IOW,

For too long, too many right of center believe they own the flag, and the concept of “patriotism” itself, so that any harsh criticism they level at their fellow Americans isn’t considered an “attack on America” in their minds . . . but virtually any criticism by their political opponents is.

No one owns the flag. No one ownes “patriotism.” There is no such thing as “America.” It’s the sum total of such divergent streams of life, there’s no possible way to say what “it” is to begin with. And if you just think of it in terms of the collective doings, beliefs, history and so forth of all Americans, collectively, then it makes zero sense to castigate people like Colin Kaepernick for protesting certain, very specific things done within this country, by a small percentage of the population.

Those who kneel while our racist, white supremacist anthem plays, aren’t bashing “America.” They’re being highly critical of one particular thing that happens here: systemic racism, especially in the guise of police brutality toward black people.

Ironically, if someone sees that as “protesting America,” they’re saying, unwittingly, that this defines us and what “America” means. That police brutality against black Americans defines who we are as a people. It doesn’t, obviously. And if Kaep and others believed that, they wouldn’t even bother protesting, because protesting implies we can change and do better, and calls for that change and that progress, and that, by definition, says we aren’t synonymous with police brutality and systemic racism . . . that we’re better than that.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Anyway, I honestly don’t see it. Disagree with his policies. I do. Most of them, in fact. But on the topic of race, the guy was a saint, given the context.

Yeah, I don’t think so. He far too often made *a thing* out of police involvement with blacks, more or less calling the cops racists. He condemned the police in Cambridge and he was wrong. He condemned the police in Ferguson, he was wrong. He condemned the police in Florida, he was wrong. This perpetuated the fallacy that cops were out there hunting down and murdering innocent black men for no other reason than they were racists. Subsequently, BLM was born. I don’t recall ONE instance of him preaching personal accountability or condemning black on black crime – or black on white crime. It was always just the cops and/or economic disadvantages.

He was absolutely right to call out the relevant cops in Cambridge, and I think he was actually too restrained in the matter. Henry Louis Gates was the victim of racial profiling — in his own home!! Come on, X. Do you really support the actions of the police in that case? And what did Obama end up doing? Inviting police and Gates to a beer summit at the White House.

Ferguson. Again, he showed incredible restraint, given the systemic racism of the police force there. He was right to call them out, but I think he should have been much stronger about it. BLM rose because Obama was too cautious on the subject. They rose because they saw him as not being proactive enough.

Florida, same thing. If you’re referring to the systemic racism on display regarding Martin, Zimmerman and the way the police handled that. Obama’s words just right in that case. He showed compassion and empathy in a way only he could show, as the first black president.

And “personal accountability”? He gave speech after speech on the topic.

Seriously, I have no idea where you’re coming from on this one. We aren’t seeing the same president, at all.

. . .

And on that note, I have to run. It was good talking with you, X. And I hope we can continue this.

Take care.

Boiled down, we were founded as a secular democratic republic. And, IMO, the best thing the founders ever did was to ensure the separation of church and state. They got a lot wrong, but that was one of their true points of genius.

Without freedom FROM religion, there is no liberty. Again, the founders understood this.

On Obama: Yeah, it’s probably a subject for another thread, so I’ll try to keep it short.

I honestly have never understood how people can think Obama increased our racial divide — other than by being black. I have a ton of problems with his governance, seeing him as far too willing to work with the GOP, to go for centrist mush, choosing a center-right answer when the much better leftist answer was available. I think on most issues, he governed as a Eisenhower Republican, and on some things like taxes and unions, to Ike’s right. So my comment about Obama on race isn’t from one of his overall fans.

IMO, he showed tremendous restraint when it came to the topic of race. He faced an unprecedented barrage of hate from the right, much of it patently racist in tone and substance, and he stayed above it. Think about how many times — basically, none — he ever responded to public figures slamming him and demonizing him, and compare that to Trump. Has Trump ever NOT attacked his critics — often with vulgarity and always with lies.

