How did we get so crazy? And, what do we do about it?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, December 7, 2009 17:24
VIEWED: 6351
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:09 PM

FREM, KWICKO..

This is really in response to another thread (which I can't find) where to two of you were chortling over how bizarre and far-out the right-wing media has gotten. Your strategy for dealing with the phenomenon was to let them go way out on a limb and then ... somehow... saw the limb off.

The problem with that approach is that there are a fair number of nut-jobs in the nation already primed to take those "news items" seriously. They are - at best- immune to facts. What seems like total lunacy today becomes gospel tomorrow. In July 2009 28% of Republicans were "birthers"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/poll-28-of-republican-base-
are-birthers.php?ref=fpblg

by September it was 42%.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/birther-poll-42-percent-o_n_298456.h
tml

I thought Glenn Beck would be TOO crazy for anyone to watch, but turns out there are a group of crazies who're even more batshit that HE is. (At least he's making money at it.) Somewhere between 40-50%(!!!) believe in creation, literally, as the Bible describes it. (WULF, if you're reading: This is NOT an example of Americans thinking for themselves!) A significant minority (approx 30%) still think that Saddam had WMD, and similar percetanges believe that Saddam had ties to al-Qaida ties, or was repsonsible for 9/11.

I'm sure at one time Germans didn't take the little man with the funny mustache too seriously either.

These nut-jobs may be funny and stupid, and cling to so-called leaders who are just as nutty and stupid as they are (Beck, Palin et al) but there are an awful lot of them. Even Canada is a bastion of reason compared to the USA. I don't know how we got so collectively crazed, but we need to look at this seriously.

RUE

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:28 PM

Follow the money.

Who benefits from all of this ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FREM, KWICKO..

This is really in response to another thread (which I can't find) where to two of you were chortling over how bizarre and far-out the right-wing media has gotten. Your strategy for dealing with the phenomenon was to let them go way out on a limb and then ... somehow... saw the limb off.

The problem with that appraoch is that there are a fair number of nut-jobs in the nation already primed to take those "news items" seriously. They are - at best- immune to facts. What seems like total lunacy today becomes gospel tomorrow. In July 2009 28% of Republicans were "birthers"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/poll-28-of-republican-base-
are-birthers.php?ref=fpblg

by September it was 42%.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/birther-poll-42-percent-o_n_298456.h
tml

I thought Glenn Beck would be TOO crazy for anyone to watch, but turns out there are a group of crazies who're even more batshit that HE is. (At least he's making money at it.) Somewhere between 40-50%(!!!) believe in creation, literally, as the Bible describes it. (WULF, if you're reading: This is NOT an example of Americans thinking for themselves!) A significant minority (approx 30%) still think that Saddam had WMD, and similar percetanges believe that Saddam had ties to al-Qaida ties, or was repsonsible for 9/11.

I'm sure at one time Germans didn't take the little man with the funny mustache too seriously either.

These nut-jobs may be funny and stupid, and cling to so-called leaders who are just as nutty and stupid as they are (Beck, Palin et al) but there are an awful lot of them. Even Canada is a bastion of reason compared to the USA. I don't know how we got so collectively crazed, but we need to look at this seriously.

What to do about it ?

Signy , get the doc to adjust your meds again...

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:38 PM

RUE
ALL parasites like their hosts to be defenseless. Doesn't matter if they're religious leaders, admen, generals, politicians or bankers. It would be a bad day for THEM if peeps woke up and smelled the coffee. But seeing as we can expect all parasites to appreciate defenseless hosts and therefore cannot expect reprieve from the tapeworms in our economy, what do we DO about it?

O2B
Your problem is that you can't take "yes" for an answer, and you wind up attacking someone who even partially agrees with you. And not only that, you attack in the stupidest, most personal way possible because you can't even argue your points cogently. Yes, I agree that the Fed is A problem. I just don't that its the ONLY problem. But if you can't make common cause with someone who partially agrees with you, there's no hope for you and your agenda.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:47 PM

We lost our honor and our sense of responsibility.

Luckily, we can get those back.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 8:55 PM

How?

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:13 PM

Well,

Lose the idea that you are entitled to anything. Teach your children the same.

Do for others, no matter the cost... or the gain.

Never force others to your beliefs.

Live your life as you believe to be the right way.

Keep your opinions to yourself, unless asked. Or if someones life is in danger.

Its not much, but its a start.

KWICKO

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Well,

Lose the idea that you are entitled to anything. Teach your children the same.

So lose the notion that you're "entitled" to own a gun or property, or that you're entitled to privacy, a jury of your peers, a right to face your accusers, any entitlements such as free speech or peacable assembly. Check.

Quote:

Do for others, no matter the cost... or the gain.

Pay your taxes so that others can be helped, instead of you having to drive all the way to New Orleans to help out. Check.

Quote:

Never force others to your beliefs.

Even at gunpoint? Oh, wait - you aren't entitled to have a gun.

Quote:

Live your life as your believe to be the right way.

And don't tell others that your way is "the right way" and there's is the wrong way.

Quote:

Keep your opinions to yourself, unless asked. Or if someones life is in danger.

So you think your opinion can save someone's life if they're in immediate danger? "Stop! I don't think that's right!"

Quote:

Its not much, but its a start.

Well, you're half right. It's not much.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:21 PM

Btw... heres a movie I just saw. Worth a look. The movie is called RedBelt.

It kind of encompasses what I believe.

... and its got one of the actors from Serenity. So its a win/win.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:50 PM

Wulf, welcome back

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 9:55 PM

Lol Yeah.

The target is back.

RUE

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 10:10 PM

Societies get all sorts of crazy notions that tend to continue, until they stop working due to internal contradictions - and generally by failing catastrophically.

How does one stop a 370 million-car train ? I'm not sure it can be done, though it seems like it needs to be.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 10:59 PM

More like a 100-million-car train wreck! (I subtracted kids and the nominally sane.)

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:13 PM

3%

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:16 PM

Our kids are pretty nuts too, actually.

As to the question, I think it's a natural response to the unnatural pressures and stresses of modern society. Then add in boredom, poor diet, and a mostly sedentary lifestyle. Whoop! Crazy. Throw in meds and technology to distract sedate the population to an approximately manageable level, encourage people not not give two shits about other people, and there you go.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
These nut-jobs may be funny and stupid, and cling to so-called leaders who are just as nutty and stupid as they are (Beck, Palin et al) but there are an awful lot of them. Even Canada is a bastion of reason compared to the USA. I don't know how we got so collectively crazed, but we need to look at this seriously.

Somewhere there's a board (or 3) where righties are asking the same thing about Dems. We know it's them, and they know it's us.

I suggested that Obama being successful at something that is an obvious win for everyone, that would be a step in the right direction, but obviously whatever he tries will be shot down or made to look like a commie plot - health care being an example.

A upswing in the economy would help, gas prices lowered, even if it's just a symbolic win it would be something.

It's like some baser instinct is overriding their thinking, like FEAR. Calm their fears and they may start thinking again.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:17 PM

"Our kids are pretty nuts too, actually.

As to the question, I think it's a natural response to the unnatural pressures and stresses of modern society. Then add in boredom, poor diet, and a mostly sedentary lifestyle. Whoop! Crazy. Throw in meds to sedate the population to an approximately manageable level, encourage people not not give two shits about other people, and there you go."

Yep.

RUE

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 11:54 PM

Like how you took out the words "and technology" there Wulf.

"As to the question, I think it's a natural response to the unnatural pressures and stresses of modern society. Then add in boredom, poor diet, and a mostly sedentary lifestyle. Whoop! Crazy. Throw in meds and technology to distract sedate the population to an approximately manageable level, encourage people not not give two shits about other people, and there you go."

Except for the "encourage people not not give two shits about other people" it sounds a lot like developed Europe (England, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Scotland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) or Canada, or Japan, or Australia, or New Zealand. Unless you think they are all significantly crazy - and I don't - I think it rules out those shared factors.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 12:30 AM

Wulf probably responded before I got that edit in, television (and internet) is definitely an "opiate of the masses."

I think they're crazy, but it's expressed differently or rather, it's better repressed. There are still people who snap in those countries or have riots in response to policy disagreement, same as here.

But good point. NORMALLY, they're able to repress the natural human crazy better for some reason. Better sense of stability, maybe? Family units and divorce rates? Workplace hours and the constant American economic growth conundrum?

Plus even though yes, we do have higher crime rates, we ALSO have a media that disproportionately bombards us with bad news to try to cultivate a culture of fear.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 1:53 AM

Well ... there are places that really ARE better. For example - Canada. Is it Heaven ? No, of course not. But the murder rate really is lower - a LOT lower - as is the violent crime rate. The standard of living (overall) really is higher. The people really are happier. They even really live longer.

For some reason, though, we can conceive of worse places to live (the garbage dumps in the Philippines) but we just can't for the life of us imagine any better. Weird, isn't it ? We keep insisting it's just a different version of our exact same problems. They really ARE miserable just like WE are ! But in reality --- they really are different. Even --- better.

What do people have against being happier ? Healthier ? Safer ? Living longer ? Why do they deny the possibility so vehemently ? Why do they run from it so quickly ?

For the life of me, I can't figure it out.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:02 AM

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:07 AM

It's more than that.

