REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

CRISIS: OPPORTUNITY

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, April 23, 2007 09:43
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1859
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, April 22, 2007 8:15 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The threads on guns, the NASA shooting, Cho, Baldwin, Iraq, and global warming all have a common theme, which is that we have reached a crisis point. It may be coming clear that the old solutions - just more and harder- are not the answer. The answer to guns isn't more guns, the answer violence isn't retribution, and the answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy.

It's very difficult to give up responses that we've relied on our whole lives. Identifying an enemy and then allowing ourselves to do exactly what "the enemy" does (for the good of course!) creates a sense of power and liberation. Identifying with the average joe, not the billionaires of the world, is painful.

But within this small community I sense that perhaps we have come to the nub of the problems that face us: we cannot build a society on anger, fear, and denial. A crisis can be unprecedented opportunity to look at our dreams and hopes, and see if they're useful or poisonous. A crisis can itself be liberating. It can allow us to consider entirely new ideas, breathe fresh air. Am I the only one who feels we've reached this point?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:13 AM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The answer to guns isn't more guns, the answer violence isn't retribution, and the answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy.



Retribution: Can mean vengeance, but also means a "justly deserved penalty; the act of correcting for your wrongdoing."

I would say the answer to wackos with guns is allowing good citizens to defend themselves. The answer to violence is justice and compensation. The answer to poverty is learning a trade or skill, how to read and talk, and a good work ethic. And not having too many babies.



"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Succatash, did you ever think to contol the controllers? Think about "just punishment" for a moment: We have the highest crime rate in the devleoped world and the highest incarceration rate. Is punishment working for us? Does it reduce or deter crime? And if it's not reducing crime, why do we enagage in it? Just so we can indulge in feeling righteous?

We will know when we've hit on the answer when we start seeing dramatic positive effects. Like finding the right medicine for an illness. We're a little like the Aztecs who thought the answer to drought was more human sacrifice. We keep pushing a button that's not working. So for now we're not even floundering, we're sinking in quicksand of our own making.

As a friend says: "Manipulate your stimuli." Or as I say....

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:38 AM

CAUSAL


You can't just not have punishment for crime, though. I think you're right that our standard institutional solutions aren't working (for what it's worth, I think you'd really enjoy Morris Berman's Twilight of American Culture which says that one sign of the decline of the west is "declining return on instututional solutions to society's problems"). But let's be honest: we'll never see the end of war, violence, crime, or poverty. We'll never be able to eliminate them entirely. So we have to deal with them somehow. Prison obviously isn't working. Maybe we should try something else. Maybe we should try some other way than inprisoning people. The trouble is that we in the west think that imprisoning people is the only humane way to punish people. Perhaps we need to reconsider that stance. Unless someone has a different suggestion?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:53 AM

SUCCATASH


I really don’t see how you can have a free society and at the same time make everyone be nice.

Hey, I have an idea: Let’s tell everyone that there is an invisible higher being. This higher being not only created us and the universe, but also LOVES us and wants to be our friend. We can tell society that if they be nice, they will live forever in glory and pleasure. But if they are not nice, they will suffer forever in everlasting torment and extreme suffering. Once a week, they can gather in a building and convince each other to surrender their lives to this higher being.

That ought to keep everyone in line.


"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:58 AM

CAVALIER


I am told that it is safer to commit a crime in the US/UK than in continental Europe, in the sense that (time in jail) x (chance of being caught) is higher in Europe.

I am also told that crime rates on the continent are lower, and that is why they have fewer people in prison.

Just a thought.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Is it possible that punishment - or at least abuse that a punishing culture encourages- creates crime?

It's like the trolls on this board, and every other board: outrage just doesn't work. Ignoring them? Tough to do, requires self control, but MUCH more effective. Or we can keep pushing useless buttons. Some of the answers may be found in game theory and economic theory. It will take some very serious theoretical work to understand hwo we react as individuals and in groups.

But there have been cultures- advanced cultures, for their day- which were peaceful and prosperous. Mohenjo-Daro and the Minoan cultures for example. Just as there are peaceful, propserous, and happy nations today like Iceland. One of the hallmarks of ALL of these cultures is the relative economic equality of their participants. That by itself doesn't guarantee happiness and peace but it seems to be an essential ingredient.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:06 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:
I really don’t see how you can have a free society and at the same time make everyone be nice.

Hey, I have an idea: Let’s tell everyone that there is an invisible higher being. This higher being not only created us and the universe, but also LOVES us and wants to be our friend. We can tell society that if they be nice, they will live forever in glory and pleasure. But if they are not nice, they will suffer forever in everlasting torment and extreme suffering. Once a week, they can gather in a building and convince each other to surrender their lives to this higher being.