Anyway, I honestly don’t see it. Disagree with his policies. I do. Most of them, in fact. But on the topic of race, the guy was a saint, given the context.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

X,

Ever ask yourself who “enacted” this supposed sacred tradition? Where did it come from? Who decided? Who chose the FSK anthem in the first place? The anthem came about due to Big Gubmint fiat, not through any democratic choice, and the ownership of various sports teams decided to play the anthem, at various times, for various reasons. We the people had nothing to do with it.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/04/492599463/how-did-the-national-anthem-get-to-be-a-mainstay-of-sports-in-the-first-place

I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. This piece by ESPN has a much more historical account.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/6957582/the-history-national-anthem-sports-espn-magazine

Billy_T wrote:

Also, you can’t “disrespect” a country through such an action regarding a nationalist symbol. How do you “disrespect” an abstraction via another abstraction? And if you hold up something like an anthem or a flag as “representative” of a nation, you don’t get to cherry-pick which parts of its history count. You don’t get to say, “This ONLY represents all the awesome things we’ve done and do, and NONE of the bad stuff.” If you insist that a symbol actually does “represent” this country, then it has no meaning whatsoever if you dismiss everything except for the rainbows and the unicorns. It loses any potential for meaning, and is then a symbol of a G-rated fairy tale, not an actual nation, with an actual history.

Yes you absolutely can disrespect a Country by disrespecting its “Nationalist Symbol.” Though, I would argue that most would call the flag the Nation’s Symbol. You don’t have to take my word for it, and you don’t even have to agree with it. But the fact remains that it offends a GREAT many Americans when they see players taking a knee in front of it, as evidenced here:

So what I think you mean is that people should understand that you don’t see it the same way, and that all 2000+ people that are angered by it (above), followed by the 4,000+ people in the ensuing, innocuous post by the Steelers who were also angered, are just being silly and that they shouldn’t feel any strong connection to the Flag or their Country’s anthem.

As far as people picking and choosing which part of their Country’s history they wish to Champion, I don’t see much evidence of that happening. They’re mainly upset that people are disrespecting the flag. The very flag that is draped over the coffins of dead soldiers. The very flag that widows clutch in their arms at funerals. The very flag that every Policeman and Fireman salute as they protect this Nation. It’s not an abstraction, Billeh. It has very real and personal meaning to people. Also, we can discuss war in general in another thread. I’d rather just focus on our different views of the Flag right now.

I’d also argue that a great many of the NFL players who are protesting right now don’t even know why. They likely have some abstract idea of how America is oppressing black people and they suddenly got a case of copy-catitis. For Kaepernick in particular, his problem was – and I quote, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

Is evidence necessary, or can people just say whatever they want and it’s assumed to be fact? See, my opinion is that the pendulum swung one way when Obama was President, and now it’s swinging back. Obama was one of the biggest perpetrators of race division I had ever seen, and now that there’s a President who doesn’t pay homage to the oppression, people automatically think he’s a White Supremacist. But that too, is topic for discussion in another thread.

Aren’t you talking about two distinctly different things here? The perception by some that some people are “disrespecting the flag,” and actually doing that? There’s a huge difference. What you’re talking about is “emotions” and “feelings” about symbols, not an actually, concretely “disrespectful” act. And if you want to play a numbers game here, I’d bet you that most Americans couldn’t care less about this topic, and that few Americans are actually all that bothered by someone taking a knee. Do any of us stop what we’re doing, put down the popcorn and the beer, when we’re sitting at home during the anthem?

I’d bet few do. So what is “disrespectful” about it? And, again, it wasn’t an organically derived “tradition.” It was imposed on us, by a few team-sports owners, and by two presidents, Wilson and Hoover.

Choosing the FSK song among millions of others was done via Big Gubmint fiat. We had no voice in the matter. And the anthem was played in scatter shot ways, primarily as a way of indoctrinating Americans to move in lock step during WWI. It’s had an on again, off again history since that time.

Why should ANYONE care that players express their free speech rights by NOT participating in an artificially constructed ritual of indoctrination? IMO, it’s the essence of liberty and freedom to say, “No. I choose not to go along with the crowd on this one.”