It's people who'll believe any damn fool thing that meets their ideological/ emotional needs of the moment, whether that belief is in the iPhone, a 10,000 year-old Sino-Jewish-Nazi-British-Templar-Mayan conspiracy, god, WMD or the power of positive thinking. A population that seems incapable of rational thought (ratio: to weigh one against the other) and which is unmoored from reality.

Don't peeps realize that is a population ripe for fascism?

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:31 AM

Actually, a population that believes things to be wildly different from the mainstream tends to be that way because they're not listening to the mainstream. If they're listening to a leader, then yes, you're right, but if you're talking about lone "crazy" individuals, I suspect the paranoia far overcomes any usefulness they have for a fascist regime, because certain kinds of folk constantly question authority.

And now I'm starting to wonder just who it is you're complaining about here. Violent crime is a valid complaint and accusation of cultural insanity. People who think different from you are not. people who don't like and don't trust the government are not.

>_> No offense, but in threads like these, like one time Frem was baiting people to try to make them admit they're all just scared of people, I get burned. On the internet, because no personal harm is likely to come of me, and because emotions and motives are more difficult to determine, I take posts at their face value. You and Rue have kind of set off a paranoia sensor in me that you're actually looking for a specific answer, so... I'm just gonna go now.

HERO

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Well,

Lose the idea that you are entitled to anything. Teach your children the same.

Especially life, liberty, self determination, personal responsibility, property, happiness, and the fruits of their (and your) labors.

Quote:

Do for others, no matter the cost... or the gain.

Especially do for those who do NOT want or need your help...after all, you know better.

Quote:

Never force others to your beliefs.

Just disregard and punish their beliefs.

Quote:

Live your life as you believe to be the right way.

But don't give that right to anyone else.

Quote:

Keep your opinions to yourself, unless asked. Or if someones life is in danger.

Maybe you should have started with that one...

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Our kids are pretty nuts too, actually.

As to the question, I think it's a natural response to the unnatural pressures and stresses of modern society. Then add in boredom, poor diet, and a mostly sedentary lifestyle. Whoop! Crazy. Throw in meds and technology to distract sedate the population to an approximately manageable level, encourage people not not give two shits about other people, and there you go.

Right in one.

Myself and especially HKCavalier have long held that the primary solution to a saner society is not brutalising, warping and destroying the minds and humanity of our young before they are old enough to value them.

And it's my thought that the primary source of aberrant behavior in public school is just how radically different what is required for acceptance and success in our sociopathic society, from what their natural human instincts are - that collision of messages causes all manner of mental static that can manifest in ways as different as people are.

And instead of understanding and admitting that, we call it a mental disorder, the same way that when a child points out the ugliness of our world from an honest viewpoint we call it a distorted worldview - and we try to condition and medicate it away, and if that don't work... the camps.

And by doing that, for several generations, we have culled out and ultimately destroyed the most humane and decent among us, people who's humanity was too strong to distort or suppress - so we destroyed THEM, because they would not fit into our dystopic dream as productive little servants believing the lies and spinning the hamster wheel to enrich the powers that be.

People talk about what if someone capped Hitler before he came to power - but really, closest example we got to that in history is Aaron Burrs lucky shot...

They never talk about what if we had murdered Ghandi in his youth, strangled the Dali Lama in his crib, tossed Mother Theresa into a youth detention center as a child...

And we *DID* that, people, we took our best, brightest and most humane, and we fucking purged them - and now we're suckin on the bitter harvest that we sowed, is all it is.

But there's hope, there's always hope, every child born is another chance for us not to fuck it up this time, and with WWASPS flailing in their death throes, and inch by inch progress grabbed and ripped from the teeth of the machine, we may yet see a turnaround, provided we do not destroy ourselves in the meantime.

But we should never, ever forget what a terrible thing we did, that most people never even knew about, which cost us so damned much, our own personal Miranda, a mistake we ought not repeat, ever.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

KWICKO

Thursday, December 3, 2009 3:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's more than that.

It's people who'll believe any damn fool thing that meets their ideological/ emotional needs of the moment, whether that belief is in the iPhone, a 10,000 year-old Sino-Jewish-Nazi-British-Templar-Mayan conspiracy, god, WMD or the power of positive thinking. A population that seems incapable of rational thought (ratio: to weigh one against the other) and which is unmoored from reality.

Don't peeps realize that is a population ripe for fascism?

By the way, don't look for American fascism to look like Nazi fascism or Mussolini's fascism. When fascism comes (back) to America, it will drape itself in the flag and the eagle, the highway, the television, baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet. Nazism gave rise to the Third Reich and the "master race" because the Germans had myths of a Germanic greatness, a Teutonic superiority. America has its own such myths (ask Wulf!), but they're uniquely American. American fascism won't be red, white, and black like the Nazi banners, uniforms, and flags - it will come dressed all in red, white, and blue. It won't be operas by Wagner and speeches by dictators and military "heroes"; it will be rock-n-roll, hip-hop, reality shows and militaristic radio talkers.

Sound familiar?

GEEZER

Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In July 2009 28% of Republicans were "birthers"

by September it was 42%.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/birther-poll-42-percent-o_n_298456.h
tml

Yeah. the 'birther' stuff is pretty silly...

But...

Also from the Huffingtonpost...

"On the flip side, the poll also finds that 25 percent of Democrats believe that George W. Bush intentionally allowed the September 11th attacks to occur to serve as a catalyst for a war in the Middle East."

So maybe the crazyness isn't one-sided.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:42 AM

<_<

Hee hee, yeah, crazy, huh?

>_>

*Hides under rock*

KWICKO

Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In July 2009 28% of Republicans were "birthers"

by September it was 42%.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/birther-poll-42-percent-o_n_298456.h
tml

Yeah. the 'birther' stuff is pretty silly...

But...

Also from the Huffingtonpost...

"On the flip side, the poll also finds that 25 percent of Democrats believe that George W. Bush intentionally allowed the September 11th attacks to occur to serve as a catalyst for a war in the Middle East."

So maybe the crazyness isn't one-sided.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Never did buy into that "theory". Mostly because I don't think anyone in the Bush Administration was clever enough to pull it off. They didn't perpetrate 9/11 - they simply co-opted the fear that ran wild in its aftermath, and used it to push forward with their own agenda.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 3, 2009 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's more than that.

It's people who'll believe any damn fool thing that meets their ideological/ emotional needs of the moment, whether that belief is in the iPhone, a 10,000 year-old Sino-Jewish-Nazi-British-Templar-Mayan conspiracy, god, WMD or the power of positive thinking. A population that seems incapable of rational thought (ratio: to weigh one against the other) and which is unmoored from reality.

Don't peeps realize that is a population ripe for fascism?

Isn't that sentiment just a bit alarmist? I mean didn't the USA just 12 months ago elect an African-American President? Didn't 98% "white" Iowa put Obama in the big leagues and in a position to defeat Hillary? There are fringe elements on both sides of every political and cultural issue. Fortunately, Americans are generally moderate and will reject them in the long run. We may occasionally be fascinated and intrigued by their rhetoric, but they all lack a broad base of support. If we're going to mention fascism as a future threat from current populists, don't we have to be honest and say that some of this is already occuring now with the expansion of the Government into many areas of our personal lives and private business?

KWICKO

Thursday, December 3, 2009 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's more than that.

It's people who'll believe any damn fool thing that meets their ideological/ emotional needs of the moment, whether that belief is in the iPhone, a 10,000 year-old Sino-Jewish-Nazi-British-Templar-Mayan conspiracy, god, WMD or the power of positive thinking. A population that seems incapable of rational thought (ratio: to weigh one against the other) and which is unmoored from reality.

Don't peeps realize that is a population ripe for fascism?

Isn't that sentiment just a bit alarmist? I mean didn't the USA just 12 months ago elect an African-American President? Didn't 98% "white" Iowa put Obama in the big leagues and in a position to defeat Hillary? There are fringe elements on both sides of every political and cultural issue. Fortunately, Americans are generally moderate and will reject them in the long run. We may occasionally be fascinated and intrigued by their rhetoric, but they all lack a broad base of support. If we're going to mention fascism as a future threat from current populists, don't we have to be honest and say that some of this is already occuring now with the expansion of the Government into many areas of our personal lives and private business?

Right you are. It IS a bit alarmist, which I think is the idea. Keep people vigilant. Of course, there's the irony that keeping people paranoid and snitching on each other IS one more facet of fascism, so there's that... :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:18 PM

Quote:
Actually, a population that believes things to be wildly different from the mainstream tends to be that way because they're not listening to the mainstream. If they're listening to a leader, then yes, you're right, but if you're talking about lone "crazy" individuals, I suspect the paranoia far overcomes any usefulness they have for a fascist regime, because certain kinds of folk constantly question authority.

You have about three statements in there that I find insightful.

The first is about populations that "believe". "Belief" is what happens when you take your reality from a leader, don't ask questions, don't look around, don't think for yourself. Believers are fragile. They have no mental durability to call on if their beliefs wind up dysfunctional, because they're used to getting their reality from the PTB.

