2017
2022
2016
2022
2022-06-24
Archives for category: 1989
I have no way of knowing what the creator of the meme actually wanted to convey through it.
All I know is what I make of it.
The ‘Austrian’ will eventually fall. Not only that nobody can stay in the saddle for ever but the guy uses only one hand to steer his bike. And the fact that he doesn’t use a helmet is the second proof that he doesn’t care much for safety. For his safety… At his age, he should have known better!
Hard to argue with Mises – the quintessential Austrian economist, if I remember right.
Specially since I grew up under a communist regime. Where laissez faire was absent and where the government was inept and immoral. Which regime, like all other authoritarian/totalitarian regimes in history, had crumpled under it’s own weight.
But wait!
Countries which use laissez faire had long ago invented the necessary mitigation mechanisms.
The unlucky entrepreneurs can declare bankruptcy and start all over.
The fraudulent entrepreneurs – well, many of them, go to prison.
While the inept and immoral governments get booted. Democratically!
My point being that laissez faire works better if there’s a safety net in place.
And that people should trust their government. But also keep it on a very short leash!
Wishful thinking!
Conspiracy theorists are absolutely convinced that they are the true critical thinkers…
That their critique of how things works on the face of the Earth is the only reasonable one!
Then what?
Sheeple and conspiracy theorists are nothing but the very same thing? Each of them on the other ‘side’ of the dividing mirror? The surface on which the conspiracy theory dew has been craftily etched? To blurr the vision of all those attempting to look through?
After all, what’s the difference between sheeple – those who follow the official narrative and consider the ‘alternative’ to be wrong, and the conspiracy theorists? Those who consider theirs to be the true version and the ‘official version’ a misleading lie?
Each of them exercise their right and ability to doubt. To look for alternatives. And to discard the alternatives they deem to be implausible!
Most conspiracy theories have already been proven as having been bogus?
With the current ones waiting in line?
This, I’m afraid, is the moment for me to remind you that science is wrong by definition. That all scientific theories are, by definition, falsifiable. That the scientific community is convinced that all knowledge is maybe not completely wrong but definitely incomplete!
Hence there’s a lot of room out there for conspiracy theories to thrive!
‘OK.
I can follow your arguments.
Or, more exactly, I can follow your logic….
But I still believe you’re wrong.
Conspiracy theories ARE bogus!’
Let me put it differently.
Both the official narratives and the conspiracy theories are fueled by the same human need.
By our need for consistency!
Human mind has a hard time processing cognitive dissonances. Pieces of information which contradict each-other. Hence we need a ‘script’. A meta explanation for ‘everything’. A way to discharge the tensions produced by the conflicting pieces of information which assault our attention.
‘And why some people choose to become sheeple – to buy into the official version of things, while others remain conspiracy theorists for life?’
You’ve just set aside the vast majority.
Those people who are explicitly or implicitly aware that both the official version and the conspiracy theories are at least incomplete. And sometimes promoted by people with ‘ulterior motives’.
People who have a deeper creed. Many times of a religious nature but not necessarily.
People who have too many on their heads, mostly worries, so are no longer ‘available’ for ‘petty things’.
As for conspiracy theories being bogus…
I just mentioned how science works. Whenever a theory is judged to be plausible by the peers involved, it becomes the official narrative. All other competing theories become bogus. But all those earnestly involved in the process are convinced that sooner or later the official narrative will be proven if not wrong, then at least incomplete!
‘Then what about ‘critical thinking’? Is it good or not?
And you haven’t answered my question!’
Critical thinking is a tool!
And as all other tools, it becomes good or bad only in the hands of the person who yields it!
The most important thing about critical thinking is that we must remain critical relative to our own opinions!
Open to whatever new evidence happens to cross our path!
Sometimes the evidence which comes first might be misleading. Or false. We might reach the wrong conclusion. If we cling to the already reached conclusion we might be wrong. It is absolutely understandable – admitting an error is hard, but still wrong. That’s why some people remain sheeple while others cling to their beloved conspiracy theories.
You see, the true definition for sheeple is not ‘those who believe the official version’. Far from it!
The real sheeple continue to pay lip service to the official version long after fresh evidence prove the official version has been ‘incomplete’!
These people no longer communicate.
As in no longer care to understand what the other has to say…
Mind you, not ‘agree with’, just understand. Just develop a ‘mere’ understanding of what the other feels/thinks/has to say about a subject.
The consequence?
Both sides have become so focused on contradicting each-other on no matter what subject that both of them have lost the ability/exercise to look for the real issue.
The Ukrainians have enough AK-47s. They don’t have any use for any AR-15s. What they need is howitzers. And HIMARSs!
As for the 2nd amendment…
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Given the Ukrainian experience, should we read the 2nd Amendment in such a manner that ordinary people would be able to keep and bear howitzers? Or HIMARSs?
Or should we focus our attention on the notion of ‘a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’…?
Meaning that without a well kept and well trained Army, the State, any state, would soon loose its sovereignty?
After all, the Ukrainians fight, together, against an invader. They cooperate in order to defend their State.
Meanwhile, many of those clamoring about the 2nd Amendment are more preoccupied about using their guns to defend their individual freedom against the State than about cooperating with their fellow citizens towards defending the State against any aggression.
In these circumstances, am I allowed to remind you that Putin – the guy who had initiated/ordered the invasion of Ukraine, is a “genius”?!? According to Trump…
Avem un pod.
Aveam un pod… Aveam 216 m de pod, din beton, care permiteau traversarea Siretului în dreptul localității Luțca.
Acum mai avem doar o grămadă de moloz.
Și multe întrebări…
Cine să ne răspundă?
Specialiștii, prin intermediul presei.
Cel puțin deocamdată… până când va apărea un raport oficial. Despre (pe) care (îl) vom citi tot în presă…
Și cum se întâmplă treaba asta?
Ziaristul sună un specialist iar acesta acceptă – sau nu, să își spună părerea. Ziaristul își notează/întregistrează informațiile, redactează materialul – eventual cere o reacție din partea specialistului, după care articolul ajunge pe masa secretarului de redacție. Unde capătă titlul definitiv și ultimele retușuri.
După care urmează circul…
Se apucă câte unul să citească. Și să pună întrebări….
Articolul este … banal. Nici nu muge, nici nu rage. Nici măcar nu știu câți cititori ajung la capătul textului…
Unde dau cu nasul de disclaimerul citat mai sus.
Acesta fiind momentul în care cei cu memoria bună își aduc aminte de cuvintele cu care începe articolul:
„Este expertiza făcută de decanul facultății de construcții…”
Pe bune?!?
Atâta vreme cât decanul cu pricina a simțit nevoia să sublinieze, iar autorul articolului să consemneze, „nu pot să mă pronunț mai mult pentru că nu am fost acolo” cum mai poate cineva să catalogheze considerațiile făcute de respectivul specialist ca fiind o „expertiză”?!?
Și după aia se scarpină câte unii în cap încercând să înțeleagă ‘fenomenul’ prin care ‘specialist’ a devenit subiect de bășcălie iar din ce în ce mai mulți oameni cumpără ziare doar pentru a avea pe ce să curețe cartofi…
Aflăm de pe internet:
Comentariu ‘la botul calului’:
Până la urmă, sunt două chestii diferite…
Ghiță a fugit peste graniță cu un sac de bani în spate. Că altfel n-avea ce să mănânce ‘dincolo’.
Nicușor Dan a trecut strada ca să scoată niște bani. De la bancomat. Cu copila-n brațe. Vorbind la telefon. În fugă…
Dacă se împiedica Sebastian Ghita… îl prindea Europolul.
Daca se împiedica Nicușor Dan, își rupea ceva copilul ăla nevinovat.
Dacă dădea cineva peste Ghița, primea o medalie. Sau măcar o citație pe unitate.
Dacă dădea vre-un șofer peste Dan… avea ceva de tras!
Dacă noi, cei care trebuie să tragem din 4 in 4 ani niște concluzii, nu vedem că diferențele astea sunt, de fapt, niste ‘trăsături de unire’ … ne merităm soarta!
Care e realitatea ‘din teren’:
Și încă ceva.
În principiu, nu am mare considerație pentru presa de scandal.
Sau, mai bine spus, pentru modul ‘scandalos’ în care ‘se face presă’ în zilele noastre.
Dar uite că așa mai aflăm și noi chestii interesante din viața aleșilor noștri…
This is the first time that I’ve read anything written by Daniel Kowalski. Here’s what I learned, about Kowalski, while reading his his essay about Marx.
I’m not sure that Kowalski had actually read the communist manifesto. And I’m sure that he didn’t understand much of it.
The point being that Marx described society as being composed of the ruling class – those who owned things and gave orders, the ‘doers’ – the qualified/skilled workers, those we currently describe as ‘middle class’, and the ‘underdogs’ – the lumpen-proletariat.
And if Marx hated anybody more than he hated the rulers… those people were the lumpen-proletariat! Because the lumpen-proletariat were so poor that they did everything the rulers asked them to do.
Let’s get to the ‘visionary’ part. Read carefully, the manifesto is crystal clear. Communism was not supposed to ‘dawn’ while Marx was still alive. For communism to become viable, the middle-class had to became poor. To loose their perks. To be reduced to ‘lumpen’ status. But since the middle class already had ‘conscience’ – was aware of its ‘value’, they were supposed to understand what was happening to them. And to revolt against those who were benefiting from the process.
In Marx’s vision, the impoverished middle class was supposed to become aware of its predicament, and only then to let itself be led into the new era of ‘eternal bliss’ by the “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.” Also known as ‘communists’.
I’ll end up my comment drawing your attention to the growing wave of anti-capitalist propaganda which is being ‘vented’ over the internet.
The fact that Marx’s remedy for what he saw as the scourge of capitalism – inequality, was an absolute idiocy – the “workers’ dictatorship”, doesn’t erase the fact that Marx the prophet was right after all. The middle class is being squeezed out.
The communism has failed. Because it was based on dictatorship.
The current flavor of capitalism – increasingly monopolistic, will soon follow suit. Not because its capitalist nature but because of its monopolistic – aka dictatorial, dimension.
In my book – I have experimented both communism and democratic(ish) capitalism, there’s no real difference between the communist ‘one ideology solves all problems’ and the ‘greed is good’ mantra.
In practice, all we have is a single, uni-dimensional, idea forcefully being imposed upon all the people who happen to live in a place at the given moment. ‘Money/capital is bad’, hence it has to be abolished, versus ‘money/capital is everything’, hence it has to be enshrined.
I’m not a christian but I’m fully aware that ‘you shall not make yourself an idol’ is a very wise teaching. Specially when that idol is golden.
Am aflat pe FB, și apoi am verificat în presă – adică pe net, adus pe ‘fibra’ de RCS-RDS, că Digi l-a concediat pe CTP.
Reacțiile internauților – a celor din bula mea, a fost ‘vigilentă’.
(Nu-)(Î)mi place CTP, (dar) așa ceva nu se face!
Nu voi mai urmări acest post de știri.
OK, pot înțelege genul ăsta de răspuns. Cât se poate de adecvat, de altfel.
Mai ales că nu m-am mai uitat cam de mult la vre-un buletin de știri la tembelizor. Nu în limba română, în orice caz.
Și aici începe adevărata problemă.
Eu mă uit la BBC. Ascult RFI. Și mă dau pe net.
Nu prea rămân de din-afară…
La cât m-am uitat, cu câțiva ani în urmă și, expre’, aseară… Digi 24 e, de departe, cel mai civilizat post de știri în limba română. Restul…
Mai sunt, cei drept, telejurnale relativ civilizate la Pro-Tv și la TVR.
Doar că la capitolul televiziuni de știri… Digi e singura frecventabilă. Dintre cele cu o oarecare tracțiune… or mai fi și altele, dar nu am auzit eu de ele.
Și atunci?
Dacă singura televiziune civilizata de știri face așa ceva…
Poate că hotărâseră mai demult să ‘scape’ de CTP.
Poate că CTP-ul aflase de faptul că era deja pe făraș și a băgat ‘șopârla’ ca să nu rămână dator.
Indiferent de variantă, faptul că toată tevatura asta a avut loc în spatele siglei Digi 24 și în mijlocul singurei televiziuni de știri cât de cât civilizata de pe malurile Dâmboviței demonstrează, fără drept de apel, că noi avem o problemă!
Noi, nu Digi!
‘Piața’ noastră e informație este disfuncțională în ceea ce privește zona audio-vizuală.
La radio e mai mult miștocăreală iar la televizor…
If you really need to read the rest of the story, click on the picture above.
If you’re ready for the ‘next level’, consider this perspective:
We, the human species, have been ‘eating away’ the Earth, our home, ever since …
Now, that we’ve finally figured out we’re ‘trapped’ on a finite planet, we’re making analogies!
Conjuring the next generation to behave responsibly.
Why is this happening to me?
Because you’re alive, because of the previously made decisions and because of ‘hazard’.
You notice what’s happening around you – not necessarily to you, because you’re alive. A sensitive animal. And you try to make something out of it – to find meaning, because you are conscious. A conscious human being.
Everything around you – assuming you live in the civilized world, is man-made. The consequence of previously made decisions. The consequence of culture – string of accrued decisions, and the consequence of culturally influenced present day decisions. Decisions which are being made, by us, as we speak.
Your life, and everything in it, has been shaped by hazard.
You could have been born a slave somewhere a few centuries ago or you could have been born as the only child of Kim Il Sun.
You could have been born healthy – I hope you were, or you could have been the victim of a rare genetic abnormality.
We can’t, none of us, do anything about ‘hazard’.
We can’t change culture. But we can reinterpret it. Learn more from it than blindly following rules.
We can make better decisions.
And, for starters, we may decide to stop killing each-other. To stop hurting each-other. To stop bullying each-other.
NB. ‘Stop killing’ doesn’t mean give up defending ourselves. ‘Stop hurting’ doesn’t mean giving up.
‘Stop bullying’ doesn’t mean the bully has stopped bullying because the victim caved in.
What we really need to do is to stop all forms of aggression.
nicichiarasa 