[Govannon]

>but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it. Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. Because of the whole voting/paying attention/holding elected officials accountable thing. The Federal Government is representative of our collective ability to do that well, plus our historic ability to do that well I suppose.

[jnbiche]

> Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that.

I'll accept the blame for spending so many years falling for the two-party system. For that I'll take my blame.

But for voting for candidates who turned out to be nothing like they presented themselves? Who outright and repeatedly lied during election season? (and here I'm talking about more than just the presidential level) I'm a reasonably intelligent, well-informed, and fairly skeptical citizen. If, in my idealism, I have fallen for political tricksters, then how can I blame my fellow citizens for doing the same?

In fact, with respect to the "well-informed" part, it was only when I completely stopped consuming mainstream media news that I was finally able to see through all the bullshit with some clarity.

I think most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of our leaders. After all, we don't typically blame the secretary for a corporation's failure, right? In principle, that blame goes to the CEO, and s/he gets booted out.

[webjprgm]

Booted out by whom? The board of directors votes. Well, that is We the People who have to vote in this case.

[jnbiche]

> Well, that is We the People who have to vote in this case.

Well, you go on and boot out the current incumbents, and then vote in the next wave, and see what happens.

[tracker1]

Which is why, for the next decade, I will not vote for any incumbent, or successive seating of a political figure in any office that I vote for... No repeat... no return... I encourage everyone to do the same.. ignore party, and policy... simply don't vote for anyone who's running for re-election for anything, or for that matter looking to seat switch, where term limits are imposed.

After a decade, the shakeout from the real source of many of the problems (follow the money) would be in such disarray, that maybe then we can talk about fixing the system.

[soperj]

Booted. That's a laugh. They get paid handsomely to leave.

[jnbiche]

> That's a laugh. They get paid handsomely to leave.

Fair enough. I was trying to make an analogy about the leaders being held responsible. If you can think of a better one, I'll change it.

That said, I can tell you from personal experience (as seen in a friend) that nearly any corporate executive who gets booted by the board or CEO will be tremendously bruised and hurt by the ordeal. Yeah, it's a punishment most of us would bear for a x million dollar retirement/severance package, but it's still no walk in the park.

[soperj]

hahaha. I think most people would take those problems any day. Sorry your buddy had his feelings hurt.

[jnbiche]

Wow, have you ever been fired? In this day and age when we see successful people in the tech industry dealing with suicide and depression on a regular basis due to work-related issues, that's a pretty insensitive attitude to have.

For the record, my friend was a C-level executive but not CEO, did not get a multi-million dollar severance (less than a million), and for someone who based his entire identity on his job and company, it was a very serious blow that sent him into major depression and alcoholism.

Also, since you seem to be a judgmental kind of person and may have formed an incorrect impression of my background in your mind, I should add that I don't share my friend's financial success. I'm not a successful executive. In fact, I'm struggling financially at the moment.

But despite my personal struggles, I'm able to look past the numbers in someone's bank account and realize that we're all humans in the end, and just because someone has more money than me doesn't mean they're not worthy of compassion.

That said, if you were just trolling, you got me good. hahaha, that's a laugh.

[Can_Not]

> For the record, my friend was a C-level executive but not CEO, did not get a multi-million dollar severance (less than a million), and for someone who based his entire identity on his job and company, it was a very serious blow that sent him into major depression and alcoholism.

If that happened to me, I would be starting at least one new business (or help a friend start one financially), buying my first house, buying the tacos with steak instead of beef, starting at least one long awaited personal project. The idea that somebody could have so much more than me and do so little with it is depressing.

[soperj]

I have, they didn't give me a red cent after firing me. Also the majority of people in this world have trouble eating day to day. I could probably live the rest of my life on less than a million and never have to work again, so I don't really feel a whole lot of pity for a guy that I don't know, getting paid more than the vast majority will make in a life time simply because he was fired.

[tar_z]

what do you consume then?

[jnbiche]

I talk to people, online and off. Like this.

After a ~5 year period of strictly avoiding mainstream media, I do now occasionally read non-political stories from Times, Wapo, Wall St Journal, etc, but I'm very cautious and aware of potential biases when I'm doing so. And I limit my total consumption of those sources to a few stories a week.

[ekianjo]

> Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that

Maybe as a nation if you consider that the term makes any sense, but for the most part this has started to happen before most Americans alive today were born. Like always there is not a single date in History where you can pinpoint a decisive moment where the Constitution was destroyed, it's been a progressive and "death by thousands cuts" kind of thing.

[rm_-rf_slash]

I would argue that date was in 1917, when President Wildon founded the Committee on Public Information to sell WWI to Americans. The committee then hired Edward Bernays, who was struck by the ability for war to motivate people, and used his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories on psychoanalysis to contrive ways to get people to do or buy things they normally wouldn't.

The stunning success of psychologically tuned propaganda taught generations of political masterminds how to not only rile up the public to make big changes, but to structure society as a disconnected atomized collection of individuals too caught up with their own lives and consumerism to seriously challenge the powers that be. From then on, it becomes easier and easier to circumvent the constitution and even basic ethics because people are less likely to care for longer than a news cycle.

[mindslight]

What about 1861, when the mutual agreement of the Constitution was reinterpreted as an inescapable suicide pact? I don't think there's necessarily a specific turning point - it seems a long line of gradual erosion.

[rm_-rf_slash]

It's all about how you read your history. You could just as easily point to the amendments expanding voting rights to men without property, then freed slaves, then women, and so on, as an aberration of the founders' original design.

I prefer to look at it through the lens of propaganda because it marked the beginning of an era when big changes in culture and society can be reliably made through subtle manipulation instead of conquest or impassioned public debate.

[mindslight]

What's your constructive result (as opposed to reactive/condemning) of that characterization?

To me, propaganda is just a result of mass media, which itself is a result of the longer trend of advancing of communication technology. It's impossible to oppress someone who is not in your "light cone", or to control actions which are below your limit of resolving.

In the past things weren't as developed, so it was easier to circumvent a model that was less reflective of reality. But going forward, I feel the quest for individual freedom entirely comes down to information architectures.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Not just mass media.

In Bernays' Propaganda, he describes a new process to sell pianos based on psychoanalysis rather than traditional big-print advertisements.

Essentially, get leading architects to incorporate "music rooms" into their residential designs. Most architects will follow the greats and add music rooms as well. The average homeowner will then walk into the hardware store someday and notice a piano for sale - another Bernays innovation - and think to themselves that the idea to buy a piano was theirs all along. In fact, this all could have been done before the invention of the radio, maybe even the telegraph.

Propaganda itself is neither good nor evil. We must accept that biases and manipulable aspects are a part of all of us. We have to work with them, or ignore them at our peril.

One of Bernays' biggest early arguments pro-propaganda was that if the business and political elite don't figure it out now, someone else down the line will, and they'll use it to take you down. We as a species will have to consider this with every generation until Homo sapiens goes extinct.