Enough folk misunderstanding and/or neglecting truth is all it takes.

A deliberate abuse of language is a good sign of knowing better. That's worse than not.

So Cava, what sense does it make to just sit back and allow the legitimate bribery of American government?

I mean, what sense does it make to just sit back and allow unelected citizens of any country to have a more powerful 'freedom' of speech than an average American citizen? Ahem... 'Citizens' United...

What sense does it make to allow influential access to American politics on the one hand, but deny it on the other?

What sense does it make to allow lobbyists who are paid by wealthy groups to write legislation that effect/affect those groups, particularly when it involves a conflict of interest between those groups and the average American citizen?

What sense does it make to declare the US Constitution the law which governs the government, but not enforce all of the different pre-cautions put in place to avoid people abusing the powers?

When one writes the rules that govern their own behaviour, without oversight, there can be no balance of power. Much like some hereabout show themselves to be bad actors, we should take every measure possible to ensure that should a bad actor gain power, there is a legal recourse to remove them from office...

There was a thread recently about the social construction of reality. Utter balls, of course.

Except that there is a reality to social construction, as Searle showed.

Some facts are so because that's the way things are. Some are so because that's the way we treat them. So an Australian $5 is made of plastic. That will be the case regardless of what one says. But that is it worth $5 is down to fiat.

Brute vs. social facts, borrowing Searle's terms.

Brute facts stay the same regardless of what you say about them. Social facts, not so much.

So a bullshitter will be able to get away with far more when bullshitting about social facts than when bullshitting about brute facts. Brute facts will come back and bite his arse.

I see no necessity that a post-truth society must fail. — StreetlightX

A society in which brute facts (using Searle's terminology, see my last post)) are ignored will almost inevitably fail. Brute facts are unforgiving.

A society that ignores social facts? Social facts function because we make them function. If social facts are subject to too much flux, they fail. If they are denied, they fail.

At best, denial of social facts might lead to social change.

One is reminded of a quote from one of Dubya's unnamed associates regarding this as well, speaking to a group of journalists: "[you journalists are part of the] ... reality-based community... people who believe that decisions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.... That’s not the way the world works anymore.... We’re [i.e., the United States] an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will— we’ll act again, creating other realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — StreetlightX

Good quote.

I think it worth noting that for all his shenanigans, Caligula had less of an historical impact on the world than a handful of Jewish rabble writing about a friend of theirs, at around about the same time.

Not that I have any great love of the good news. It's just that there is something self-serving in Dubya's unnamed associates arrogance.

So Cava, what sense does it make to just sit back and allow the legitimate bribery of American government?

The US Constitution includes the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.", this is the basis for the legitimacy of lobbying in the US. The following from Wikipedia:

The right to petition government for redress of grievances is the right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, one's government, without fear of punishment or reprisals. The Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ensures the right to petition to the European Parliament.[1] The right can be traced back to the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany,[2] the Bill of Rights 1689, the Petition of Right (1628), and Magna Carta (1215).

I think these rules need to be revisited, updated. I doubt the intent of the makers was to allow the time and expenses involved in Lobbying in the 21st Century. There is a sense to Lobbying when the government's bureaucracy (almost a government in itself) creates needless barriers, but I don't think people who crafted the "right of petition" envisioned the way 21st Century Lobbying has evolved.

Unfortunately I doubt that it will be revisited or updated. There are too many Lobbyists who would fight any such change.

Good — Banno

Reminds me of what Steinbeck said about critics, that they're like eunuchs gathered around the marriage bed to watch a whole man perform the act of creation.

Reminds me of what Steinbeck said about critics, that they're like eunuchs gathered around the marriage bed to watch a whole man perform the act of creation. — Srap Tasmaner

Could you unpack this?

It's always been that way...

It's always been that way...

It's always been that way...

That's the pattern folks. — creativesoul

It's worth visiting, though. Why the expectation of truth? Why not just expect smoke-blowing and obfuscation. Ignoring the value of these strategies would be to ignore brute facts.

Mill... my favorite pragmatist...

It's not that bad actors shouldn't be expected Mongrel. It's that when enough members of the society do not understand what truth is and how it works, neither the problems nor the solutions will be realized...

It's not that bad actors shouldn't be expected Mongrel. It's that when enough members of the society do not understand what truth is and how it works, neither the problems nor the solutions will be realized... — creativesoul

Seems that would be a self-correcting problem. Society-X can't settle on whether shooting yourself in the head is dangerous or not. Society-X is now gone.

Amazing insight. And that's what the OP is supposed to be about. That is bullshit.

Where is busycuttingcrap? We have some crap to cut.

It's that when enough members of the society do not understand what truth is and how it works, neither the problems nor the solutions will be realized... — creativesoul

Maybe because the truth isn't understandable like how it's a Wednesday at noon?

What do you think?

A society in which brute facts (using Searle's terminology, see my last post)) are ignored will almost inevitably fail. Brute facts are unforgiving. — Banno

Societies don't fail. They grow and evolve. Many features of contemporary human society are around 60,000 years old.

You have mentioned in this thread that you see Trump as a sign that the US will presently lose its influence in the world. I pointed out to you that he was elected, in part, because he was seen as an alternative to Clinton, who was expected to try to maintain the US's standing as if the Cold War is still going on.

So.. what you describe as failure of the US would be considered by many Americans to be success. By and large, the US doesn't want to be an empire. There's no percentage in it.

Good
— Banno

Reminds me of what Steinbeck said about critics, that they're like eunuchs gathered around the marriage bed to watch a whole man perform the act of creation.

Critics actually watch/read/listen to acts of creation for their own acts of creation. As Wilde put it, artists look at the world and infuse it into their Art; critics look at Art and infuse it into their own.

Samuel Johnson, Kenneth Burke, Paul De Man, Roland Barthes, Leslie Fielder et al were hardly "eunuchs."

You have mentioned in this thread that you see Trump as a sign that the US will presently lose its influence in the world. I pointed out to you that he was elected, in part, because he was seen as an alternative to Clinton, who was expected to try to maintain the US's standing as if the Cold War is still going on.

So.. what you describe as failure of the US would be considered by many Americans to be success. By and large, the US doesn't want to be an empire. There's no percentage in it.

Well said. For Hillary, keeping American influence in the world meant voting for the disastrous Iraq war, toppling the Libyan government and pushing a coup in Honduras (both with disastrous) results, making the horrendous crucifying/stoning/beheading Saudi Arabia our main Arab ally and weapons trade partner, and pushing a disastrous war in Syria (even pushing a dangerous no-fly zone) which has led to growth of ISIS in the area just as it has done in Libya.

That is not positive "influence" in the world. It is corporate imperialism that would have led to millions more dead in those area and billions to trillions more paid for those killings to no profit to the average American citizen. So, Trump has been a domestic disaster and a foreign policy joke, but he hasn't cost us "positive" influence that Hillary would have brought. Again, we would all be better if the DNC didn't rig the primary against Sanders and he was our president.

US doesn't want to be an empire — Mongrel

LOOOOOOOL! >:O >:O

Again, we would all be better if the DNC didn't rig the primary against Sanders and he was our president. — Thanatos Sand

Oh yeah, old grandfather commie Sanders, who doesn't know two bobs of economics, as American President would have been great!

Oh yeah, old grandfather commie Sanders, who doesn't know two bobs of economics, as American President would have been great!

Augustino, you are really talented at showing how you really shouldn't speak at all. "Two bobs of economics" is so exemplary of that...:)

It's a metaphor.

noun
1.
a short, jerky motion:

Also bob can refer to a small mechanical part.

"a dangling or terminal object, as the weight on a pendulum or a plumb line."

His knowledge of economics is like a short, jerky motion - like a small mechanical part -
basically nonexistant and faulty.

And you just did it again. Priceless...:)

Sorry, Aug, I'm only going to be responding to those who actually say something from now on.

Have a good one.

Well said back at you. Except I think the DNC probably thought Sanders was unlikely to win due to being too far left. They underestimated how much Americans dislike and distrust Clinton.

That's possible, but I think the main reasons were twofold:

1. Hillary was a huge, powerful member of the DNC and she and the DNC had decided it was her "turn," particularly after how furious she was at Obama running against and beating her. And they did underestimate how unlikable--and how poor a campaigner--she was.

2. The DNC and Democrats have become so conservative, corporatist, and greatly tied to the Banks and corporate donors--including fracking companies--that they didn't want a progressive like Sanders to threaten all the money they've been making and promises they've made.

In some ways its hard to tell the parties apart.

In too many ways....

SX's quote immediately stuck me as being another tune from the same macho hymnal: we real men are making history and you pansies just study and analyze what real men like us do (probably wearing horn-rimmed glasses and sitting comfortably in an ivory tower).

It's just hard for me to imagine Steinbeck saying that... he's such a sweetheart in his books. Who knows what the real guy was like.