A Kipling poem? Really? Saxon, eh? The premise there is that we are of some cohesive and unified ethnicity or even ethos... we (the USA in 2021) are distinctly not. If you think we are, you are beyond deluded. It would be nice, and we wouldn't be in this tenuous position if we all shared a commonality, but that ain't reality, bub.
The US is/was fractured long before the steal of 2020. The steal just galvanized that fact for millions. Some might call it "red pilling"
To suggest that we are going to essentially pull ourselves up from the proverbial bootstraps out of this mess by way of virtue and work is a farce. All that presupposes an in-tact Social Contract I'd strongly suggest reading that.
Those sites you've blithely dismissed are informative - they describe socialist/communist takeovers throughout history (20th Century, mostly, some 21st). Your underlying [hope-porn] premise of "American Exceptionalism" flew the coop on November 4, etc. don't you think? A blatantly stolen election, complicit media (propaganda), systemic corruption, etc. Not to mention a plandemic and subsequent "lockdown" control experiment... guess what? The control experiment worked.
Venezuela didn't become Venezuela overnight. Most of those other places didn't either. You can cherry pick the HuTus and other situations farther removed from the current state of the union here, but that's intellectually dishonest. We are under siege.
We're frogs in the pot. Some realize it, some whistle in the dark about it.
Re: social contact- thanks I am familiar with Mill.
This is dooming. Doomers, whatever else their motivations are, always ruin cohesive action and moral. I presume they are also aware of this. Why they continue doing it is anyone's guess.
Doesn't matter; anyone who follows them weeping and gnashing their teeth into Doom is automatically going to lose everything.
Everyone here is fighting to not become Venezuela so if you're conclusion is we're not aware of things but you have the big picture and informing, then you're reasoning poorly and from the wrong premises. No crime, it's a hazard for anyone who thinks about anything really.
Kennedy stole the elction from Nixon in 1960. The press covered for him. It happens. Nov 4 did not mark the end of the world.
We see the same problems and the same threats and the same possible terrible ending place but I see a war I intend to win and you see something else.
Some people see history and they pattern match it to us grossly, based on poor evidence and low IQ things like raw analogy and just so narratives. They indulge themselves in confirmation bia, reading things to confirm and amplify what they already know and seeing in all preivous events a roadmap to an inevitable future.
I know history broadly, some of it deeply and dig down into details when I encounter history new to me. I am not looking to confirm what I already believe, but to test it by looking hard and creatively for proof my theories are all wrong.
In that way I shed crude ideas and the ones I retain are solid. In that way I see learn to see through the errors other people are making because they allowed themselves to indulge in confirmation bias.
At best. that site is an execise in confirmation bias.
At worst, it's put out and maintained by our geopolitical enemies who always have the goal of dividing America and causing chaos here.
I don't fall vicitim to gross ideas and analogies like sites like that are offering up because once upon a time, I was just like everyone when they're starting off and I did. I checked myself by arguing with what I already thought was true as if to destroy it for some reason. I became my own worst critic. I was mercilessly skeptical of my own narratives. I still am.
Don't believe your own narratives. Be skeptical of them and suspicious of them. Doing that is no fun, so few people do it but if you want to know reality you have to do that and you have to take what you think you know and predict the outcome of current events. That will teach you how little you know.
Just wrong You haven't read Mill. Mill was all about the state's rtelationship to the individual. All those guys were. R. is a literla moron; the SJW of his day.
Thanks I read Rousseau a long time ago. It was clear to me then he was a moron. The social contract is the study of the relationship between an individual and the state. R didn't invent it or even the name. It was examined by Hobbes and Locke and others. I read them all. I even read Hegel. Mill, Hobbes and Locke got it about right. Rosseau is an outright moron who predicates everything on his blank slate shit, today known as SJW social constructionism". The fact that we know for a fact this is exactly not true doesn't stop these idots because, hey , once you declare shit like evidence and logical reasoning to be white supremecy, well, anything goes.
I don't think you have read Rousseau. You didn't even know he was the author of the text The Social Contract... fairly basic stuff there, dude. Yes, Locke and Hobbes presented their British empirically centered texts about the state, but to call Rousseau a "moron" is daft, and to strawman him as "the SJW of his day" is comical.
Blank slate (tabula rasa) is in no way aligned with "constructionism" - that is absolute disinformation, and laughable. Tabula rasa was largely propagated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theological as he repackaged Aristotle's hylomorphic epistemology (vis a vis Metaphysics, book *Lambda" specifically) with that of Christianity.
A Kipling poem? Really? Saxon, eh? The premise there is that we are of some cohesive and unified ethnicity or even ethos... we (the USA in 2021) are distinctly not. If you think we are, you are beyond deluded. It would be nice, and we wouldn't be in this tenuous position if we all shared a commonality, but that ain't reality, bub.
The US is/was fractured long before the steal of 2020. The steal just galvanized that fact for millions. Some might call it "red pilling"
To suggest that we are going to essentially pull ourselves up from the proverbial bootstraps out of this mess by way of virtue and work is a farce. All that presupposes an in-tact Social Contract I'd strongly suggest reading that.
Those sites you've blithely dismissed are informative - they describe socialist/communist takeovers throughout history (20th Century, mostly, some 21st). Your underlying [hope-porn] premise of "American Exceptionalism" flew the coop on November 4, etc. don't you think? A blatantly stolen election, complicit media (propaganda), systemic corruption, etc. Not to mention a plandemic and subsequent "lockdown" control experiment... guess what? The control experiment worked.
Venezuela didn't become Venezuela overnight. Most of those other places didn't either. You can cherry pick the HuTus and other situations farther removed from the current state of the union here, but that's intellectually dishonest. We are under siege.
We're frogs in the pot. Some realize it, some whistle in the dark about it.
Re: social contact- thanks I am familiar with Mill.
This is dooming. Doomers, whatever else their motivations are, always ruin cohesive action and moral. I presume they are also aware of this. Why they continue doing it is anyone's guess.
Doesn't matter; anyone who follows them weeping and gnashing their teeth into Doom is automatically going to lose everything.
Everyone here is fighting to not become Venezuela so if you're conclusion is we're not aware of things but you have the big picture and informing, then you're reasoning poorly and from the wrong premises. No crime, it's a hazard for anyone who thinks about anything really.
Kennedy stole the elction from Nixon in 1960. The press covered for him. It happens. Nov 4 did not mark the end of the world.
We see the same problems and the same threats and the same possible terrible ending place but I see a war I intend to win and you see something else.
Some people see history and they pattern match it to us grossly, based on poor evidence and low IQ things like raw analogy and just so narratives. They indulge themselves in confirmation bia, reading things to confirm and amplify what they already know and seeing in all preivous events a roadmap to an inevitable future.
I know history broadly, some of it deeply and dig down into details when I encounter history new to me. I am not looking to confirm what I already believe, but to test it by looking hard and creatively for proof my theories are all wrong.
In that way I shed crude ideas and the ones I retain are solid. In that way I see learn to see through the errors other people are making because they allowed themselves to indulge in confirmation bias.
At best. that site is an execise in confirmation bias.
At worst, it's put out and maintained by our geopolitical enemies who always have the goal of dividing America and causing chaos here.
I don't fall vicitim to gross ideas and analogies like sites like that are offering up because once upon a time, I was just like everyone when they're starting off and I did. I checked myself by arguing with what I already thought was true as if to destroy it for some reason. I became my own worst critic. I was mercilessly skeptical of my own narratives. I still am.
Don't believe your own narratives. Be skeptical of them and suspicious of them. Doing that is no fun, so few people do it but if you want to know reality you have to do that and you have to take what you think you know and predict the outcome of current events. That will teach you how little you know.
Social Contract was Jean Jacques Rousseau. Not Mill.
[John Stuart] Mill wrote, perhaps most widely anthologized, Utilitarianism - more of a text on moral and ethical practice.
Rousseau's text is an early modern political work discussing the tacit agreement the freeman has with a body politic (state). I'd suggest reading it.
Cheers.
Just wrong You haven't read Mill. Mill was all about the state's rtelationship to the individual. All those guys were. R. is a literla moron; the SJW of his day.
I wrote a thesis on John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. You, clearly, have not. It is most assuredly a text on ethics, not political philosophy.
Thanks I read Rousseau a long time ago. It was clear to me then he was a moron. The social contract is the study of the relationship between an individual and the state. R didn't invent it or even the name. It was examined by Hobbes and Locke and others. I read them all. I even read Hegel. Mill, Hobbes and Locke got it about right. Rosseau is an outright moron who predicates everything on his blank slate shit, today known as SJW social constructionism". The fact that we know for a fact this is exactly not true doesn't stop these idots because, hey , once you declare shit like evidence and logical reasoning to be white supremecy, well, anything goes.
Which is the point with R and them both.
I don't think you have read Rousseau. You didn't even know he was the author of the text The Social Contract... fairly basic stuff there, dude. Yes, Locke and Hobbes presented their British empirically centered texts about the state, but to call Rousseau a "moron" is daft, and to strawman him as "the SJW of his day" is comical.
Blank slate (tabula rasa) is in no way aligned with "constructionism" - that is absolute disinformation, and laughable. Tabula rasa was largely propagated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theological as he repackaged Aristotle's hylomorphic epistemology (vis a vis Metaphysics, book *Lambda" specifically) with that of Christianity.