The Thought Conditioners

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

the iron horse

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Messages
3,266
Location
in a glass of CheerWine
In the last chapter of C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man he describes a distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a "perfect" understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to "see through" any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims.

Was Lewis correct?
 
No, it seems the reverse today that the majority in this country are intent on legislating their own sense of "morality" on the minority.

Things have gotten better since the early '00's when the Bush administration did what Colorado Springs wanted. But it's still there -- we have the majority empowered to vote away the basic civil rights of a minority for no reason other than animus. That's scary.
 
In the last chapter of C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man he describes a distant future in which the values and morals of the majority are controlled by a small group who rule by a "perfect" understanding of psychology, and who in turn, being able to "see through" any system of morality that might induce them to act in a certain way, are ruled only by their own unreflected whims.

Was Lewis correct?

Sounds a lot like organized religion where a small group decides what makes people do good or evil things, and does not allow the majority to use their own intellect, or be guided by their own personal relationship with God.
 
I do think, however, we are seeing a minority if super wealthy rejigger the political system to increase the flow of capital upwards -- what is it, the richest 85 people in the world have more wealth than the poorest 3.5bn -- while telling the poor that they should be concerned with issues that have nothing to do with their own financial status, as well as buy into a myth of upward mobility that denotes those who are wealthy as more virtuous than those who are not and decries all dissent as "jealousy" or "class warfare."
 
I do think, however, we are seeing a minority if super wealthy rejigger the political system to increase the flow of capital upwards -- what is it, the richest 85 people in the world have more wealth than the poorest 3.5bn -- while telling the poor that they should be concerned with issues that have nothing to do with their own financial status, as well as buy into a myth of upward mobility that denotes those who are wealthy as more virtuous than those who are not and decries all dissent as "jealousy" or "class warfare."

I'm not sure what you mean by the wealthy being more virtuous, if never making a mistake is a virtue. That seems to be the attitude the well-off have towards those who are struggling, rather than having more morals which seems to be a 19th century attitude.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by the wealthy being more virtuous, if never making a mistake is a virtue. That seems to be the attitude the well-off have towards those who are struggling, rather than having more morals which seems to be a 19th century attitude.



that's the mantra -- remember the "makers" and the "takers" and Romney's 47% comment?
 
that's the mantra -- remember the "makers" and the "takers" and Romney's 47% comment?

Yes, but I was thinking more specifically on how anyone who is struggling is looked down upon as not working hard enough and not thinking clearly with their college majors, career choices or finance decisions. As if making mistakes means you are a "taker" and therefore immoral. I know what you mean, I'm just looking from a different angle.
 
I think there are certainly "thought propagandists" who manipulate others with a facade of moral superiority as well as a illusion of unemotional (aka masculine) logic, knowing their followers will not look to the facts if the presentation is appealing enough.

Besides, morality's just for the little folk.
 
Yes, but I was thinking more specifically on how anyone who is struggling is looked down upon as not working hard enough and not thinking clearly with their college majors, career choices or finance decisions. As if making mistakes means you are a "taker" and therefore immoral. I know what you mean, I'm just looking from a different angle.


we've heard that in here in FYM. people with highly advanced degrees and comfortable cars and loving intact families living in very wealthy parts of the country insisting that they have what they have simply work harder than people juggling 3 minimum wage jobs.
 
we've heard that in here in FYM. people with highly advanced degrees and comfortable cars and loving intact families living in very wealthy parts of the country insisting that they have what they have simply work harder than people juggling 3 minimum wage jobs.

:yes: :slant:
 
we've heard that in here in FYM. people with highly advanced degrees and comfortable cars and loving intact families living in very wealthy parts of the country insisting that they have what they have simply work harder than people juggling 3 minimum wage jobs.

Those sorts of comments are always baffling to me, because if you accept them as true, then the logical conclusion is that the individual who made them isn't working hard enough else they'd be wealthier and making more money than they are.
 
Those sorts of comments are always baffling to me, because if you accept them as true, then the logical conclusion is that the individual who made them isn't working hard enough else they'd be wealthier and making more money than they are.

And also, it isn't just about working hard. Sometimes its about being at the right place at the right time, and knowing the right people. It also may entail some clever strategy, or even backstabbing and other unethical ways of getting promoted or that raise. So, giving 110% to your work does not guarantee success. Saying hard work alone will make you rich or at least financially stable is a joke.
 
Simply the greed of not only having it all but requiring a pedestal on which to enjoy it all. I guess, sometimes, it eases the transient guilt of fucking people over.
 
here's a satirical look at more thought conditioning -- that if a corporation does something, it's subject to different rules and different expectations, even though corporations are now people with religious beliefs:

TMW2014-01-29color.png
 
lol, he was forced to resign for 'supporting traditional marriage laws'? Rather than for opposing equal rights... of course, he could've stayed out of the whole situation as well, but yeah, damn those people wanting to give gays equal rights and for opposing public figures speaking out against it.