And it’s not even about the flag. It’s about the anthem. Which is racist and champions slavery, and was written by a slavery-loving, white supremacist author. Again, I’m actually surprised any black athletes stands for our arbitrarily imposed national anthem.

— X — wrote:

Similarly, as long as ‘they’ try to force people into accepting progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “accept that politics belong everywhere” makes no sense when those Progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements have no business in politics to begin with. The Government should provide free health care? The Government should enact laws protecting “genderless” people? The Government should redistribute wealth? The Government is responsible for oppression? Yeah. Sure thing.

X,

On the above? I was hoping you’d start those threads you mentioned the other day, over in the other forum. Would like to respond, but it seems out of place on the football side.

I’d be interested in your elaboration on pretty much anything, but the stuff in the paragraph cited above might be a good place to start . . .

— X — wrote:

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. It only became political when one person (influenced by his America-hating girlfriend) decided to make it political. It was simply a proud American tradition enacted about a 100 years ago at sporting events. The Flag isn’t a political statement, despite your claims to the contrary. It’s about honor, sacrifice, and pride. Disrespecting it, as I pointed out (and remains true) is an affront to millions of proud Americans.

Billy_T wrote:

And you’re especially going to have to get rid of the obviously authoritarian demand that everyone adheres to all the above without question.

I didn’t demand anyone do anything, and neither did anyone else until Trump said something. It was voluntary, and moreover, UNIVERSALLY voluntary as a matter of pride in one’s Nation. “Want this flag? Tough shit. We kept it and it’s still flying.” That’s all it is.

Billy_T wrote:

Trump, with his latest barrage of mindless bullying, wants to go even further and actually fire people who don’t obey. What could be more “political” than that, or more “Big Gubmint”?

So? If I went into work tomorrow with a flag lit on fire and tossed it into my Supervisor’s office – and THEN wondered why I was fired, I’d be the moron. My job, not unlike the NFL, is a private enterprise. They can write and enforce any rule they want. And they do – just without any consistency. The Cowboys petitioned the NFL to wear stickers on their helmets to honor the police who were murdered in Dallas, and the NFL said no. Why? Too political. And yet…..

Billy_T wrote:

To me, as long as we try to force people into group-think, lock-step adherence in accepting nationalist myths and symbols, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “keep politics out of it” makes no sense when those nationalist myths and symbols already politicize the events in question.

Similarly, as long as ‘they’ try to force people into accepting progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “accept that politics belong everywhere” makes no sense when those Progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements have no business in politics to begin with. The Government should provide free health care? The Government should enact laws protecting “genderless” people? The Government should redistribute wealth? The Government is responsible for oppression? Yeah. Sure thing.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Thing is, there’s a major contradiction in what you’re asking. Cuz playing the national anthem and demanding that everyone act in lock-step is ALREADY “political.”

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. It only became political when one person (influenced by his America-hating girlfriend) decided to make it political. It was simply a proud American tradition enacted about a 100 years ago at sporting events. The Flag isn’t a political statement, despite your claims to the contrary. It’s about honor, sacrifice, and pride. Disrespecting it, as I pointed out (and remains true) is an affront to millions of proud Americans.

Billy_T wrote:

And you’re especially going to have to get rid of the obviously authoritarian demand that everyone adheres to all the above without question.

I didn’t demand anyone do anything, and neither did anyone else until Trump said something. It was voluntary, and moreover, UNIVERSALLY voluntary as a matter of pride in one’s Nation. “Want this flag? Tough shit. We kept it and it’s still flying.” That’s all it is.

Billy_T wrote:

Trump, with his latest barrage of mindless bullying, wants to go even further and actually fire people who don’t obey. What could be more “political” than that, or more “Big Gubmint”?

So? If I went into work tomorrow with a flag lit on fire and tossed it into my Supervisor’s office – and THEN wondered why I was fired, I’d be the moron. My job, not unlike the NFL, is a private enterprise. They can write and enforce any rule they want. And they do – just without any consistency. The Cowboys petitioned the NFL to wear stickers on their helmets to honor the police who were murdered in Dallas, and the NFL said no. Why? Too political. And yet…..

Billy_T wrote:

To me, as long as we try to force people into group-think, lock-step adherence in accepting nationalist myths and symbols, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “keep politics out of it” makes no sense when those nationalist myths and symbols already politicize the events in question.

Similarly, as long as ‘they’ try to force people into accepting progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements, reactions to this are inevitable. And asking people to “accept that politics belong everywhere” makes no sense when those Progressive myths and ridiculous social advancements have no business in politics to begin with. The Government should provide free health care? The Government should enact laws protecting “genderless” people? The Government should redistribute wealth? The Government is responsible for oppression? Yeah. Sure thing.

X,

Ever ask yourself who “enacted” this supposed sacred tradition? Where did it come from? Who decided? Who chose the FSK anthem in the first place? The anthem came about due to Big Gubmint fiat, not through any democratic choice, and the ownership of various sports teams decided to play the anthem, at various times, for various reasons. We the people had nothing to do with it.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/04/492599463/how-did-the-national-anthem-get-to-be-a-mainstay-of-sports-in-the-first-place

Also, you can’t “disrespect” a country through such an action regarding a nationalist symbol. How do you “disrespect” an abstraction via another abstraction? And if you hold up something like an anthem or a flag as “representative” of a nation, you don’t get to cherry-pick which parts of its history count. You don’t get to say, “This ONLY represents all the awesome things we’ve done and do, and NONE of the bad stuff.” If you insist that a symbol actually does “represent” this country, then it has no meaning whatsoever if you dismiss everything except for the rainbows and the unicorns. It loses any potential for meaning, and is then a symbol of a G-rated fairy tale, not an actual nation, with an actual history.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 1 month ago by Billy_T.

Personally, whether he’s doing it for cynical, diversionary reasons or not, I think it’s disgusting and profoundly authoritarian. First, calling for Jemelle Hill to be fired for exercising her free speech rights, and now all players who don’t bow and scrape for a racist national anthem that shouldn’t be a part of sporting events in the first place.

I’m puzzled by the people who say they don’t want “politics” to be a part of their sports, but are fine with the anthem in the first place. It’s already “political,” each time it’s played, and then to pimp for empire and the military with jets flying overhead? We’re being indoctrinated, politically, each and every time sports leagues do this.

Want sports to be a “politics free zone,” if that’s even possible? We need to get rid of the overt, forced, authoritarian displays of paid-for patriotism to begin with. That way, you won’t have players taking a knee during such an anthem.

Also, from my perspective, I love seeing athletes speak out and take their stand. Fighting for social justice. Being critical of our history and our present. In solidarity — that’s the only way we can build a better world.

I know it’s asking a ton of athletes — perhaps waaay too much — but I would support them if they decided to walk out en masse in protest. At all levels. High School, college, professional. It might take something like that to wake up Americans to what’s going on. That our divisions are real. That they’re not a figment of the imagination, etc.

Zooey wrote:

wv wrote:

Wonder why X disagrees with us on the anti-nazi thing?

Maybe he’ll explain it.

w
v

The conservative media have been banging away that Antifa are violent commies who have started all the fights, and who are much more inherently violent than the Fascists who – it they were just left alone – would just march a little bit in small numbers, then go home without any consequence to society. That’s the unbroken storyline on the right.

They also speak of Black Lives Matter like that. And before them, the OWS movement. People who watch Fox News, or read Breitbart, Newsmax, etc. etc. are brainwashed into believing these groups are inherently violent — and, even more perversely, in the case of BLM, “racist.”

It’s a running theme for right-wing and centrist media to see protests against the establishment this way. I remember having all kinds of conversations with conservative parents after Kent State happened. Almost a consensus among them that the kids deserved it. Their view of the entire antiwar movement was extremely negative, to say the least. To them, they were an assault on American values, etc.

Ozoneranger wrote:

Hey, Billy-

Antifa has a violent past in the country going back to the 90’s. Remember the G8 meetings? And they are underground- the covered faces, how they organize- Twitter, other social media (and contrary to popular belief, they do have a leadership model). The alt right? I don’t see them as a threat at all. I mean, historically, violence has been a hallmark of the left here (two dead presidents, Weathermen, SDS, Black Panthers) and in Europe (Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, Action Directe). Here.

http://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/

Meanwhile, the Alt right forms their little militias, get infiltrated and monitored. And the Klan> The dumbshits in the pointy hats haven’t done much in decades, save for the odd Lone-wolf nutjob.

In any case, I like your starters. I completely agree for the safety of all.

Well, again, we’re not going to agree about this. Antifa has never killed anyone. It’s very small, with very few members, and no, there is no leadership. And, yes, as mentioned, they mostly act in self-defense and protect peaceful protesters. As mentioned, they saved lives in C’ville:

Yes, What About the “Alt-Left”? What the counter-protesters Trump despises were actually doing in Charlottesville last weekend. By Dahlia Lithwick
Historically, right-wing violence has been far more prevalent in America and Europe overall, and more deadly. Yes, the left had its time of horrible bloodshed, but that was mostly in the 1960s and then it ended. The right has an older and far more sustained history of deadly violence and terrorism, worldwide.

You dismiss the KKK, but it’s been involved in deadly terrorist acts here for 150 years. America and Europe have violent right-wing militias, skinheads, nazis and fascists and their neo versions. Timothy McVeigh, right-wing Christian extremists, like Breivik in Norway, etc. And you have right-wing Islamic extremists, responsible for 9/11. ISIS and Al Queda are hard right, ideologically.

It’s not close.

A recent look regarding right-wing violence here, by the SPLC:

Terror from the Right

and another:

The Rise of Violent Right-Wing Extremism, Explained Experts say attacks like the mass shooting in Charleston have been a growing threat. Jaeah Lee, Gabrielle Canon and Brandon E. PattersonJun. 30, 2015 10:00 AM

Remember when conservative pundits (and then Congress) torpedoed the report on right-wing violent extremism here that Obama was going to bring out? The Bush admin actually started the report, and experts and scholars have been warning about this rise for decades now. But right-wing media whined and moaned loudly enough to suppress it.

IMO, “conservatives” don’t think it’s an issue because their media suppresses reality — deadly reality. Or just blames everything on “the left.”

Oh, well. Likely one of those “We’re never going to see eye to eye on this” topics.

Hey, Ozone,

Hope all is well.

We disagree about antifa, but that probably doesn’t surprise you. I see them as less than a fraction of a fraction of the threat posed by right-wing extremists. And labeling them a domestic terrorist group, IMO, is going waaay over the line into a police state action. The vast majority of antifa is non-violent, and those among them who do engage in violence typically act defensively. They saved lived in C’ville. A lot of them. That was attested to by clergy who were demonstrating peacefully there. And the numbers who do engage in offensive violence? Dozens. Not hundreds. But they get all the media attention so it looks like all of antifa is that way.

I’m also a bit confused by your distinction between the alt-right being out in the open but antifa being underground. I’m not seeing that.

Personally, I wish the following were the case:

1. No city, locality or state would allow marchers to be armed. Period. No guns, if you’re going to march in public or assemble on public lands. Cuz guns are the real threat to “free speech,” and they’re intended as such. No city, locality or state should grant ANY group a permit if they’re going to carry guns, and all localities should have the right to take them away if marchers ignore this. That used to be the way we did things in America, btw, even in the Wild Wild West, ironically. Leave them thar guns at the edge of town, pardner, etc.

2. When the alt-right marches, they should be completely ignored by everyone else. As long as they don’t engage in violence toward others, ignore them. Don’t counter-demonstrate near them. Work things out with city, local, state or federal “authorities” to have peaceful assemblies on a different day or far away from right-wing lunatics, if that’s what you want to do. No direct confrontations unless it’s in self-defense. To me, it serves no purpose and it’s pretty obvious how dangerous it’s becoming.

For starters . . . .

The Castle Dilemma keeps the people who might actually consider voting for someone other than the duopoly in check.

Atomized folks inside the castle are afraid to leave, because they think they’ll be the only ones to go outside and they’ll be picked off, one by one, by the enemy “out there.” So no one leaves. If, however, everyone left at the same time, they could defeat the enemy, who have a habit of running away from massed forces. They don’t have the numbers or the stomach for a fight, and they’ve long terrorized the people in the castle using special effects technologies like CGI to exaggerate and amplify their power and their threat.

wv wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Worth reading the whole thing — and the article that led to it.

=============
OK, BT. I’ll read it. I got a big jury trial Wednesday so I cant delve into long writings for a few days. But I’ll get around to it.

I read the cover article of The ATLANTIC the other day. Made me so mad i almost wrote a letter. It was a long article about How and Why Americans Have gone crazy and believe in Conspiracy Shit.

The writer listed all these reasons and they all lead directly (essentially) to blaming the people themselves. He lamented the fact that the people no longer believe in the noble American institutions they used to believe in — and he blamed the people for that.

I wanted to tell him, “Yes, people have turned to all kinds of batshit crazy ideas. And yes, they no longer believe a damn thing those fine institutions tell them — know why? Cause those damn institutions LIE. And the people know it. They know they are being lied to. But rather than having the tools to think-critically they turn to batshit-crazy stuff. Not their fault. For all kinds of reasons.

blah blah blah, wv continues to be a system-blamer :>)

w
v

Agreed. The article I linked to doesn’t do that. But, yeah, a lot of that voter-shaming, scolding, blaming going on, especially from Clinton supporters. Sick to death of it.

Political parties need to earn our votes. It’s on them. Institutions need to earn our support. It’s on them. The system needs to . . . etc. etc.

wv wrote:

Zooey wrote:

3. Universities are basically leftist indoctrination machines, and not to be trusted.

=====================

Well, I tend to agree with X that, in general, Probably, most University profs are “liberal” (Ie, Clinton-ish, Obama-ish, Democrat-ish)

Though, i dont have any science to back that up, and I’m open to proof pointing to something else.

At any rate, we know damn well that the liberal-professors, and the rightwing-talk-radio-pundits, and the liberal-MSM-reporters, and the liberal-librarians, and the rightwing-evangelicals, and the rightwing-nazis, and the alt-right-conservatives, and the various kinds of plumbers, IT-experts, carpenters, football players, hockey goalies, tree-surgeons, bakers, pharmacists, lawyers, pilots, rug-pee-ers, Dude-ranch-owners, trans-gender-green-berets, Police Officers, NASA custodians, Veterans, Veternarians, Buddhist Lesbian Dock Workers, and cat shampoo-ers….are almost all
voting for the Idiot-Duplicat-Party or the Idiot-Replicant-Party.

The actual parties that would actually help this nation get 2 percent of the vote.

98 percent of the voters waste their votes on the two corporate-idiot-parties.

So…something is causing that. Something is causing 98 percent of the voters to vote for one of the two parties that will lie, cheat, steal and screw us all over.

Why the hell WOULDNT the Universities have a LOT to do with that? As well as the Idiot-rightwing media and the Idiot-liberal-media ?

Ok, i will shut up now. I shall rant no more.

w
v

WV,

You have GOT to read this article, cuz it speaks exactly to what you’re saying. Well, except for the part about transgendered Green Berets and Buddhist Lesbian dock workers. It’s going to take me a bit more time to find the relevant essays on those topics.

Found it by way of the always excellent Los Angeles Rams Review of Books, via this equally fascinating article, Philosophy and the Gods of the City: Benjamin Aldes Wurgaft’s “Thinking in Public” By Jon Baskin

The Rise of the Thought Leader How the superrich have funded a new class of intellectual.

Seriously. This is right up your alley.

Today, Gramsci’s theory has been largely overlooked in the ongoing debate over the supposed decline of the “public intellectual” in America. Great minds, we are told, no longer captivate the public as they once did, because the university is too insular and academic thinking is too narrow. Such laments frequently cite Russell Jacoby’s The Last Intellectuals (1987), which complained about the post-1960s professionalization of academia and waxed nostalgic for the bohemian, “independent” intellectuals of the earlier twentieth century. Writers like the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof attribute this sorry state of affairs to the culture of Ph.D. programs, which, Kristof claims, have glorified “arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience.” If academics cannot bring their ideas to a wider readership, these familiar critiques imply, it is because of the academic mindset itself.

In his book The Ideas Industry, the political scientist and foreign policy blogger Daniel W. Drezner broadens the focus to include the conditions in which ideas are formed, funded, and expressed. Describing the public sphere in the language of markets, he argues that three major factors have altered the fortunes of today’s intellectuals: the evaporation of public trust in institutions, the polarization of American society, and growing economic inequality. He correctly identifies the last of these as the most important: the extraordinary rise of the American superrich, a class interested in supporting a particular genre of “ideas.”

The rich have, Drezner writes, empowered a new kind of thinker—the “thought leader”—at the expense of the much-fretted-over “public intellectual.” Whereas public intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or Martha Nussbaum are skeptical and analytical, thought leaders like Thomas Friedman and Sheryl Sandberg “develop their own singular lens to explain the world, and then proselytize that worldview to anyone within earshot.” While public intellectuals traffic in complexity and criticism, thought leaders burst with the evangelist’s desire to “change the world.” Many readers, Drezner observes, prefer the “big ideas” of the latter to the complexity of the former. In a marketplace of ideas awash in plutocrat cash, it has become “increasingly profitable for thought leaders to hawk their wares to both billionaires and a broader public,” to become “superstars with their own brands, sharing a space previously reserved for moguls, celebrities, and athletes.”

Worth reading the whole thing — and the article that led to it.

— X — wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

Thanks, X, for the correction. Much appreciated.

As for worldviews: Like everyone else, it’s complicated. But trying to boil it all down . . . To me, the most important thing is that everyone gets their shot in the here and now at maxing out on their life’s potential. And I mean literally everyone. I don’t think we should just accept the fact that we gotta have billions of human beings suffering and never, ever having that shot in order for a certain percentage at the top to get that shot. Our current system, however, is set up to do just that. And I find that profoundly immoral, irrational, tragic and indefensible.

So it’s “the fierce urgency of now” for me, and this colors pretty much everything else. It means I see our economic and political systems as cheating the majority of humanity out of their one and only chance at a real life. And, again, for the worst of reasons: to ensure that an arbitrarily lucky, chosen, ultra-select few can do as they please and have ten, a thousand, tens of thousands times more than they could possibly need to live a full and rich life.

Our system sets up a zero-sum life-sphere, and no matter how many times I hear someone say it’s not that way, the evidence strikes me as overwhelmingly contrary to that view. IMO, it’s just flat out self-evident and beyond debate, it’s so obvious. Math, logic, percentages and common sense all tell us it definitely is zero-sum.

So I passionately believe we need to replace our current systems — economic and political — with something that would facilitate the widest possible shot at full and rich lives for everyone, within the context of preserving our one and only home (earth). And, again, with no one being left out.

Another factor for me: I don’t believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation — though I’ve studied world religions like Buddhism and Hinduism which do. I think this is it. One and done. The future is now, as George Allen once said. So it makes no sense to me, whatsoever, that we should have a political or economic system that acts as if it’s okay to build up to something across generations, a wee bit at a time. And in the case of soft neoliberalism of the Dems, at a glacial pace. Our economy and politics need to be geared to maximize the lives of the living, not future lives that may never be . . . while at the same time doing everything we can to leave future generations with the same shot at the fullest of lives. As in, conserving the earth, our natural resources, ending wars, pollution, etc. etc.

More later. Got some things to add about various ironies regarding “collectivism versus individualism” as I see them.

Good to see you posting again, X.

WOW do we have a lot to discuss! I’d love to delve into all of this.
I’m gonna start making new threads now, based on specific topics (many of the above too).

Thanks dude.

As the young kids used to say, kewl. Looking forward to the other threads, X.