That ought to keep everyone in line.


"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."



I'm always amused by this line of thinking about religion. If that were the impetus for religion I'd think we'd have given it up long ago. It doesn't seem to be effective, if the end is to make everyone get along.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 2:57 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by Succatash:


Hey, I have an idea: Let’s tell everyone that there is an invisible higher being. This higher being not only created us and the universe, but also LOVES us and wants to be our friend. We can tell society that if they be nice, they will live forever in glory and pleasure. But if they are not nice, they will suffer forever in everlasting torment and extreme suffering. Once a week, they can gather in a building and convince each other to surrender their lives to this higher being.

That ought to keep everyone in line.





Ya left out the part where you have to convert the unbelievers for their own good, even if it means killing them, torturing them, burning them alive.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 3:33 PM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrowncoat:
Ya left out the part where you have to convert the unbelievers for their own good, even if it means killing them, torturing them, burning them alive.



You know, it occurs to me that if there were anybody around who were a member of a religious group, this sort of comment might be just a tad offensive. Sort of like making sweeping generalizations about race or sex.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The threads on guns, the NASA shooting, Cho, Baldwin, Iraq, and global warming all have a common theme, which is that we have reached a crisis point. It may be coming clear that the old solutions - just more and harder- are not the answer. The answer to guns isn't more guns, the answer violence isn't retribution, and the answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy.

It's very difficult to give up responses that we've relied on our whole lives. Identifying an enemy and then allowing ourselves to do exactly what "the enemy" does (for the good of course!) creates a sense of power and liberation. Identifying with the average joe, not the billionaires of the world, is painful.

But within this small community I sense that perhaps we have come to the nub of the problems that face us: we cannot build a society on anger, fear, and denial. A crisis can be unprecedented opportunity to look at our dreams and hopes, and see if they're useful or poisonous. A crisis can itself be liberating. It can allow us to consider entirely new ideas, breathe fresh air. Am I the only one who feels we've reached this point?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.


"The threads on guns, the NASA shooting, Cho, Baldwin, Iraq, and global warming all have a common theme, which is that we have reached a crisis point." Nope. Unfortunately, it just looks like business as usual to me. Nutcases are still nutcases. people with anger management problems still exist. Fanatics continue to be fanatics. Climate continues to change and species continue to go extinct due to the actions of other species.

"The answer to guns isn't more guns". I got guns. They've never hurt anyone. Most of the 200 million plus guns in the US have never hurt anyone. I have to take your statement to mean "The answer to people who use guns illegally to injure another person isn't more guns". I agree. The answer to people who violate the law is swift, impersonal correction. Not retribution, not revenge, just a lesson in the consequences of violating the law and injuring another person. It would be better if there were a way to get to these people before they violate the law, and if you got suggestions, please air them.

"The answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy." Probably not. It's probably not the cause either. So what is your suggestion?

"Identifying with the average joe, not the billionaires of the world, is painful." Huh? We are average joes. I got no idea of the life of a billionare. For example, I don't have 24 hour security and gated communities to keep me safe.

"A crisis can itself be liberating. It can allow us to consider entirely new ideas, breathe fresh air. Am I the only one who feels we've reached this point?" I'm always open to new ideas. Let's have some. Expect analysis and criticism, not unconditional acceptance. Ideas which won't actually work in the real world may be fun to consider, but don't have any actual impact.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:38 PM

MARINA


Quote:

"The answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy." Probably not. It's probably not the cause either.


I think the point of the statement was that poverty and wealth arise from the same system, a system which people who benefit from are (for the most part) invested in keeping stable. But I don't know, I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth..

This might be taking it a little off-topic, but my real question is: what qualifications does one need to be considered an "average joe?" What are the requirements for ANY class association? Is it how wealthy you were as a child, how wealthy you are as an adult? Is it defined by your educational background or the neighborhood you live in? If you've ever counted pennies and gone hungry have you really "been poor," or does understanding poverty require years of experience? How many? I just feel like this is something we stumble over a lot (and are again, in the US, with the coming election campaigns) – and probably something we can't answer here, but I was compelled to say something.

Don't make faces.

http://amaranton.wordpress.com

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 4:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, on crime, it is my most earnest belief that true crime prevention resides in preventing the criminal.

And I don't mean stupid ridiculous "crimes" that have no social impact beyond the person themselves, I mean seriously when you make everything a crime, and criminalise everyone, you're going to have that problem.