Though I don't really think he should've resigned, it's still quite questionable when you're the CEO of a huge company, making a program a lot of gay,straight,whatever people use, and then openly donate in favour of a discriminating law. Yeah, that doesn't go well down people's throats.



Also, can someone FINALLY explain to me what the hell this "The Left" and "The Right" are that Indy and TIH keep mentioning? Because I truly do not understand what it's supposed to mean.
 
The Left - Obummer and co. Obamacare, gay agenda, freedom haters

Probably.
 
Ah okay, so it's a bit the political spectrum idea? Where left is the 'social' part and right more traditional or something? I think we sorta have a similar distribution here, though we never really talk about "the right" or "the left" or stuff like that. And yea, both right and left pretty much agree here on healthcare and gay marriage and everything. Except the hardcore christian party of course, but that was to be expected.

Kinda funny you put gay agenda and freedom haters in the same group. :wink: Freedom, yarr, but not for dem gayz.
 
It seems that most here view the political right as the 'thought conditioners' in society today.



I have many reason why I think it is the Left.



Here's a recent one:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage laws | WashingtonExaminer.com


Hahahaha this is such bullshit. I am on my phone so I want to ask the reliability of the Washington Examiner. It says "traditional marriage" in the title and "religious beliefs" in the article so I assume it is a fucking rag.
 
Hahahaha this is such bullshit. I am on my phone so I want to ask the reliability of the Washington Examiner. It says "traditional marriage" in the title and "religious beliefs" in the article so I assume it is a fucking rag.

He donated 10,000 dollar to the prop 8 support, according to the article.

Well, they don't really make much sense to be fair.


I never really understand the need for people to put everthing in their own little box. Whatever happened to thinking outside the box? You don't have to be left or right to support certain beliefs or views, right? I have absolutely no clue where I would stand in the political spectrum. And frankly I don't really care, since it means virtually nothing.
 
I'm going to go slightly against the grain here. I don't agree with Eich's beliefs at all, but is the answer to run anyone out of town who says things we don't like? As far as gay marriage, that war has been waged, and frankly, people like Eich already lost, despite their continued protestations. The tide has turned and their viewpoint is quickly turning into a minority one.

Do we pro-SSM people want to run everyone out of town/office/their job who doesn't agree with us? Is that progress?
 
We're not running Joe from HR out of his job. We're not banning Cindy from down the block from joining the church group or the neighborhood committee. Hell, I worked with people who were against same-sex marriage. I got along with them fine. If they talked about it, I voiced my thoughts, attempted to correct blatant inaccuracies, and moved on with my day. I'm not worried about the shopworker. We're talking about CEO's of big-time companies no longer being able to wield political power on the wrong side of a right vs. wrong issue. I'm not thickheaded enough to think every issue is right vs. wrong (there are merits to many economic arguments even if I strongly disagree with many of those on the right), but I'm also not a droning centrist who insists every viewpoint has validity. There are issues where it's simply right vs. wrong. This is one of them.

As I hear of another bill being passed that only increases the ability for the extremely wealthy to dominate campaigns with their financing, frankly it's nice to see that something grassroots can accomplish something. People who donated to Prop 8 should be ashamed, and they should be brought into the light. We didn't force Mozilla to force him out. We objected to such a person (a person willing to spend money to deny people rights) holding an influential position, and they realized that it reflected poorly on them. There was no riot at the gates. Mozilla was not taken by force. People voiced their opinions, loudly and with clarity, and Mozilla got the message.

That the "war" has been lost doesn't change the major negative impacts of Prop 8's passing. Every day that such an injustice occurs is wrong, and should not be forgotten so easily simply because the courts eventually got around to righting the wrong. If you are against same-sex marriage, you are on the wrong side of a very simple issue. Get with it or get lost, I say.
 
Do we pro-SSM people want to run everyone out of town/office/their job who doesn't agree with us? Is that progress?

In this particular instance, it's not so much "we" who are running anyone out of office, it is the way of the corporate world.

When Eich was appointed CEO, I think that half the Board quit. There was then subsequent pressure (from many sources, including the Board) for him to resign. The Board of a Corporation is entrusted with the stewardship of the corporation, the primary goal of which is to increase share value, and consequently profits, for the shareholders. A director has fiduciary duties and would be liable to shareholders for NOT taking action in an instance where some corporate action is decreasing the profitability or shareholder return of the corporation. So, for example, if you have negative publicity and you think that will hurt the bottom line, it's actually a correct step for the Board to take, to exert pressure re: resignation.
 
So rather than this being a simple case of The Left's intolerance, this might be more accurately described as a company acting in its best financial interests.
 
Mozilla is actually a nonprofit (well, the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation, a 501(c)(3)). But that's not terribly relevant.

Regardless, one could argue that organizations like that dating website were being absurd by caring so much about SSM that they waged a semi-publicity campaign on Mozilla over their CEO not supporting it.
 
Back
Top Bottom