The Thought Conditioners

[the iron horse]

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?

[Irvine511]

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.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

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.

[Irvine511]

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."

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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?

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[BonosSaint]

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.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Pearl

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.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

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.

[Irvine511]

yikes, my grammar wasn't so good in that last post. sorry.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[BonosSaint]

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.

[Irvine511]

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:

[Cactus Annie]

Some people would like to impose their view of right & wrong on others. Even if I disagree with someone, I don't see the need to impose my views onto them

[the iron horse]

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

[Vlad n U 2]

Who are """"The Left""""?

[Galeongirl]

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.

[Vlad n U 2]

The Left - Obummer and co. Obamacare, gay agenda, freedom haters

Probably.