The second is about leaders. The peeps I'm thinking about DO take their cues from leaders. You think that non-mainstream believers don't have leaders? What do you think Limbaugh and Beck and Palin are? We used to have a dude here (Auraptor) who believed that Saddam had WMD, the UN authorized our invasion of Iraq, George Bush's tax cuts made Federal revenues go up, and that trickle-down policies made the economy better. It didn't matter how many times we posted the actual tables of Federal revenues, compared GDPs under Clinton and Bush, dragged out David Kay's and Duelfer's reports, or posted the actual UN resolutions and sidebars... the man was immutable to facts because he was a proud dittohead. A true believer who was unwilling- incapable- of looking at actual reality when it contradicted his beliefs. Limbaugh's followers, Palin's followers, Beck's followers have made an art of believing that denial of reality has its own kind of power. Not trying to be one-sided here, but there are more visible examples on the right than on the left.

The third is your assumption about non-mainstream people questioning authority. But non-mainstream can be even MORE rabid followers. Look at PN (who BTW is IMHO organically crazy, not ideologically delusional, but still a good example). He will believe ANYONE who believes as he believes... he will cite the press, the legal establishment, various websites, suspending his disbelief is the "mainstream" when it supports his belief.

I think what I'm seeing are those peeps whose beliefs have been called into question. And now, when (in their minds) anything is possible then anything IS possible. They have no reference to reality, no skills in thinking, no insight. They are leaderless people looking for someone... anyone... to lead them out of their state of fear. (BTW- It doesn't help that the gubmint really DOES scheme and plot against us, and so do corporations.)

Quote:
just who it is you're complaining about here. Violent crime is a valid complaint and accusation of cultural insanity. People who think different from you are not. people who don't like and don't trust the government are not.

It's not people who think different than me who bother me, it's people who don't think at all.

What I would like to see is Americans engaging in discussion. But first, we have to agree that there is only one reality (Not "your reality" and "my reality". I don't HAVE a reality, I have an OPINION and so do you. We are simply trying to discover whose opinion is closer to actuality.) Not shouting insanity at each other (like "death panels", which never existed!) or covering their ears and saying "la-la-la, I can't hear you" or posting endless movies to make emotional appeals because they can't make a THOUGHTFUL argument for their POV.

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, December 3, 2009 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's not people who think different than me who bother me, it's people who don't think at all.

It's inaccurate to think these people "don't think." Some yes, but a whole party? My brother told me yesterday.... dear God... that he listens to Rush... give me a second...

Point is he's not stupid. Hero, obviously, not stupid, etc...

You hit on it - fear. FEAR. I picked Obama as much for what I liked about him as I did for what I feared McCain would be like.

Fear Media, Violence Media. You can use people's fear (Rush, Beck, Fux) but what's the other side of that? Faith? Fear is NOW, Faith is an IOU

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:17 PM

"And now I'm starting to wonder just who it is you're complaining about here. Violent crime is a valid complaint and accusation of cultural insanity. People who think different from you are not. people who don't like and don't trust the government are not."

This truly makes no sense to me as a response to my posts.

I look at violence AND happiness, quality of life, life span, infant mortality, education levels - and more - as metrics of a society.

In my view, a society is supposed to be composed of its members for the benefit of its members. A society which measurably benefits its members less (by restricting socially available resources from segments or large percentages) than another society is, I think, less functional.

That people do not expect the society to be there for their mutual benefit is to me a measure of 'craziness'. That they do not take a steady look at its dysfunction and seek to improve it is to me a measure of 'craziness'.

As for not liking or trusting the government, I THINK I have made the case that there are many things I neither like nor trust. Why ? Because they are blatantly not for our mutual benefit, but for the benefit of others (which we are somehow supposed to meagerly share in at some indefinite point in the future).

If you could elucidate your argument, I would appreciate it.

ETA: On second thought, I think I get where you're coming from. When I can formulate a response that speaks your language, I will reply.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:37 PM

It seems to me that peeps should be innoculated against "appeals to emotion". What I see are peeps lost in the wilderness of their own emotions- fear, primarily, but also hope (If I buy this light beers I'll have more fun with less calories and be just like the happy, beautiful people I see on TV), pride, and anger.

This goes back to "what makes us human". Numerous experiments show that the apes do almost as much as we do, mentally: They have a theory of mind, the have a concept of fairness, they communicate, they learn, they use tools, they have abstract thoughts. What they DON'T do is accept the word of another ape over their own experience. That level of abstraction makes it possible for us to build on concepts like gravity, rights, evolution but ALSO makes it possible to pass on concepts of purple dragons, angels, devils...

But when society becomes totally inward-referencing, stops looking at the world and loses its foothold from reality, it risks committing mass suicide like Easter Island.

Madame Geezer had a good idea (which of course will never come about) and that is to give older children courses in rhetoric, reasoning, and the process of asking questions, making predictions and looking to the evidence for validation. The reason why that won't come about, of course, is that NOBODY with any ounce of power wants a thinking population. EMOTIONAL peeps are easy to manipulate. But thinking peeps might stop buying your beer/car/software, or tithing, or working for half pay, or they might start questioning why- exactly- SOME peeps are sitting waaaay up there in the halls of power.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 4:44 PM

Here's something that reoccurred to me which fits in with your post:

A functional society requires no beliefs, because the benefits flow inevitably from the structure. People in that society act the way that they do because the benefits of those actions - in happiness, in security, in freedom - are tangible.

A dysfunctional society requires many beliefs to mask the gap between stated aims and results. By definition beliefs are crazy. The more beliefs you have to inculcate (to keep people going along with your society), the crazier your society.

(What percentage of the population would go along with a society where the STATED aim was to keep people striving to benefit a very small minority ? So, you have to foster beliefs - belief that only the ruler can bring back the sun from the underworld, or that heaven has a king and a feudal structure just like on earth, or that the masses can only survive by making a few people very rich etc.)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:21 PM

I think the topic is about why people are theoretically more crazy in America than other places than about general things wrong with the American society. Education, life span, quality of life, I don't really see as a factor in mental health. Infant mortality I suppose causes grief, but I'm not sure that's a mental health issue unless it evolves into fully fledged depression.

While maybe it seemed like previously I was commenting on general ills in society, there's been some studies conducted that indicate minor seeming things like diet and exercise do have a significant impact on mental health.

People may seem to act crazy if confronted with something they strongly dislike or disagree with, they may be overly confrontation, even behaviourally hostile. Like, for example, Tea Party protestors and the health care/town halls things. They may believe rhetoric, proven untrue. Frankly, I don't think they're delusional, I think they don't have access or interest in alternative points of view. So despite all the apparent craziness, I can't CALL it craziness unless there's violence or a symptomatic or diagnosable indication of a mental health problem.

Call them emotional, even over-emotional, fine, and you're right, the reliance upon emotion is an indication of a lack of education and a vulnerability to manipulation. But I don't think that's "crazy." And neither do I necessarily think NO decision should have any basis in emotion or sentimentality. Ethics, for example, are often based upon a FEELING of what is right and what is wrong. Unethical, hurtful behaviour feels repulsive to us, and it should. And wariness, if you can't trust someone (the powers that be) when they're feeding you a line, well, I don't particularly think that's crazy either.

BTW, I consider Glen Beck, Limbaugh, and etc. VERY mainstream. They're just the opposite side of the mainstream you're used to. The opposite bank is still technically part of the stream.

Your complaints about the radioheads I have no argument with. In this way, many of the Tea Party people, as I said, are being manipulated. But this is still not the same thing as crazy, and if you dismiss your opponent as such simply because their perspective and viewpoint seems nonsensical to you, then you may be in danger of drastically underestimating them.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:48 PM

I think SignyM defines crazy as "at best- immune to facts" which I think refers to individuals. My definition is self-destructively dysfunctional, but I tend to refer to society at large. Our arguments do seem to converge on the role of belief as pathology.

Your mileage may vary !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, December 3, 2009 5:51 PM

Limbaugh has been on the radio for decades. His audience hears basically the same things day after day. He did everything he could to see that Obama would not be elected President.

Hannity is on the radio and cable tv. He too has a large and loyal audience. He did everything he could to see that Obama would not get elected.

Beck is relatively new to the conservative/populist arena, so his power of influence is not really known yet.

The point is that none of these people's preachings mattered in the final analysis. Obama was elected President. Their ultimate influence is highly questionable when they failed so miserably to defeat Obama. So relax.

NIKI2

Thursday, December 3, 2009 6:03 PM

Dunno if anyone's addressed this, so apologies if I'm redundant. I have a somewhat different view of the crazies this thread was about, the right-wing nutbag deathers, birthers, etc., etc. who live and breathe Fixed News and their ilk. Mind you, I'm not talking about crazies in our society in general, but those who have come to steadfastly believe in things like birtherism, etc.

I agree with many of the points here as to what created/enhanced them, especially our society's various problems. But there's something else, and it was touched on by whoever mentioned "fear".

Crazies have always existed, always will. The 9/11 theory is ridiculous to me, as well, but as far as I knew, it was one of the few crazy theories of the left while Dumbya was in office that caught on to the extent it did. What's happening now is vastly more, more wild theories people are embracing, and more dangerous ones.

So. My belief is that there are several factors OUTSIDE the normal societal problems, which actually may not contribute as much to what this thread was about as to the other, more generic, forms of craziness.

One is that we've had eight years of encouragement for belief in creationism and other fundamentalist beliefs, so that's been built up and more accepted than at other recent times. To kill in the name of anti-abortion beliefs has become accepted by these people, partly because stuff like that was accepted by our government for eight years. Add to that the fact that those beliefs are now on the "out", and you get a clinging to ideology, a refusal to give up beliefs that I think make people extra-fervent in insisting on them. Religion is one of the strongest things people will defend against rational thought.

Second is that we've elected an "other" to the White House...someone vastly outside the norm. This isn't just racism, it's fear of radical change, to me; I'll bet there were extra nutbags running around when our first Catholic Prez (wasn't that Kennedy?) was elected...if it was Kennedy, it was offset to a degree with how America was enamored of him, but I'll bet it was there. Now we fear Muslims...Obama is seen by many as Muslim, so that further's fear of the "other".

Third, yes, racism. Racism at its core is fear, and true racists out there have got to have SO much invested in their belief of African Americans as inferior and their fear of them that it reeely enhances things like the birther movement. They're willing to believe anything and everything, however far out, which invalidates Obama as our leader. Racism exists, nobody in their right mind can deny it, and it's one of the strongest emotions thus easiest to incite to violence and extreme hatred.

Fourth, our feelings about our government. We've become so accustomed to mistrusting our government, partly becuse it's DONE so many things worthy of mistrust, that theories catch hold easier than in the past...the 9/11 one is a prime example. How MANY would have believed fifty years ago that our country would do such a thing? Not that none would, but how many followers would they gather? We've become cynical about our government to a degree I don't think ever seen in our history. How we were lied to about Iraq, torture becoming accepted, our laws being broken left and right, etc., have all contributed. Personally, I am among those who believe the first, and possibly second, election were "stolen". I wonder what the percentage is among the Left (and some on the Right) who hold that belief? That's considered a "crazy conspiracy theory" by those who don't believe.

Fifth, the times we live in. It's no longer a matter of declared wars, or even undeclared ones like Korea, we've actually been attacked on our own soil for the first time (Pearl Harbor doesn't count, it was "far away" and not right in the heart of the country); terrorism is global and we don't know what to expect from one day to the next. It's been growing, and is bigger now than it was during Dumbya's time, simply because it's an

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 7:40 PM

Quote:
we've actually been attacked on our own soil for the first time (Pearl Harbor doesn't count, it was "far away" and not right in the heart of the country); terrorism is global and we don't know what to expect from one day to the next. It's been growing, and is bigger now than it was during Dumbya's time, simply because it's an extension of the growth that's been going on.

Um... I'm pretty sure Pearl Harbour caused crazy amounts of fear in the American Public towards people of Japanese descent.

I'm also pretty sure that the War of 1812 was probably the first time we were attacked since we became a nation, unless you count attacks on caucasian settlers by Apache warriors and the Sioux (and settlers, once again, were also xenophobically afraid of them).

But in general, I agree, the crazies have always existed, there's not a greater percentage of them now, they're just reported more (and vilified more). Also? I don't think the crazies are quite so crazy.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 7:49 PM

We may be thinking of different groups of people. I define 'crazy' (not in the clinical sense) as a person whose emotions are driving their facts, rather than the other way around. So, for example, a person who fervently thinks that Hussein had WMDs (all evidence to the contrary) would fit the definition.

How do you define crazy ?
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

How do you define crazy ?

Believing in meaningless or fanciful bulls**t because you *need* to to have a sense of control & order in your life, or just because other peeps do.
I.E. Organized religion, wacky conspiracy theories, WMD, the end of the world, trust in (government, Limbaugh, "the Left," "The Right," the authorities, the bankers, etc.)...

Personally, I believe in reincarnation of a sort, but it would never dictate who I voted for, what job I got, who I could be friends with... It's my own THEORY. When peeps drop the "I'm right!" mentality on things they cannot prove without distorting FACTS, we'll be a bit less crazy as a world IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:27 PM

The problem I have with your definition is that you could group religious people in there. Now, I'm not religious myself, I'm a scientist and an atheist, but I could care less if 4 billion or so people think there's an invisible man sitting up in the clouds watching us all. It's not my business. Now, if they decide to do something because the invisible man told them to, I might take issue simply because I would most likely disagree with their proposal, but I'm pretty okay if the invisible man tells them not to kill people or steal, you know? I'm not okay if the invisible man tells them to go on a crusade against the infidels, which they have.

In any case, here's 4 billion or so people with a somewhat dubious belief in the face of what I think is monumental evidence of the non-existence of the invisible man, yet I don't think any one of those 4 billion people is any more crazy than I am. They just believe something different than I do.

So I prefer to define crazy not by belief (because anyone could be wrong about something, that doesn't make them crazy or delusional) or emotionalism (necessary part of human nature).

I define crazy as diagnosable mental health conditions.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:39 PM

Then we ARE talking about different groups !

OK - that helps things along !

Here's the thing - what's the difference between being mistaken and being delusional ? To me, being mistaken means having insufficient facts. Once the facts are in you change your mind - right ? But a delusional person will not change their mind not matter how MANY facts are presented.

(I exempt religion, not b/c it's real, but b/c it is socially trained into people as part and parcel of 'what the world is'. It's very difficult for people to go against the overwhelming social consensus.)

(BTW - the evidence of history is that there are many 'facts' that have come ... ... and gone. The earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, they didn't know how destructive the atom bomb would be if dropped on a wooden city, or two. So, many of my 'facts' are temporary, subject to revision as new things come up. This I think is how it should be - anything else veers into the realm of belief, or delusion.)

As for being emotional, I don't think it has or should have too much to do with what one takes to be fact. I think it is a response to the input of reality. But then again, we may be talking about different things, as we regrettably have so often.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:46 PM

Quote:
The problem I have with your definition is that you could group religious people in there.

I do. There is not one whit's difference between believing in Jeebus and believing in a six-foot friendly rabbit named Harvey. One is an invisible friend and the other is the subject of a funny movie.

So, now that you mention it: I think religion IS the problem.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
In any case, here's 4 billion or so people with a somewhat dubious belief in the face of what I think is monumental evidence of the non-existence of the invisible man

My definition says they're crazy. Maybe mildly so, but crazy nontheless.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
me, being mistaken means having insufficient facts. Once the facts are in you change your mind - right ?

Yes.

Quote:
But a delusional person will not change their mind not matter how MANY facts are presented.

That's crazy from where I sit.

Quote:

(I exempt religion, not b/c it's real, but b/c it is socially trained into people as part and parcel of 'what the world is'. It's very difficult for people to go against the overwhelming social consensus.)

You are more charitable than I am.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 8:54 PM

I think certain beliefs probably will always have insufficient information. Does life begin at birth, or conception? Is there a god? I think there's plenty of evidence that no, there isn't, but someone else would undoubtedly disagree with me. This gets into the realm of philosophy as opposed to facts.

According to wikipedia: A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

If someone believes Obama is a bad man who maybe is going to do harm to the nation (either because he's a Democrat or because he's black) based on the sum of their experiences, upbringing, and their opinions, then it's very unlikely they're going to support Obama in any endeavor he undertakes. The belief, "Obama is a bad man," is a matter of perception, and the subsequent, possibly false beliefs based on the initial beliefs are therefore not delusions. They're opinions.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 9:10 PM

So you are going by the more narrow clinical definition ?

"The belief, "Obama is a bad man," is a matter of perception ..."

In that when evaluating an unknown people tend to project forward from their experiences I think initially it might be a perception.

"... and the subsequent, possibly false beliefs based on the initial beliefs are therefore not delusions."

Until, of course the evidence starts to weigh up that Obama was born in the US, for example. In the common (but not clinical) parlance then they pass into delusions.

So, if we don't call them delusions, what should we call them ? You would call them this:

"They're opinions."

I think opinions is far too neutral a term. An opinion is 'I like that green tree'. INSISTING ! 'That tree is orange' about a green tree is not an opinion, IMHO.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, December 3, 2009 9:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
if you dismiss your opponent as such simply because their perspective and viewpoint seems nonsensical to you, then you may be in danger of drastically underestimating them.

Hell, Byte, a good quarter of my schemes RUN on that, I play to the trickster-overlord archtype so hard it becomes impossible for them to take me seriously...

Right up to the moment the shank slams into their spine.

And you're right, most "crazies" aren't half as crazy as the world takes em for, a lot of em, they got one piece of reality they cannot deny, but yet cannot force to fit into the tissue of lies, beliefs and distortions our society runs on, and trying to MAKE it fit, without stripping away or impinging on those OTHER, preciously held and treasured assumptions, beliefs and distortions causes folks to get pretty damned screwy in the trying - you can see that in PN on his more reasonable days, often enough.

Of course, the alternative is to scour it all clean and start from what you know to be true, which to folks who accept and live the myth, makes you look not only crazy, but EVIL, by their standards of reckoning.

If so, so be it - despite my broad hints and playing on assumptions, that yellow scarf I wear in slipknot on my left hip ain't got shit to do with the Thugee, if any relation was present it'd be to the other end of the beliefs from that well, vamachara and indulgment of vices, but truely it represent a left hand path, which brings up to most folk ideas of "evil", sure.

But what it's about is the reliance on humanity over divinity, action over contemplation, willpower over faith - to BE, to DO, rather than sit and wait and hope.

That and there's an unweighted Manriki-Gusari sewn into the upper seam.

I question who is the crazy one though, Garland Greene in Con Air nailed that one pretty square.
"Now you're talking semantics, what if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years at the end of which they tell you to piss off, ending up in some retirement village, hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet in time - wouldn't you consider that, to be insane ?"
Hell, I wanted to spend the time I could even explain to you *why* he didn't off the girl.

Gimme the crazy, this worlds version of "sanity" sucks.

-Frem
"You're mad!
Thank goodness for that, cause if I wasn't this would probably never work."

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 9:53 PM

Just kidding, I get what you're saying.

But... yeah, I like the clinical definition. It has definable limits. A belief that is a product of upbringing, political or cultural, is under this definition not a delusion. So whenever I listen to a belief or an idea from either side, I try to treat everything as potentially valid, because even some of the most WTF wrong spindoctoring often has, if not a grain of truth, then a potentially valid concern at the heart of it.

Death panels you and I would agree are false. The valid concern behind the idea of death panels is whether we can trust our government to be able to appropriately manage an insurance policy and healthcare. I used to think so, but clearly we're not Europe, and I increasingly doubt it.

The birther argument, not only don't I believe it but I kind of think it's pointless because I don't see how it would make much difference. Even IF you could get Obama outted (which really isn't how it works, once he's sworn in that's it), then Biden is still very much the next in line (he was also sworn in), and if THAT doesn't work, then it goes to PELOSI.

The concern the birthers have is that Obama is going to run the country differently, whether it's because for one particular birther, he's concerned about Obama being black, for another it's because he might be Muslim (or, from PN, jewish), and for the last, simply because he's a Democrat. The idea probably arose among one of the former two groups ("look at him! He ain't even American!") and the later just grabbed onto it as a sort of desperate last hope.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
And you're right, most "crazies" aren't half as crazy as the world takes em for, a lot of em, they got one piece of reality they cannot deny, but yet cannot force to fit into the tissue of lies, beliefs and distortions our society runs on, and trying to MAKE it fit, without stripping away or impinging on those OTHER, preciously held and treasured assumptions, beliefs and distortions causes folks to get pretty damned screwy in the trying - you can see that in PN on his more reasonable days, often enough.

See, now you're talking more about what *I* would consider crazy. The difference is, it's a crazy I understand because I feel like I fit in that world a lot.

Honestly I think most people in the world are crazy in some small ways. That's fine, quirks make us fun. There are clearly some people who are less crazy and some who are more crazy, but generally I find the people who are more crazy tend to have a reason for being that way, from the ax-crazy psycho to the corporate sociopath to the more harmless paranoid schizo.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
[According to wikipedia: A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception.

Exactly. World leaders depend on delusion to make their way in politics. Hitlers and cult leaders are the most extreme examples.

"Bush is a good man" is debatable (opinion).
"Bush was a good leader" is not, and FACTS back up that he was not... to see it differently is *delusional*."
Get me?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
generally I find the people who are more crazy tend to have a reason for being that way, from the ax-crazy psycho to the corporate sociopath to the more harmless paranoid schizo.

It's the quietly crazy that do the most societal damage IMO.
Take, for example, Hero. He's supremely intelligent, yet highly delusional. He can spin facts so fast most peeps heads will spin off their highest vertebra. It makes him an effective lawyer, yet his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. He creates his own reality based upon his comfortable pre-conceptions.
Basically, he's crazy.

The laughing Chrisisall

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:22 PM

What's a birther, btw?

I blame the internet, I really do. The information revolution should really be called the 'mis'information revolution. Never has so much crap been written or spoken and then transmitted to so many.

In the past, there was just ignorance - people who knew very little of the world outside their own front door. Access to information hasn't made us smarter - gullible people will believe lots of silly stuff, and now that it's so possible to manipulate images, as well as facts and figures, well a lot more people will believe a lot more stupid stuff.

Intelligence is not about knowing stuff, it's having an analytical and critical mind. It's not taught very well at school, IMO.

So the situation is currently - there are lots of people who manipulate the easy access to media to promote their own agendas, and they use some very successful strategies. Hell, advertisers have been selling us a heap of crap for decades, now others have cottoned on how to 'sell' their crap, be it creationism or some mad conspiracy theory.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:27 PM

"What's a birther, btw?"

Someone who BELIEVES that Obama was born in Africa, but who nevertheless lost his US citizenship when he went to live in Indonesia.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:31 PM

Oh yeah, I was on another forum where somebody went on and on and on and on and on about that...

Very tedious.

RUE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:32 PM

Byte

I think what we are taking issue with is not that people have emotional responses, or even lack of information - it is the INSISTANCE, despite all FACTS, that those beliefs are true.

That may not be clinically delusional, but it certainly is pathological. And it drives a LOT of people here - large percentages.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 10:59 PM

Quote:
A belief that is a product of upbringing, political or cultural, is under this definition not a delusion.

But a culturally-originated belief ... for example, the belief in S Africa that AIDS is not caused by a virus ... becomes a delusion if strong evidence is repeatedly presented to a person (or people) and they continue to reject the evidence of their senses. (Or the predictive power of a model.)

Quote:
So whenever I listen to a belief or an idea from either side, I try to treat everything as potentially valid, because even some of the most WTF wrong spindoctoring often has, if not a grain of truth, then a potentially valid concern at the heart of it.

Not really.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 11:06 PM

Facts are surprisingly mutable depending on who's saying them and why.

Verifiable scientific data? I love that. Measurements are easy and simple.

The problem is that verifying facts and discrediting rumours in politics, and history, for that matter, seems to be pretty difficult. It's kind of playing he said she said or even a damn game of telephone.

Something that is, seems, or sounds true to someone from a source might be complete blarney to someone else. Partially it's a matter of context: what are the facts being used to prove? If someone doesn't agree with the conclusion, they'll often dismiss the facts that support it. This is why democrats and conservatives might be ascribing two different numbers to the exact same figure. Neither number is necessarily wrong, but each side is probably either omitting or adding something to better support their claims.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 11:34 PM

Quote:
But a culturally-originated belief ... for example, the belief in S Africa that AIDS is not caused by a virus ... becomes a delusion if strong evidence is repeatedly presented to a person (or people) and they continue to reject the evidence of their senses. (Or the predictive power of a model.)

This is South Africa post apartheid. White people come in, say "you have a disease, we are going to try to treat you," but the patients die anyway. Being that they don't trust us, their likely conclusion is we came to harm them, and the instrument of harm is what we're saying will help. Once again unfortunate, but not crazy. More of a PR problem, really.

Quote:
Not really.

We'll agree to disagree then. But generally speaking if a Republican is angry that a Democrat is in power, the response isn't "Oh gosh darnit, we want that power," the response is "Oh CRAP CAKES, they're gonna screw everything up! We need to get one of our people in there FAST!"

Actually, both parties think this way. I actually don't see much difference between the Birthers and Democrats who think Bush stole the election from Al Gore. Both are upset about the same thing (the other party is in power) and both want to get the guy in power OUT and THEIR candidate in as soon as possible.

Florida was a DEBACLE that year. I do think that election was dubious. That's a fact. So how do you use that fact? You say Bush stole the election, and Al Gore should be president.

Fact: political opponents filed lawsuits to try to get Barack Obama to obtain additional proof that he meets the requirements for office. The lawsuits were dismissed for reasons that are obvious to people who don't believe the conspiracy, but for people who do, this seems suspicious, and further fuels the controversy.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, December 3, 2009 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
[
This is South Africa post apartheid. White people come in, say "you have a disease, we are going to try to treat you," but the patients die anyway. Being that they don't trust us, their likely conclusion is we came to harm them, and the instrument of harm is what we're saying will help. Once again unfortunate, but not crazy. More of a PR problem, really.

I don't think this has anything to do with being post aparteid, it's what happens when a commonly held belief (ie HIV is not a virus) becomes seen as fact because so many people are saying it, without there being any real evidence to support it.

If people are not critical in the way they think, they can easily jump to conclusions that are wrong. It's the difference between causality and correlation, for example.

Some other examples throughout history of commonly held beliefs that were wrong -

the earth is flat
the sun and stars revolve around the earth
supernatural witches exist and need to be burnt to death to expel the devil
Jewish people are not really human
People with dark skin are fundamentally different and inferior to those with white skin
You can tell whether someone is a criminal by the bumps on their head

and so on....

BYTEMITE

Thursday, December 3, 2009 11:53 PM

Quote:
I don't think this has anything to do with being post aparteid, it's what happens when a commonly held belief (ie HIV is not a virus) becomes seen as fact because so many people are saying it, without there being any real evidence to support it.

From wikipedia:

A small number of activists question the connection between HIV and AIDS, the existence of HIV, or the validity of current treatment methods (even going so far as to claim that the drug therapy itself was the cause of AIDS deaths). Though these claims have been examined and thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, they continue to be promulgated through the Internet and have had a significant political impact. In South Africa, former President Thabo Mbeki's embrace of AIDS denialism resulted in an ineffective governmental response to the AIDS epidemic that has been blamed for hundreds of thousands of AIDS-related deaths.

Also from wikipedia:

Mbeki reiterated his view that HIV was not wholly responsible for AIDS, leading hundreds of delegates to walk out on his speech. Mbeki also sent a letter to a number of world leaders likening the mainstream AIDS research community to supporters of the apartheid regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Impact_in_South_Africa

Suspicion --> Mistrust

SIGNYM

Thursday, December 3, 2009 11:56 PM

Byte, there is a huge difference in survival between those on antiretroviral drugs and those without. But when a leader refuses to acknowledge the facts because of deep feelings and personal opinions about racism and colonialism, and tens of thousands are doomed to painful disease and early death, this is not only delusional it is criminal. I expect better of people. So should you, and so should everybody.

Quote:
This paper compared orthodox AIDS scientists to latter-day Nazi concentration camp doctors and portrayed black people who accepted orthodox AIDS science as "self-repressed" victims of a slave mentality. It described the "HIV/AIDS thesis" as entrenched in "centuries-old white racist beliefs and concepts about Africans".

BTW, your thinking is far too limited whe you say that "every" viewpoint has a "valid" concern. Would yo say that a person who refuses to sail on ship has a valid concern because they're afraid that they might fall off the earth (the earth being flat and all)? Maybe there is a concern there, but it's not necessarily valid, and that's what I'm talking about. I expect everyone to at least make an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, December 4, 2009 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
I don't think this has anything to do with being post aparteid, it's what happens when a commonly held belief (ie HIV is not a virus) becomes seen as fact because so many people are saying it, without there being any real evidence to support it.

From wikipedia:

A small number of activists question the connection between HIV and AIDS, the existence of HIV, or the validity of current treatment methods (even going so far as to claim that the drug therapy itself was the cause of AIDS deaths). Though these claims have been examined and thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, they continue to be promulgated through the Internet and have had a significant political impact. In South Africa, former President Thabo Mbeki's embrace of AIDS denialism resulted in an ineffective governmental response to the AIDS epidemic that has been blamed for hundreds of thousands of AIDS-related deaths.

Also from wikipedia:

Mbeki reiterated his view that HIV was not wholly responsible for AIDS, leading hundreds of delegates to walk out on his speech. Mbeki also sent a letter to a number of world leaders likening the mainstream AIDS research community to supporters of the apartheid regime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Impact_in_South_Africa

Suspicion --> Mistrust

The wiki quote backs up what i've been saying - that misinformation is disseminated on the internet to back up the claims of a few who ignore evidence.

I'm sure the 'this reminds me of aparteid' is the outh african version of 'just like the nazis'

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 4, 2009 12:06 AM

Quote:
BTW, your thinking is far too limited whe you say that "every" viewpoint has a "valid" concern. Would yo say that a person who refuses to sail on ship has a valid concern because they're afraid that they might fall off the earth (the earth being flat and all)? Maybe there is a concern there, but it's not necessarily valid, and that's what I'm talking about. I expect everyone to at least make an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

You appear to be confusing truth with validity.

The earth is not flat. But, assuming someone and their family had lived in a cave for enough time that they hadn't heard the earth was round, maybe they might walk out to the ocean shore and look out and say, I can see all the way to the horizon, and boy does this big expanse seem flat! I wonder what's beyond the horizon? Since I can't see beyond the horizon, maybe I don't want to sail out there.

And then we would all laugh at this person and say no, no, look at this globe we have, the world is round, you won't fall off the horizon.

And the person would still think, this doesn't look like what I see.

Still not crazy.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, December 4, 2009 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Btw... heres a movie I just saw. Worth a look. The movie is called RedBelt.

It kind of encompasses what I believe.

... and its got one of the actors from Serenity. So its a win/win.

Oooh , cool ! Chewie ! Have to check this one out !

RUE

Friday, December 4, 2009 1:09 AM

"And then we would all laugh at this person and say no, no, look at this globe we have, the world is round, you won't fall off the horizon."

Or you say - look, we have sent people up into space and they took pictures of the frontside, the backside, and all around, and yea, and verily, it is a globe.

And if it is flat things should get smaller, and smaller and smaller the further out they are, but you should STILL be able to see them. But if it is round you will not be able to see over the curve, like not seeing over the top of that hill, and yea, and verily, it is a globe. (The Greeks knew that.)

And lo and behold, people have traveled continuing in one direction according to the sun and come back to the point where they started, so truly, it is a globe.

And if you still do not accept our facts, we invite you, yea, implore you, to send out a trusted member of your own to test these facts we submit to you for your education and delight.

And so on.

The point is - after a certain amount of evidence as to the truth of a statement a rational person should adjust their thinking according to the evidence. Not emotionally burrow deeper into belief.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NIKI2

Friday, December 4, 2009 1:12 AM

I don't consider religion a sign of craziness, far from it. But I consider religion taken to the extreme, in spite of everything else, and prosletized to the extreme, as...something!

What happened to the original topic? It seems to have gotten lost in there somewhere... ;o)

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 4, 2009 1:13 AM

Quote:
And if it is flat things should get smaller, and smaller and smaller the further out they are, but you should STILL be able to see them. But if it is round you will not be able to see over the curve, like not seeing over the top of that hill, and yea, and verily, it is a globe. (The Greeks knew that.)

They did, though it didn't stop their contemporaries from still thinking the Earth was flat. Technically, the better proof that the world is round is that ships on the horizon disappear from the bottom up and reappear from the top down, because just the fact that the ships disappear could mean anything to the uninformed casual observer.

RUE

Friday, December 4, 2009 1:31 AM

That's true.

But to get back to the 'crazy' USers:

Let's take the birthers. First they claim that the birth certificate is invalid. When state officials attest to its validity, the birthers then claim a vast conspiracy involving forgeries and officials being threatened to cover up 'the truth'. When it's pointed out that there were newspaper announcements made AT THE TIME they fall silent. But THEN they claim that Obama's grandmother said in an interview that he was born in Kenya. When the REST of the phone conversation is referenced where she emphatically says - no he was born in the US ! - they fall silent. But THEN they claim that Obama's mother gave birth in Kenya and then registered the birth in Hawaii. When it's pointed out that she never traveled to Africa AND you can't register a foreign birth in the US AND there were those pesky newspaper announcements they fall silent. But THEN they trot out a supposed Obama Kenyan birth certificate. When the obvious forgery is explained they fall silent. But THEN they claim that he lost his citizenship when he was taken to Indonesia.

This is only a partial list of the idiocy.

But 42% of republicans are 'birthers'.

42% of republicans are 'birthers'.

It takes one's breath away. They really believe it. How do you get THAT MANY people to insist that a lie is a fact ? To completely ignore individual facts AND the the weight of all of them, and to insist with a complete lack of irony on lunacy ?

It seems like a problem to me. Doesn't it seem like a problem to you ? Is that the kind of thing you want to brush away as a matter of differing opinion ? Or valid concern ?

Or do you think that there might be some systemic problem allowing this to fester ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, December 4, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Follow the money.

Who benefits from all of this ?

Yep . So why have ScamBO & Company's attorneys spent at least $ 1.7 Million obstructing discovery of his birth certificate and other vital records ?

Who benefits from all of this ?

ScamBO & Company...

'Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters...' --Noah Webster

RUE

Friday, December 4, 2009 1:57 AM

And here Byte, we have a great example of a person who is completely impervious to facts when they contradict a precious belief ...

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, December 4, 2009 2:10 AM

'Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters...' --Noah Webster

RUE

Friday, December 4, 2009 2:29 AM

Oh, I see you took out your stupid quote about Judge Carter and how Obama's lawyers were on the ropes 'cause Carter was gonna' make them pony up for REAL !.

Because, as Snopes so cogently points out (using that exact same quote), the claim is false.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/carter.asp

But hey, I'm sure a simple fact or ten never stopped YOU !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, December 4, 2009 3:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:]

You appear to be confusing truth with validity.

The earth is not flat. But, assuming someone and their family had lived in a cave for enough time that they hadn't heard the earth was round, maybe they might walk out to the ocean shore and look out and say, I can see all the way to the horizon, and boy does this big expanse seem flat! I wonder what's beyond the horizon? Since I can't see beyond the horizon, maybe I don't want to sail out there.

And then we would all laugh at this person and say no, no, look at this globe we have, the world is round, you won't fall off the horizon.

And the person would still think, this doesn't look like what I see.

Still not crazy.

If that person had lived their life in a cave, surrounded by people who believed the earth was flat, then it would be hard for them to come to terms with the whole globe thing. They're not crazy, but they would still be wrong.

However, if someone starts collecting 'evidence' ie doctoring images to prove that the earth is flat - and sent it out across cyber space, and 20% of Americans believed it, they may or may not be crazy, but they sure would be as gullible as hell to allow themselves to be so misinformed.

There are those people who use the internet for pure mischief, I believe there are one or two posters here who do it. Manipulating facts, creating conspiracies,and for what purpose....there's something a bit unhinged about that.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 4, 2009 3:21 AM

And out pops O2B to prove my point.

Wow, Obama really isn't natural-born American???

How do you account for those birth announcements in the newspaper, O2B? You say they were paid for by Obama's family?? Too bad that paid birth announcements were in the other section of the newspaper, and that the Obama ones were placed in the newspaper by information send directly from the hospital.

Answer THAT, if you can!'

Quote:
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters...

So why are you following Orly Taitz, Andy Martin ("a crazy and litigious antisemite"), Jerome Corsi, Alan Keyes, and Philip Berg off a mental cliff? Where is the skepticism which should lead you to question THEIR evidence? Why do you point to every trashy, cobbled-together fake Kenyan birth certificate as if it was the Ten Commadments?

RUE

Friday, December 4, 2009 3:31 AM

So, to get back to this:

42% of republicans are 'birthers'.

Is this a problem ? And, as a marker for other equally fallacious beliefs held by large numbers of people, is there a systemic reason for this kind of stuff to fester ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:00 AM

Apparently, Rue, nobody want to tackle this with a ten-foot pole. So I'll answer your question directly:

YES, IT IS A PROBLEM.

It's part of the authoritarian mindset which today finds its most comfortable home in the right wing (but can find a niche in any ideology.) It's what happens when long-held beliefs are shaken, people are left to their own mental devices (poor sods), and need a leader to take them back to their usual semi-somnolent state.

KWICKO

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And out pops O2B to prove my point.

Wow, Obama really isn't natural-born American???

How do you account for those birth announcements in the newspaper, O2B? You say they were paid for by Obama's family?? Too bad that paid birth announcements were in the other section of the newspaper, and that the Obama ones were placed in the newspaper by information send directly from the hospital.

Answer THAT, if you can!'
Quote:
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters...
So why are you following Orly Taitz, Andy Martin ("a crazy and litigious antisemite"), Jerome Corsi, Alan Keyes, and Philip Berg off a mental cliff? Where is the skepticism which should lead you to question THEIR evidence? Why do you point to every trashy, cobbled-together fake Kenyan birth certificate as if it was the Ten Commadments?

But you don't understand, Signy! He HAS to follow them - THEY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS!

KWICKO

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Follow the money.

Who benefits from all of this ?

Yep . So why have ScamBO & Company's attorneys spent at least $ 1.7 Million obstucting discovery of his birth certificate and other vital records ?

1) Cites, please? Where do you get the figure of $1.7million?

2) WHO spent the money "obstructing" discovery? Did Obama spend this money out of his own pocket, or are White House lawyers fighting this fight with taxpayer money in an effort to stamp out ludicrous, frivolous lawsuits against sitting presidents?

You'll note I'm not making a judgment one way or another about whether the money SHOULD be spent. I'm just asking if this is Obama spending his own personal money fighting a personal lawsuit against him as a citizen (of somewhere, presumably), or if this is the White House's lawyers stepping forward whether he wants them to or not, and saying, "We're not going to go down this road, because it opens the door for every one who thinks they have a graunch with the President to file a lawsuit, and he'll be tied up in court appearances for the next 750 years if we go down that road."

Is there even a SLIGHT possibility that this is being fought not because there's anything to hide, but because there's a principle at stake, the idea that you don't get to demand any damn fool thing you want to of the President of the United States of America under threat of lawsuit?

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:45 AM

Magonsdaughter

Quote:
If that person had lived their life in a cave, surrounded by people who believed the earth was flat, then it would be hard for them to come to terms with the whole globe thing. They're not crazy, but they would still be wrong.

See, this is why I take pity on certain right leaning folks and try to educate them - that's ignorance, not malice, and ignorance is curable, HOWEVER, when everyone they know, everyone in their social circle, and the assumptions they have built their whole life around are saying different, you have to be VERY damned persuasive in order to get far, AND they have to honestly believe, truly WANT, to face reality even when it's going to mean rebuilding their life and facing the scorn and derision of everyone they know.

And frankly, most of em don't have the guts - I give em a fair chance if they show any, though, but my patience is finite.

Signym

Quote:
It's part of the authoritarian mindset which today finds its most comfortable home in the right wing (but can find a niche in any ideology.) It's what happens when long-held beliefs are shaken, people are left to their own mental devices (poor sods), and need a leader to take them back to their usual semi-somnolent state.

And that's part of it too, you can't just shake em, you MUST follow it through, cause those paths in their mind are like a sunken rut and the natural path of least resistance, which they'll go right back to unless a new path is plowed away from there - the environment, political and social, of their life is a heavy influence against that, however, cause they tend to receive a lot of positive reinforcement from others in their life for sticking to that path and negative for straying from it.

It's cult behavior, is what it is, and I have far more experience than I ever wanted to in dealing with THAT stuff, whether it be the hellcamps, the military (which IS, socially in aspect, a friggin cult) or even the milder versions of it in certain technical or gaming communities.
(lookin at YOU, Games Workshop!)

So let's call a spade a spade here, instead of dancing around it, k ?
I know you were tryin to be nice, but no point in soft-shoe on this one.

Hell, I used a variation on hero-worship and cult of personality to TREAT some of the people that I pulled outta those camps, they needed an icon of trust that was not associated with the med-psych establishment that helped victimize them, and some of the overblown carnage in pulling them out was to seat the concept in their mind so they would give the trust needed to get in their head and help them - which was one of the first things I made damn sure to undo as they got better, cause one should never trust anyone or anything unconditionally, period.

-Frem

There always has to be a price.

NIKI2

Friday, December 4, 2009 7:04 AM

Frem and Rue covered it for me.

Yes, Sig, it is not only a problem, but a scary one--to me at least. I'm just holding my breath hoping it'll die down in time...that's all I know how or have the power to do. Pendulums swing, hopefully this one will swing before it's too late (tho' it's trying to swing against the wind to a degree right now).

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, December 4, 2009 12:54 PM

If Obama had a problem with his birth certificate, wouldn't Hillary have been the first one to use it against him during the primaries?

I also don't buy the claim that so many Republicans believe this. I don't know of any that do, and most of my friends and associates are quite Conservative.

Just like the Libs & Dems have been claiming that Obama is receiving a vastly greater number of threats against him compared to previous Presidents. Yesterday the Secret Service chief debunked that myth. He told Congress that the threat level has remained the same with Obama as the last two Presidents.

Reality? There is no reality, only individual perceptions of reality.
Facts? They can sometimes be sprinkled with the toppings of the teller.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 4, 2009 4:50 PM

Jongsstraw, it's kinda funny to see someone who IS such a hard-bitten realist claim there is no reality! I gotta tell you, whenever I want to know how a realist sees things from the other end of the spectrum, I read your posts.

Frem: Indeed. One must start somewhere. Unless you feel solid ground under your feet, it's hard to move forward.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, December 4, 2009 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw, it's kinda funny to see someone who IS such a hard-bitten realist claim there is no reality! I gotta tell you, whenever I want to know how a realist sees things from the other end of the spectrum, I read your posts.

Signy,

"hard-bitten realist"?...certainly not as hard-bitten as I once was, right? I'd like to think I've become more open-minded and flexible on issue positions, but perhaps I need to work harder on that.

I "claim there is no reality"?....certainly you didn't miss the rest of the line which states "only individual perceptions of reality." Do you not agree with that? It makes sense to me because we definitely do not share many "realities" together.

It's always good to understand, or at least be aware of what "the other end of the spectrum" is thinking as you stated. I do the same. I probably watch more MSNBC than Fox just for that reason. I read your stuff and others, and I have nothing but repect for all your own realities.

Nice to get a post from you, as it's been a while.

SIGNYM

Friday, December 4, 2009 7:11 PM

Jongsstraw, the reason why I said you're a hard-bitten realist is because you don't let your frustrations, hopes, fears and disappointments get in the way of seeing what is. IMHO, calling someone a hard-bitten realist is a compliment. It's a tough row to hoe and in many ways I believe you are more of a realist than I.

Quote:
I'd like to think I've become more open-minded and flexible on issue positions, but perhaps I need to work harder on that.

Yes, IMHO you've become more flexible. I hope I have too, but feel that I have probably not.

Quote:
I "claim there is no reality"?....certainly you didn't miss the rest of the line which states "only individual perceptions of reality." Do you not agree with that? It makes sense to me because we definitely do not share many "realities" together.

People act on their... um, perceptions of reality is too immediate a word... people act on their mental models of reality. (How those models are constructed and how much they correspond with reality is another story.) But here's the scientist in me talking: Whether people's models include the germ theory of disease or whether they reference black magic, people will continue to become sick and die. The germ theory of disease just happens to be more effective in predicting and coping with "the reality" of communicable diseases. Our mental models are simply that: mental models. Not all mental models (perceptions, in normal parlance) are equally effective at predicting and controlling. But reality bites whether our mental models are suitable to cope or not. So it's up to us to adjust our models to the larger world, not the other way around (which is doomed to be unsuccessful).

WULFENSTAR

Friday, December 4, 2009 7:24 PM

heheheh

RUE

Friday, December 4, 2009 7:27 PM

Speaking of "it's not that bad" b/c there aren't so many who listen to the whackjobs:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/30/poll-limbaugh-most-inf
luential-conservative-say-americans/

"In the new survey conducted by CBS' "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine, 26 percent of those sampled identified Limbaugh as the leading conservative, followed by fellow media personality Glenn Beck at 11 percent."

And among republicans, but especially dittoheads, Palin gets high marks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009
112902717.html?hpid=topnews

"In a new Washington Post poll, Palin beats other GOP leaders on two questions: who best represents the party's core values, and who Republicans would vote for if the presidential nomination battle were held today. But she has particular appeal to the loyal followers of Limbaugh and Beck, two of the most popular conservative talk show hosts in the country."

Meanwhile, Palin, as representative of the craziness that are republicans today, thinks birthers have legitimate quiestions.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/polit
ics/war_room/2009/12/03/palin_birther

PALIN: "I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, December 4, 2009 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jongsstraw, the reason why I said you're a hard-bitten realist is because you don't let your frustrations, hopes, fears and disappointments get in the way of seeing what is. IMHO, calling someone a hard-bitten realist is a compliment.
It's a tough row to hoe and in many ways I believe you are more of a realist than I.
Quote:
I'd like to think I've become more open-minded and flexible on issue positions, but perhaps I need to work harder on that.
Yes, IMHO you've become more flexible. I hope I have too, but feel that I have probably not.

I am both a bit stunned and elated by your kindness Signy. Isn't a "realist" though just a person who has bills and adult responsibilities? Those things tend to cut thru the academic bs sometimes. Again, many thanks for your kind words.

KWICKO

Friday, December 4, 2009 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Speaking of "it's not that bad" b/c there aren't so many who listen to the whackjobs:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/30/poll-limbaugh-most-inf
luential-conservative-say-americans/

"In the new survey conducted by CBS' "60 Minutes" and Vanity Fair magazine, 26 percent of those sampled identified Limbaugh as the leading conservative, followed by fellow media personality Glenn Beck at 11 percent."

And among republicans, but especially dittoheads, Palin gets high marks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009
112902717.html?hpid=topnews

"In a new Washington Post poll, Palin beats other GOP leaders on two questions: who best represents the party's core values, and who Republicans would vote for if the presidential nomination battle were held today. But she has particular appeal to the loyal followers of Limbaugh and Beck, two of the most popular conservative talk show hosts in the country."

Meanwhile, Palin, as representative of the craziness that are republicans today, thinks birthers have legitimate quiestions.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/polit
ics/war_room/2009/12/03/palin_birther

PALIN: "I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Rue, there's a reason I don't think these people are a big deal: Because they're not a big deal!

I said some time back that Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the GOP, and was roundly criticized for that notion. I stood by it, and still do. So why doesn't it matter? Because the Republican party itself isn't a big deal anymore. Fewer than one in five American voters identify themselves as Republicans today, so telling me that a fourth of them think Limbaugh is their Fearless Dear Leader is essentially telling me that one-fourth of one-fifth of registered voters in this country give a shit what Limbaugh says, or take their cue from him. That works out to five in every hundred registered voters. And telling me that 40% of those same Republicans are birthers is also not a huge concern. Why? Because you're talking about EIGHT PERCENT of the American voting public.

Frankly, telling me that five to eight percent of our country is nuts and is following wrong-headed leaders sounds more than a little underwhelming to me. I'm not worried about them, but they bear watching. And, whenever and wherever possible, ridiculing. :)

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

KWICKO

Friday, December 4, 2009 9:04 PM

Quote:
PALIN: "I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game."

By the way, I think that quote bears saving. I have a feeling it just MIGHT come out of the vault at an inopportune moment for Our Mrs. Palin.

BYTEMITE

Friday, December 4, 2009 10:19 PM

Quote:
Rue, there's a reason I don't think these people are a big deal: Because they're not a big deal!

I said some time back that Limbaugh was the de facto leader of the GOP, and was roundly criticized for that notion. I stood by it, and still do. So why doesn't it matter? Because the Republican party itself isn't a big deal anymore. Fewer than one in five American voters identify themselves as Republicans today, so telling me that a fourth of them think Limbaugh is their Fearless Dear Leader is essentially telling me that one-fourth of one-fifth of registered voters in this country give a shit what Limbaugh says, or take their cue from him. That works out to five in every hundred registered voters. And telling me that 40% of those same Republicans are birthers is also not a huge concern. Why? Because you're talking about EIGHT PERCENT of the American voting public.

Frankly, telling me that five to eight percent of our country is nuts and is following wrong-headed leaders sounds more than a little underwhelming to me.

This is just how I feel. We're only see so much and hearing so much about right wing extremism because the media found out it can get a lot of attention reporting on them. And Glen Beck discovered that he can make his own news using these people, so it's cyclical. But the more extreme elements of this 8% discredit the entirety, which ultimately looses support for more extreme viewpoints.

JAMERON4EVA

Saturday, December 5, 2009 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FREM, KWICKO..

This is really in response to another thread (which I can't find) where to two of you were chortling over how bizarre and far-out the right-wing media has gotten. Your strategy for dealing with the phenomenon was to let them go way out on a limb and then ... somehow... saw the limb off.

The problem with that approach is that there are a fair number of nut-jobs in the nation already primed to take those "news items" seriously. They are - at best- immune to facts. What seems like total lunacy today becomes gospel tomorrow. In July 2009 28% of Republicans were "birthers"

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/poll-28-of-republican-base-
are-birthers.php?ref=fpblg

by September it was 42%.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/birther-poll-42-percent-o_n_298456.h
tml

I thought Glenn Beck would be TOO crazy for anyone to watch, but turns out there are a group of crazies who're even more batshit that HE is. (At least he's making money at it.) Somewhere between 40-50%(!!!) believe in creation, literally, as the Bible describes it. (WULF, if you're reading: This is NOT an example of Americans thinking for themselves!) A significant minority (approx 30%) still think that Saddam had WMD, and similar percetanges believe that Saddam had ties to al-Qaida ties, or was repsonsible for 9/11.

I'm sure at one time Germans didn't take the little man with the funny mustache too seriously either.

These nut-jobs may be funny and stupid, and cling to so-called leaders who are just as nutty and stupid as they are (Beck, Palin et al) but there are an awful lot of them. Even Canada is a bastion of reason compared to the USA. I don't know how we got so collectively crazed, but we need to look at this seriously.

But have the republicans sold weapons fully to the ENEMY, like mister god send, President Bill Clinton did? The recepts are in the Federal records, so now who's crazy and deranged huh? By the way, the left wants more Gov't involvement in your lives, like President Barack Hussain Obama. So i ask you this, personal liberties GUARENTEED in the Constitution, or giving your freedoms away?

"Mom, he has her chip. He has her."
John Connor,"Born To Run", TSCC EP 2x22

KWICKO

Saturday, December 5, 2009 1:49 AM

Quote:
But have the republicans sold weapons fully to the ENEMY, like mister god send, President Bill Clinton did? The recepts are in the Federal records, so now who's crazy and deranged huh? By the way, the left wants more Gov't involvement in your lives, like President Barack Hussain Obama. So i ask you this, personal liberties GUARENTEED in the Constitution, or giving your freedoms away?

1) You're assuming that the right DOESN'T want more government involvement in your life.

2) If you're going to try to use the President's middle name as an insult, it would greatly help your case if you could spell "Hussein" correctly.

3) Have the Republicans "sold weapons fully to the enemy"?

I'd also point to Reagan's arms-for-hostages scandal, among a host of others.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

SIGNYM

Saturday, December 5, 2009 11:57 AM

JAMERON4EVA

But have the republicans sold weapons fully to the ENEMY, like mister god send, President Ronald Reagan did to Iran? You bet your bippie they did!

I'll just pretend you're too young to remember that.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Saturday, December 5, 2009 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Meanwhile, Palin, as representative of the craziness that are republicans today, thinks birthers have legitimate quiestions.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/sarah_palin/index.html?story=/polit
ics/war_room/2009/12/03/palin_birther

PALIN: "I think it's a fair question, just like I think past associations, past voting records, all of that is fair game."

The Moose Whacker wants it both ways. From salon:

Palin's now taken to Facebook -- where else? -- to do a walkback of sorts of her comments. In a post titled "Stupid Conspiracies," she writes:

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask ... which they have repeatedly. But at no point -- not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews -- have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

NIKI2

Saturday, December 5, 2009 5:55 PM

Quote:
This is just how I feel. We're only see so much and hearing so much about right wing extremism because the media found out it can get a lot of attention reporting on them. And Glen Beck discovered that he can make his own news using these people, so it's cyclical. But the more extreme elements of this 8% discredit the entirety, which ultimately looses support for more extreme viewpoints.

Ditto...or at least I HOPE that's the case, and that the low numbers don't go up much more. Still, it would be oh-so-lovely if the MSM would give maybe half as much play time to the SENSIBLE folk on the right; it would just be nice. Mostly I just wait for these nutjobs to fade away...

Jamer,

Quote:
But have the republicans sold weapons fully to the ENEMY, like mister god send, President Bill Clinton did?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we're discussing. It shows you have nothing to say about the topic and just want to insert a

OUT2THEBLACK

Saturday, December 5, 2009 8:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
...They really believe it. How do you get THAT MANY people to insist that a lie is a fact ? To completely ignore individual facts AND the the weight of all of them, and to insist with a complete lack of irony on lunacy ?

It seems like a problem to me. Doesn't it seem like a problem to you ? Is that the kind of thing you want to brush away as a matter of differing opinion ? Or valid concern ?

So , no birth certificate , no problem ?

Just details , right ? Constitution ? Again , just details...

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE