work. It is easier to goad a more powerful opponent into doing more damage to itself than you could ever hope to do yourself. Get them to take actions like Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay that drives people to you. Get them to implement things like the PATRIOT Act that undermines the faith of their own citizens in their system of government. Provoke fear against refugees and immigrants to tear apart their unity in acts like Brexit or the Trump administration's consistently isolationist foreign policy moves.

 

"Tougher" governments have a harder time cooperating with others than "understanding" ones, and that applies equally to their own potential allies as to the nominal enemy. See how effective the tough stands against ISIS ultimately wind up being when the West is bickering amongst itself instead of presenting a united front to global problems.

[KipIngram]

I see no reason we couldn't have both. Take a tough stand against the actual perpetrators of bad acts, but refrain from sweeping up entire religions in that net. It's the same thing we discussed either above or in some other thread - letting a fringe group drive policy. It's contributed to my a number of things we've discussed here - poor education of the masses, craving of the media for sensationalism, etc. The poor education thing leads directly to people lining up behind drum beaters on both sides, rather than thinking things through for themselves.

[Delta1212]

You absolutely can have both. But that requires a nuanced view of a topic, and when people get scared, nuance tends to be the first casualty, especially in politics where there is always someone willing to drive the narrative that any kind of nuanced view is really being "weak" on a problem in order to bolster their own support.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Why would the terrorists want a less-negotiation-minded adversary in control? Surely they don't really think they can win a full-on showdown. If I were in their position I'd want the most conciliatory, discussion-minded adversary possible. Not that I think they really want to negotiate, but that would be the environment that would let them "get away with more."

I offer my sympathy and support.

[KipIngram]

Well, <insert favorite expletive>. I was just half-told, half-caused-to-remember that Steinbeck didn't write Gatsby - Fitzgerald did. I hate it when stuff like that happens. Thanks to everyone who refrained from giving me a wedgie over it. I feel silly enough quite on my own, thanks very much.

[Delta1212]

Well, <insert favorite expletive>. I was just half-told, half-caused-to-remember that Steinbeck didn't write Gatsby - Fitzgerald did. I hate it when stuff like that happens. Thanks to everyone who refrained from giving me a wedgie over it. I feel silly enough quite on my own, thanks very much.

It happens. Have you not read Of Mice and Men?

[Phi for All]

Yeah, how easy it is to define "extremism" as only including extremists you particularly disagree with. All to often people think either 1) there are no extremists on my side, only on the other side, or (in my opinion even worse) 2) it's ok for us to be extremists because we're right.

 

Whoops, fell right back into whataboutism again. Amazingly prolific and effective propaganda technique. There are extremists on the left, so any arguments against right-wing extremism are suspect?! Scary scary scary how well it works, and how many people have been infected and are now carriers.

[KipIngram]

 

Whoops, fell right back into whataboutism again. Amazingly prolific and effective propaganda technique. There are extremists on the left, so any arguments against right-wing extremism are suspect?! Scary scary scary how well it works, and how many people have been infected and are now carriers.

 

I hope I don't come off as meaning it that way - I have little tolerance for extremism on either side.

In fact, when I wrote that bit you quoted I thought I was being critical of May, not supportive of her.

[Delta1212]

Whoops, fell right back into whataboutism again. Amazingly prolific and effective propaganda technique. There are extremists on the left, so any arguments against right-wing extremism are suspect?! Scary scary scary how well it works, and how many people have been infected and are now carriers.

 

Yeah, I didn't read his comment like that at all.

 

 

 

Edit: And it continues: Theresa May says Internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

Edited June 4, 2017 by Delta1212

[KipIngram]

Yeah, I didn't read his comment like that at all.

 

 

 

Edit: And it continues: Theresa May says Internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

 

Yes, there we go again.

[Phi for All]

 

I hope I don't come off as meaning it that way - I have little tolerance for extremism on either side.

In fact, when I wrote that bit you quoted I thought I was being critical of May, not supportive of her.

 

I wasn't commenting on who you're supporting. It's the assumption that extremism is tolerated if it's on your own side, which is at the heart of whataboutism. The argument assumes that I would tolerate (or possibly applaud) someone who chopped off Trump's head, or killed someone who was harassing minorities, or any other act attempting a favorable end (for me) using extreme means. It's a misplaced appeal to hypocrisy that allows those who use it to avoid dealing with criticism.

 

As much as I want it, if we had to execute all the Trumps of the world in order to have free education for all, I would want to fight against that just as strongly. It's not accurate, fair, or just to wave at the other side and say extremism exists as an argument against a specific piece of extremism on your own side.

[KipIngram]

Quote from dimreepr's link:

 

The Conservative manifesto pledges regulation of the internet, including forcing internet providers to participate in counter-extremism drives and making it more difficult to access pornography.

 

Because, obviously, we all know that pornography causes terrorism...

 

Give me a break.

Edited June 4, 2017 by KipIngram

[dimreepr]

Yeah, I didn't read his comment like that at all.

 

 

 

Edit: And it continues: Theresa May says Internet must now be regulated following London Bridge terror attack

 

She should start with the beeb (BBC), following the Manchester attack, the beeb saturated the news coverage for almost a week with, essentially, ten minutes of news.

Edited June 4, 2017 by dimreepr

[KipIngram]

 

I wasn't commenting on who you're supporting. It's the assumption that extremism is tolerated if it's on your own side, which is at the heart of whataboutism. The argument assumes that I would tolerate (or possibly applaud) someone who chopped off Trump's head, or killed someone who was harassing minorities, or any other act attempting a favorable end (for me) using extreme means. It's a misplaced appeal to hypocrisy that allows those who use it to avoid dealing with criticism.

 

As much as I want it, if we had to execute all the Trumps of the world in order to have free education for all, I would want to fight against that just as strongly. It's not accurate, fair, or just to wave at the other side and say extremism exists as an argument against a specific piece of extremism on your own side.

 

I believe the way I'd phrase it is that incidents of extremism on both sides all represent one and the same problem.

[Delta1212]

 

I wasn't commenting on who you're supporting. It's the assumption that extremism is tolerated if it's on your own side, which is at the heart of whataboutism. The argument assumes that I would tolerate (or possibly applaud) someone who chopped off Trump's head, or killed someone who was harassing minorities, or any other act attempting a favorable end (for me) using extreme means. It's a misplaced appeal to hypocrisy that allows those who use it to avoid dealing with criticism.

 

As much as I want it, if we had to execute all the Trumps of the world in order to have free education for all, I would want to fight against that just as strongly. It's not accurate, fair, or just to wave at the other side and say extremism exists as an argument against a specific piece of extremism on your own side.

I think the idea that it is easier to overlook extremism from people who are closer to your own beliefs than from those who are diametrically opposed to them is straightforwardly true. That does not say anything about who has a bigger problem with extremism running through their particular ideological grouping at any given time, and the post in question was specifically calling out May for accepting extremism in her own allies while criticising it in her enemies.

 

I think you are jumping on him over this a little prematurely. I understand the desire to react against the "both sides are bad" narrative, but I don't think that's what this was.

[Phi for All]

I think you are jumping on him over this a little prematurely. I understand the desire to react against the "both sides are bad" narrative, but I don't think that's what this was.

I believe the way I'd phrase it is that incidents of extremism on both sides all represent one and the same problem.

 

I still sounds that way to me though. That the response to a specific right-wing extremist act should be the same as for ANY left-wing extremism, because it's all part of the same problem. I disagree with that. I think it's a big part of why whataboutism works so well, because it lets us avoid criticism of our own specific hypocrisies by pointing out someone else's, anyone else's, and in this case it was Theresa May's.

 

I don't think extremism on both sides represent one and the same problem. Right-wing extremism is much more violent than left wing. You have to go back to the 60s to find these levels of violence on the left (in the US). Believing they're the same problem is why it's so easy for propagandists to claim what Putin/Trump/Assad do is nothing new and therefore unactionable. What about...?

 

I'm overly concerned about the use of this argument, probably, but I've seen how the hypocrisy works, I'm watching it work on people close to me, and I think I'm seeing it here as well. We have to stop excusing specific examples of horrible extremist behavior because we think we're on different sides or something. Extremist acts shouldn't be ignored by anyone not on the fringes.

 

I hope this isn't off-topic. If so I'll leave off and just lend a quiet shoulder in support.

[Delta1212]

Jesus Christ, and I thought the Internet thing was bad:

 

May promises to dismantle human rights laws so they don't get in the way of fighting terrorism.

 

I'm not even exaggerating for effect, that's almost a direct quote.

[iNow]

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." ~ John Adams

[Lord Antares]

Jesus Christ, and I thought the Internet thing was bad:

 

May promises to dismantle human rights laws so they don't get in the way of fighting terrorism.

 

I'm not even exaggerating for effect, that's almost a direct quote.

I support this. I don't know which rights exactly they are reducing, but I support the notion.

[dimreepr]

^ What rights are you willing to give up over an intangible fear?

[KipIngram]

I support this. I don't know which rights exactly they are reducing, but I support the notion.

 

That's thoroughly frightening. If you could 100% guarantee the benevolence and wisdom of your leaders, you might be able to go down that road and wind up with a decent result. But you can't, and it opens the door to eventual thorough tyranny as soon as you get the wrong person in charge. There's no doubt in my mind that a surveillance-laden police state can "maintain safety" better than a free society can, but you really want to live in a police state???

[Prometheus]

I support this. I don't know which rights exactly they are reducing, but I support the notion.

 

Then the terrorists have won the battle for your heart. It's exactly what they want.

 

 

 

A related general question i've had for a while: why are right wing governments - which profess to want to minimise the role of government - the quickest to want to control the flow of information and data? I am just imagining it?