I mean not physically and emotionally damaging our young to the point where the ones that reach adulthood without self destructing or suiciding don't spend the rest of their shortened and miserable lives acting out against us and our messed up society in retaliation.

That'd be a good start.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 22, 2007 6:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

The answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy." Probably not. It's probably not the cause either.
Why yes, it is.
Quote:

So what is your suggestion?
We had a rather long discussion about that if you recall.
Quote:

I'm always open to new ideas. Let's have some.
You already had some, but you apparently didn't remember them very long!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 23, 2007 3:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

The answer to poverty isn't creating a class of super-wealthy." Probably not. It's probably not the cause either.
Why yes, it is.
Quote:

So what is your suggestion?
We had a rather long discussion about that if you recall.
Quote:

I'm always open to new ideas. Let's have some.
You already had some, but you apparently didn't remember them very long!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



I remember them, and I also remember that none of them were very practical to apply to the US as it sits now. They were either completely untried, or had only been implemented in countries with totalitarian governments. They would all require massive reconfiguration of the current financial system. They could not be accomplished and maintained without invasive government interference and loss of civil rights. None of them would stand a chance in a referendum.

Poverty has many causes, and each requires a different approach to effect an improvement. As someone stated earlier, "Identifying an enemy and then allowing ourselves to do exactly what "the enemy" does (for the good of course!) creates a sense of power and liberation.", but blaming the rich for poverty, no matter how righteous it makes you feel, oversimplifies the issue and causes you to miss the workable solutions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 23, 2007 3:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, as you should know by now, I don't blame "the rich" for causing poverty, I blame the system for allowing it in the first place. But we don't have to look far afield for possible solutions to the problem of great economic disparity because we can look at Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Germany, and many other successful, very "practical", non-totalitarian nations, all of whom have substantially less inequity than us.

AFA setting up a cooperative-based economy: You could do that by creating a legal class of cooperative businesses with all of the advantages of corporations (limited liability, definitions of fidiciary duty, tax advantges etc.). The problem is that corporations have such a large LEGAL advatange that there isn't a level playing field which inhibits competing structures from developing.

You're not open to new ideas, you really just want to listen to the same old same old.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 23, 2007 6:26 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, as you should know by now, I don't blame "the rich" for causing poverty, I blame the system for allowing it in the first place.


Capitalism? Free Enterprise? Democracy? Dewey Decimal? I always considered that people were letting it happen, and that it's people you got to convince to change.
Quote:

But we don't have to look far afield for possible solutions to the problem of great economic disparity because we can look at Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Germany, and many other successful non-totalitarian nations, all of whom have substantially less inequality than us.
Fine examples. But these aren't the examples you provided previously. As I recall, the four you suggested were:
1)Tweaks to the current capitalist system. I don't think we ever got around to what these might be.
2)Individual and cooperative owner-workers. More on this later.
3) Government ownership or control of business a la Singapore. Pretty much a non-starter in the US, where there's no way, outside government confiscation, to get there from here.
4) Flat-out state control of all means of production. Same situation as #3. Can't get there from here without massive goverment intrusion, violation of personal and property rights, etc. You'd better disarm the population before you try this one.
Quote:

AFA setting up a cooperative-based economy: You could do that by creating a legal class of cooperative businesses with all of the advantages of corporations (limited liability, definitions of fidiciary duty, tax advantges etc.). The problem is that corporations have such a large LEGAL advatange that there isn't a level playing field.

That's not a problem for me. No reason there can't be employee-owned corporations. I would guess that many employee-owned businesses do that now. My problem was with requiring all businesses to be employee-owned.
Quote:

You're not open to new ideas, you really just want to listen to the same old same old.

What you're giving me is the "same old same old". "Let's throw the rascals out, redistribute the wealth, and everybody will be happy." Seems I've heard that before.

How about ideas of how to convince people to move, of their own free will, to a more inclusive and equal society? Force and edicts don't work too well, and offend my sense of individual liberty.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 23, 2007 6:39 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Fine examples. But these aren't the examples you provided previously. As I recall, the four you suggested were:
1)Tweaks to the current capitalist system. I don't think we ever got around to what these might be.

I spent a fair bit of time talking about Germany- it's current government ownership of banks, utilities, telecoms, transportation, and some large industries and it's funding of health care, education etc. Those are some potential tweaks I was talking about and that's why I brought up Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany etc. I assumed you would have remembered and that the link was obvious. Apparently not.
Quote:

What you're giving me is the "same old same old". "Let's throw the rascals out, redistribute the wealth, and everybody will be happy." Seems I've heard that before.
I have yet to hear you come up with a new proposal, or even rationally discuss one. You even obfuscate past topics. As far as you're concerned, nothing new can ever be done.

But I want to redirect the topic back to my original intent.

There were a whole bunch of threads that seem to deal with the same topic, and that is control by fear. There was Imus, whose comment brought up the use of prejudicial name-calling to assert hierarchy. Then Cho whose rampage brought calls for more guns on campus. Then the NASA shooting, which DIDN'T lead to the same "more guns are the answer". Then Alec Baldwin, who's caught threatening his 11-year-old daughter on tape (and who has a long history of using rage to get his way).

The discussion seems to boil down to one point: Is it acceptable, necessary, or useful to control people through fear? No matter whether it's fear of the bully, fear of someone else's gun, fear of the parent, or fear of poverty.

It seemed to me that all of the pro-fear/ intimidation discussions reached dead ends of various sorts. The people who thought ALec Baldwin was in the right basically said that he should control his daughter's disrespectful, spoiled behavior by being direspectful and spoiled. The argument that more guns would have prevented the VTech massacre rang strangely hollow in the copy-cat NASA shooting. The people who accepted Imus' behavior found it reprehensible in blacks.

It seemed to me that a realization was taking place, and that the realization was More of the same is just more of the same and that if we want to see something different we have to do something different. Maybe people were waking up to the idea that the buttons we've been pushing for so long aren't the RIGHT buttons to be pushing. About as useful as human sacrifice to bring rain. That perhaps some people would have an epiphany that new ways might be better.

Then again perhaps I was wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:43 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But I want to redirect the topic back to my original intent.



Okay.

Quote:

The discussion seems to boil down to one point: Is it acceptable, necessary, or useful to control people through fear? No matter whether it's fear of the bully, fear of someone else's gun, fear of the parent, or fear of poverty.


Unfortunately, influencing people by fear is an old and unworthy, yet effective, tactic. It ranks right up there by, and is often used in conjunction with, influencing people by hatred. Fear of the "other", of the government, of crime, of financial insecurity, of the people who are going to take your job away, etc. I don't consider it acceptable. Whether it's necessary or useful depends on your point of view. If you believe that the ends justify the means, then it's both. If not, then no.
Quote:

It seemed to me that all of the pro-fear/ intimidation discussions reached dead ends of various sorts.

Everyone stated their points, and no compromise could be achieved. Given the way such scenarios have devolved into name calling on several recent threads, that might have been the best result possible.

I got no dog in the Alec Baldwin issue, so let's jump to:
Quote:

The argument that more guns would have prevented the VTech massacre rang strangely hollow in the copy-cat NASA shooting.

In the More Guns Vs. No Guns argument, I tend to think the No Guns folks want to engender more fear. More or less guns seems to me to be a smokescreen to hide the harder-to-solve problems relating to Mr. Cho's actions. How do we reduce or counteract the bullying and abuse which seem to be a common thread in all these cases? How do we identify and correct self and other-destructive behavior before someone gets hurt?

Quote:

The people who accepted Imus' behavior found it reprehensible in blacks.
Some of us found such behavior reprehensible regardless of source.

Quote:

It seemed to me that a realization was taking place, and that the realization was More of the same is just more of the same and that if we want to see something different we have to do something different.


You have to do something which actually makes a difference, and that difference needs to be an improvement. The reason I have sometimes criticized your ideas is not that they don't look good in the abstract, but that there's no was they could possibly get implemented.
Quote:

Maybe people were waking up to the idea that the buttons we've been pushing for so long aren't the RIGHT buttons to be pushing. About as useful as human sacrifice to bring rain. That perhaps some people would have an epiphany that new ways might be better.

Then again perhaps I was wrong.


As much as anything else, people need to wake up to the realization that their own buttons are being pushed, and take control of those buttons. If I had a magic wishing plank, I'd wish that everyone would become a skeptic.

BTW, of course human sacrifice doesn't bring rain. It's the dancing...and washing cars.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
President Meathead's Uncle Was Not Eaten By Cannibals
Sat, April 20, 2024 02:07 - 2 posts
With apologies to JSF: Favorite songs (3)
Sat, April 20, 2024 02:05 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 22:40 - 2277 posts
The predictions thread
Fri, April 19, 2024 19:18 - 1090 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Fri, April 19, 2024 18:40 - 149 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, April 19, 2024 17:03 - 3535 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 15:17 - 6268 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Fri, April 19, 2024 13:10 - 743 posts
BREAKING NEWS: Taylor Swift has a lot of ex-boyfriends
Fri, April 19, 2024 09:18 - 1 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL