Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

US presidential election


Sotha

Recommended Posts

The DNC writes articles for Vox:

 

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6705

 

Lol...

 

Cxgu5hhXcAAJvWI.jpg-large.jpg

 

Fake news all around unfortunately...

 

Big problem?

 

I guarantee that all the "Fake news" stories out there indicate that the above list are the only "real news"

and other sources are "fake".

 

(...and this is why folks readily believe satanism conspiracies about the Clintons. Stop the collusion and the game is over.)

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fake news all around unfortunately...

 

 

Let's not conflate fake news with biased news. Biased news is certainly not a good thing either, but there is several orders of magnitude difference between reporting an actual fact using spin, and inventing facts whole cloth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nbohr, I wasn't suggesting the Americans need to prohibit people of low education from voting. I was thinking that maybe the americans need to completely rebuild their education system.

 

Free and high quality science-based education for everybody. Sure, it costs money and would take a generation or two to reap the benefits, but in the end everybody (even other countries!) would win. But that is way too socialist for them, I guess. Or maybe it just won't work for big countries.

 

@Destined, sure. Low education means easier manipulation, but it also means living on a powder keg...

 

@Fake news:

High ranking people spread idiot level lies, which people believe without second thought.

This suggests that the high ranking people may be incapable of high level consipracies. Thus, is it even worth speculate on high level conspiracies? They do not need to feed complex lies to the people when elementary lies are perfectly enough and sufficient.

 

I mean, I read a journalist report by a finnish reporter who interviewed people in a small american town. The interviewed person casually said, without blink of an eye, that she cannot vote for Clinton because "she has murdered 3 people."

 

The citizen wasn't thinking why Clinton isn't in prison (let alone be allowed to run for president) if she is a murderer? Or think about whether the justice system is corrupted and broken if murderers are not put in prison? She thought everything else except the most likely scenario: that the murder news were fake. It confuses me.

 

In the perfect world:

People and news agencies have CREDIBILITY (IMPACT FACTOR for scientific publications). If they publish reliable, confirmed information, their CREDIBILITY goes up a little. If they publish shit, their CREDIBILITY goes down a lot.

 

When CREDIBILITY is low enough, nobody cares anymore what they publish or say. People with low CREDIBILITY do not get voted in a democratic system.

 

Somehow, nowadays, there seems to be no CREDIBILITY loss for publishing shit. Because technology advanced too quickly and people do not have the (critical) media reading skills required for the flood of conflicting information?

  • Like 2

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's more of a paradox.

The mainstream media were considered to be infallible and were the guardians
against partisan rhetoric like Fox New's "Fair and Balanced" coverage.

So many held them in high regard. For years academia warned people to view media
reports with skepticism and look for biases and faulty reporting but most folks believed
that this ONLY applied to Right-Wing "wing-nut" reporting.

Then a little man named Edward Snowden came along and exposed a vast surveillance state
conspiracy that not even the most outrageous Right Wing talk-box would have mused about
on his wildest rant.

Suddenly, hitting the snooze button and shrugging your shoulders about vast government conspiracies
was not possible. You had to sit there breathlessly watching a fugitive hacker spread the news
that all your personal communications are devoured and automatically analyzed in a multi-hundred
billion dollar data-center in the Midwest.

Now every other once lunatic rant becomes a candidate for probing.

If this is true, is "Project Monarch" true? Is Agent Orange true?

Then another shocker. Heavily redacted documents detailing the US's fore knowledge
that Saudi nationals funded 9/11.

What is happening? This sort of revelation should only be on fringe Youtube videos not
on the nightly news next to a Kardashian puff piece.

After this sequence of events, the public completely lost the fairy tale perception of
an impeccable and impartial left-wing media (which they shouldn't have had in the first place).

Wikileaks was the final straw.

Seeing the DNC manipulate and character assassinate Bernie Sanders just completely shut down
all credibility in the mainstream media.

After that, the public gladly listened to anything contrary to the media's narrative regardless of
it's factual content. They are still in shock about how long they were lied to and now are hungry
for someone else to relay the correct info.

It will take years. The mainstream media is entrenched and is owned by a small number of monopolies.
Since 9/11 the US has been so bad at monopoly busting in the communications industry.
We need to fix that. We can't have 3 or 4 major mega-conglomerates whose spouses work for
a the gosh-darned POTUS.

 

News-cronyism-cc-565x492.png

 

We need more news agencies. And not just Right-Wing insanity like Breitbart and Fox news.

 

About the last neutral source I can think of is Reuters and even they are sourcing a lot

of data from the big guys so it's a tainted well.

  • Like 1

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a good point that recent revelations are destroying the people's trust towards the goverment... but it should INCREASE the critical thinking among the people. But looks like people are trusting more even the most outrageous claims as long as it feeds some kind of wild conspiracy theory. It makes no sense to me.

 

Also, marriage/being siblings does not automatically prove that there is a conspiracy going on. People in high places usually hang out with other people in high places and people usually marry people who they happen to hang around with. Imagine a small country like Finland: all the people who are going to be corporate elite graduate from only a few different universities. Generations of future company board members are bound to know each other already from their studying years. It is no surprise the economic elite (or the elite in general) in our country is well connected. Same for the US, right?

 

If you want neutral sources, occasionally check out what the foreign media is broadcasting about you. That is what the Russian minorities in countries neighbouring Russia do when they want to piece together what is really happening, because media is strictly under goverment control in Russia.

  • Like 3

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the destroyed trust greatly feeds conspiracy theories as they are usually based on a "the government lied to you in this point, so why not in that other point". And because people feel betrayed, they want to believe incriminating "evidence" of a corrupt government, no matter how wild the claim might be. It is no rational response, but an emotional one and in this case, rationality often takes the back seat.

 

The marriage/kinship does not automatically mean that there is a conspiracy and I agree that the people knowing each other or starting a relationship is strongly connected to the elite being crowded together quite often. Still, people will have an influence on their spouse. I can not imagine that a couple will got to work with a "By the way: I will be talking crap about you and your party on the news today." "Oh, ok, fine." There will be influence and most likely an exchange of information between the two. And that will result in biased news.

 

I think neutral sources are very hard to come by these days. Foreign sources might be slightly more neutral than the home media (especially in states where the media in your home is controlled by the state), but still other countries have an opinion about your state and as a consequence a bias in their news. A good example is the Ukrainian conflict. Depending on the news you watched Russia or the USA was depicted as a warmonger and the other party just wanted to end the conflict as quickly as possible. In this case, there was no neutral information on the subject on either side. If you want to be able to get a good picture of what's going on, you should get as many sources as possible and the truth will lie somewhere in the middle, but the problem here is, you have a flood of information and sources that makes it very hard to filter out the relevant and true parts.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a good point that recent revelations are destroying the people's trust towards the goverment... but it should INCREASE the critical thinking among the people. But looks like people are trusting more even the most outrageous claims as long as it feeds some kind of wild conspiracy theory. It makes no sense to me.

 

Also, marriage/being siblings does not automatically prove that there is a conspiracy going on. People in high places usually hang out with other people in high places and people usually marry people who they happen to hang around with. Imagine a small country like Finland: all the people who are going to be corporate elite graduate from only a few different universities. Generations of future company board members are bound to know each other already from their studying years. It is no surprise the economic elite (or the elite in general) in our country is well connected. Same for the US, right?

 

If you want neutral sources, occasionally check out what the foreign media is broadcasting about you. That is what the Russian minorities in countries neighbouring Russia do when they want to piece together what is really happening, because media is strictly under goverment control in Russia.

It's because a good percent of humans are not educated to critical thinking and they backfall to animal paranoid heuristics.

So it makes full sense ( :( )

Edited by lowenz
  • Like 1

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About "foreign media"....there's no such thing.

 

Here in Italy our "Partito Democratico" is a longa manus of american democrats (with the same tactics) and our "Lega Nord" (so much for "Nord" - north in italian, born 30 years ago to "protect" the north citizens from the central government - 'cause now it's a pseudonationalist party à la Le Pen fueled by immigration-related/induced hate) is a longa manus of Putin / russian interests in this area.....so the bias is the same, 'cause every political player now has some spin doctors manipulating the information.

 

And we've totally lost the proper "Left" (Renzi's "US democrats"-like people are liberals but liberalists and so not considered "Left" by our old standards :P )

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mainstream media were considered to be infallible

 

 

By who?

 

Biased news is not a new problem. Fox News, unapologetically biased from the start, has been around for twenty years. Fahrenheit 9/11 came out thirteen years ago and was scathing in its criticism of mainstream media. I was teaching media courses ten years ago using resources that warned about the consequences of profit-driven 24-hour news cycles.

 

Anyone who thought the mainstream media was infallible simply wasn't paying attention.

 

The problem now is that there is a certain kind of thinking that says, "Sometimes the system is wrong, therefore the system is untrustworthy, therefore I will accept whatever claims support my already held beliefs, and reject any claims that oppose them because sometimes the system is wrong...." That's a recipe for believing anything you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It used to be you'd read the news from sources on both sides, and maybe a foreign source like BBC or the Economist because, if not unbiased, they're at least independent and don't have a dog in our race, as we say. Then the nuanced truth emerges from the whole mix. You can still do that really. But a lot of people don't think that way.

 

Of course anymore I get my information directly from academic and resesrch sources like gov't, university, NGO, think tank, and UN reports. The credible ones always have the best info.

  • Like 1

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then a little man named Edward Snowden came along and exposed a vast surveillance state

conspiracy that not even the most outrageous Right Wing talk-box would have mused about

on his wildest rant.

I don't really agree, but... actually we had a succesful movie with a great scene on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw

 

But in the truth is that the United States is the only country that in over 200 years of history never had an anti-democratic drift unlike other places in the world. In spite of all the criticism (the existence and wide publication, promotion of which is proof of that transparency and democracy, a confirmation of its life). I believe in that.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biased news is not a new problem. Fox News, unapologetically biased from the start, has been around for twenty years. Fahrenheit 9/11 came out thirteen years ago and was scathing in its criticism of mainstream media. I was teaching media courses ten years ago using resources that warned about the consequences of profit-driven 24-hour news cycles.

 

Anyone who thought the mainstream media was infallible simply wasn't paying attention.

 

I watched fox news when I was young. Just because it was on and as a 14 year old I didn't know better. I think it really slowed down my understanding of the world until I got into college.

 

It all seems to have started after the cold war ended that fox news and the republicans went completely off the deep end. It's almost like this country needed an enemy like the soviets to hold it together - and now that it has no enemy like that - it turned on itself.

 

And the thing you have to remember about fox news is that misinformation is a cumulative process. Misinformed people create more misinformed people - until the respect for the truth is lost somewhere.

 

____________

 

On the topic of people who equate Hillary and Trump and say they can understand why people voted for Trump because Hillary was not a great candidate. They are just not living in the real world:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/donald_trump_is_unfit_to_be_president_here_are_141_reasons_why.html

 

Sam Harris says it pretty well I think:

 

Edited by Stepan1010
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of news sites buy their news from a single source, you can usually spot that as it has the same spelling mistakes, or other mistakes like it doesn't scan right, grammatical errors. Usually looking through a pages html source code will point to who actually sold the news, as there's usually a copyright note hidden in the text.

regardless of different reporters claiming they wrote it. Some sites don't buy it, they just copy it instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a really interesting theory that the end of the Cold War was really the start of this trend.

 

I think the practical roots were in Bush's 1992 reelection campaign when this faction in the GOP under Newt Gingrich turned on Bush with the "No new taxes" business. Then they swept congress in 1994 and went to war against the Clintons, started the gov't shut down brinkmanship, impeached Clinton, etc. That was the seed to the Tea Party uprising a generation later.

 

I think the internet revolution was an important part of mainstreaming that resentment-based uncompromising politics. But the end of the cold war did contribute some things. One, Western liberalism has kind of defined itself as a monolithic single cause for export as a kind of mirror image to revolutionary Marxism, and once the latter wasn't a serious world movement, liberalism could suddenly fragment.

 

But most interestingly, now it's openly flirting with classic Marxist style illiberal politics and there's no red flags (metaphorically speaking, heh) going up where people can't help but notice the politics is completely antithetical to our political traditions.

 

That also raises another obsevation I had. In the cold war era, it was much easier to compartmentalize radical politics outside of mainstram politics. Here we have our neo-nazis, and over here our Marxists. We're not going to imprison them for the most part, just give them a street corner where they can spew pure resentment to their heart's content, but it's never going to catch on because they're "the enemy". They're openly calling for a Nazi/Soviet style revolution or whatever.

 

Today, they're still around, but the difference is their rhetoric enters the mainstream debates as if it were one more option as good as the others, like, here's our liberals who want more protections for unions, here's our conservatives that want free trade and family values, and here's our alt-right that wants to see the US ethnically cleansed of Muslims, and our alt-left that actually welcomes the ethnic cleansing party because it will accellerate the total collapse of liberalism and our chance to see rich people actually hang for their crimes and not metaphorically, and over here we have our Rockefeller Republicans that want to see smart pro-business reforms while still respecting basic social protections, etc. Lol. If you're a voter fueled by real resentment and see corruption everywhere, the sensible party lines can't really compete with "hang the bastards".

 

People are accepting extreme resentment as if it's normal mainstream politics, but until recently it hasn't been. But I think the collapse of the cold war binary is one reason illiberal politics was able to migrate into mainstream politics so easily, and people are just taking it for granted. Of course it's a good idea to imprison our political enemies like Hillary for her vague "corruption", nevermind Trump is repeating the same alleged corruptions even worse. There's no alarmbells or red lights going off to suggest that's an alien & mad thing.

 

Most of you probably know this is really familiar to the pre-Cold War Interwar period, in central Europe especially, where it felt like fascism and marxism were the only viable alternatives, and the only thing people seemed to agree on was that the establishment was corrupt and nothing short of a resentment fueled purge would do.

 

Are we humans so falliable we can never fully drag ourselves away from our bloodlust obsession to see our enemies burn? Does it always have to come back to resentment? It's not my brand of politics, so needless to say I'm completely out of touch with everything going on viz. this populist upsurge, left and right.

  • Like 1

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we humans so falliable we can never fully drag ourselves away from our bloodlust obsession to see our enemies burn?

The solution is the DOOM's one :D

Choose as enemies the inner demons.

Edited by lowenz

Task is not so much to see what no one has yet seen but to think what nobody has yet thought about that which everybody see. - E.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of you probably know this is really familiar to the pre-Cold War Interwar period, in central Europe especially, where it felt like fascism and marxism were the only viable alternatives, and the only thing people seemed to agree on was that the establishment was corrupt and nothing short of a resentment fueled purge would do.

 

Are we humans so falliable we can never fully drag ourselves away from our bloodlust obsession to see our enemies burn? Does it always have to come back to resentment? It's not my brand of politics, so needless to say I'm completely out of touch with everything going on viz. this populist upsurge, left and right.

There is no parallel to Central, Eastern Europe in the Interwar period and modern days. Today due to most of these countries membership of NATO and EU guarantees an impossibility to drift away from democracy. Things fix themselves automatically when the state hits a certain phase of autonomous and independent work.

The danger is for Russia, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus to get back to old ways. Irreversibly.

 

I think Trump and his presidency as a major stabilizing/destabilizing factor for the world proved for the better when 90% of his team are firm, classical republicans with traditional visions shared by the party. The conspiracy theory of Trump being Moscow's man got a little too far. Ab initio a millionair can't be controllable when he's totally detached from the Russian circles. The situation is more complicated elsewhere - in Germany.

The world needs a firm resistance against delusions on a renewed Russia that miserably failed to become a democracy. Including leaders of an accordingly strong position on that.

Something that cannot be said about Merkel, Hollande and other Russian apologists with hints to forgive Russia et cetera, et cetera.

 

First things first, NATO enlargement must continue to secure that long desired peace and as a means of deterrence. No illusions should be made on the future. The bicycle will not be reinvented as fanatic Dughins yell a pseudo-Dostoievskian distorted, perverse panslavinism attempted to be imposed.

 

 

 

BS like that. That's the problem. Mixing populism with this hysteria.

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the hysteria (which I can see getting out of hand sometimes), the catch is that Trump is a total cypher. Nobody can predict his positions on anything, especially foreign policy. So people try to read into every decision. And he evidently uses that to his advantage, and I think he flirts with extreme positions to throw people off and IMO troll them. So he courts the hysteria. That's one thing.

 

It's not the 1930s of course. But I wouldn't call (m)any of the people Trump has been surrounding himself mainline Republicans in the, eg, Bush mold either. They're still part of the Tea Party insurgency that wants to oust mainline conservatives. Anyway, the uncertainty is why people go so batshit, but he knows that and could easily stop flirting with it, and instead purposefully exploits it. That's why you can still criticise him for the situation.

 

So Trump's famous Art of the Deal is to start every negotiation with the most extreme offer, and then slowly give in every little piece, loosening the screws as little as necessary to win, so all of this fits that strategy. But that's not very reassuring because 1 it's not clear what he's actually bargaining for, whose interest other than his own, or 2, how much damage he can still do applying a business brinkmanship strategy to politics (like taking the call from Taiwan's president), even if his intentions are "good".

 

I'm personally not worried about anything extreme like setting up gulag prison camps. I'm more worried that he's being irresponsible with his authority and diminishing US interests every way he can. We're being handled like a warlord handles a small irrelevant country, it feels like, which some people see is karma, but anyway it has real consequences for people.

 

All that said, somebody did walk through his statements, and pro-Russian policy is about the only position he's been consistent on, though, maybe that and anti-China. It makes it look like a weird flip of 1972, actually, where Putin (in the Nixon role) triangulates the US against China. I tend to think Putin wasn't even strategizing it, not like people have been alleging (the Siberian Candidate) and not to the extent Nixon was for China, but he's not stupid and will opportunistically take what he can get. I have to imagine he's happy with a Trump presidency. I don't know what to expect of it though. Surreal days.

  • Like 1

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a really interesting theory that the end of the Cold War was really the start of this trend.

 

It does make sense doesn't it? To some extant, the spectre of soviet resentment was resurrected in jihadi inspired terrorists when 9/11 happened. But the fragmented and relatively weak enemy of jihadi terrorism pales in comparison to the monolithic soviet enemy that united this country after WWII. So the part of our society that NEEDS an enemy they can really hate - found many new ones in their own country.
And the wealthy business owners who were "all in" against the soviets redirected their resources toward subjugating any other possible threat to their power they could find: The educated poor, the black, the muslim, liberal women, liberal elites etc. etc. Basically anyone who doesn't particularly like country music.
It is saddening to think that this is at least partially a result of human nature or maybe just the nature of American culture - to NEED an enemy to be united. What are we? Are we a country? Or just a modified version of the medieval fuedal kingdoms - looking for the next group of people to subjugate? Is that really all we are? I hope not.
The country needs a constructive goal. Something to work towards that benefits everyone and doesn't scapegoat anyone. It doesn't particularly matter what it is. It could be stopping climate change, genetic engineering, the elimination of disease, space travel, creating virtual worlds - anything beneficial to everyone. And it needs to find it quick - because another thread in the fabric of our society is already starting to come apart with the election of this demagogue(no reference to you of course).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is just an american feature that in order to unify people, a common enemy is needed. It is common for humanity as a whole.

 

I think there are three requirements for unification:

 

In order to get the whole nation unified behind a leader, you need to have something that is in the common interests of everyone: a big, concrete, simple to understand (more on that below), threat. If you do not have that, everyone are just bickering about their own petty interests, not the greater good.

 

Because appealing to reason is apparently futile when dealing with crowds of people, one must appeal to the feelings. Thus, it is difficult to unify people using difficult arguments about economy, science and numbers. A horrible baby-eating, blood drinking, enemy of the nation is a simple, yet effective method, and has been used a lot in the past, and also currently. (Nazi anti-jew propaganda before WWII, modern day populistic xenophobia in Europe, modern day NATO from the point of view of Russia's media.)

 

The third requirement is exceptional charisma of the leader, but I don't know much about that.

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putin and his circles are happy of Trump as patients from a psychiatric hospital for a new supervisor.

They have no idea about western politics. They attempt to confuse things to reap maximum profits, to extend to the maximum the borders and then ditch in apparently until a dead end. Or a revolution when those circles that brought Putin to power, understand that there is no good solution.

Up to now, the fear of Trump's pro-russiannes acutally made Congress and the current administration more engaged than ever in setting the screws for more anti-russian policies. So, in a way a Clinton win would never bring this result. Like a patient that resists medication, but in the end he'll end up getting his whole leg amputated.

 

It is very possible that The Art of The Deal actually may become the best offer for the world, seeing the increasing threat of China and Russia.

It would also be somewhat unfair at this point to accuse Trump openly of any unconfirmed rumours never set in stone on foreign policy once he didn't even step into office. And we have a little more than a month until then.

 

Unifying people is hard when the world is still so fragmented and roughly 50% of it lives either in dictatorships, authoritarian regimes or transitional, fragile democracies (with reminscence of dictatorships, nostalgia for it, with a persistent danger of going back to the first two). It takes time. Rome wasn't built in one day.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-s-r-felland-the-world-fell-asleep-1481930888

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Until the inauguration speech on 21'st. Randomly found an older statement.

 

More food for thought:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex7d-izDwzw

Edited by Anderson

"I really perceive that vanity about which most men merely prate — the vanity of the human or temporal life. I live continually in a reverie of the future. I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass."...

- 2 July 1844 letter to James Russell Lowell from Edgar Allan Poe.

badge?user=andarson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well this is what I wrote over on TTLG. It's just my first impression reading the kinds of comments coming out, eg, by high school friends. All seems so dreadfully familiar.

 

Like all populist revolutions, the hoi paloi are at first intoxicated by what they think is finally taking their country back from the corrupt elites. Then the new government comes in to demolish every check on power they can get their hands on. Then the purges and the pandering and the power grabs. This has happened so many times in history it's a wonder it's not immidiately recognizable for what it is.

 

Populist revolutions always go a bad way, left and right. The only question is whether or not one is too intoxicated to see it coming.

 

I should be more specific. Politics fueled by resentment always goes a bad way, because once the door is opened to it, resentment is an insatiable fire that doesn't let up until it sees all the icons of its humiliation burn.

 

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...