Welcome to the php ebenezer's messageboard
see bottom for more info


back to main board collapse thread
Speaking up (11/08/18 19:04:50) Reply
    Censorship is a polymorphic beast. The classical censor is reading paper letters and deleting forbidden words. Feynman has a nice chapter on that one. Same with newspapers during WWII in both occupied territories and Goebbels' mainland.

    These days, speaking truth to power is a risky sport if done early in the career. The outspoken people are typically near the end of their careers - or retired with a non-revocable pension. So self-censorship applies.

    Even criminal activities towards innocents may be dangerous to report or speak loudly about.

    " "Predators rely on community protection to silence victims and keep them in power. Far too often, our commitment to our political party, our religious group, our sport, our college or a prominent member of our community causes us to choose to disbelieve or to turn away from the victim. Far too often, it feels easier and safer to see only what we want to see. Fear of jeopardizing some overarching political, religious, financial or other ideology — or even just losing friends or status — leads to willful (sic) ignorance of what is right in front of our own eyes, in the shape and form of innocent and vulnerable children.""

    The point is: If you speak up - expect that nobody will speak up for you and that punishment will fall heavily on you. make worst-case scenarios - and be warned that your imagination will not live up to the real world.

Re: Speaking up (16/08/18 14:39:15) Reply
    Yesterday I was at the Roger Waters (ex Pink Floyd) concert. The Us And Them Tour - motto: Resist.

    Like his opinions or not - his campaigning gave me a nice contrast to The Tweeter Whose Name Does Not Deserve Mentioning.

    And a local children's choir.


    (from 2:43)

 (18/08/18 20:16:25) Reply
    e: "In these days of the easily offended I wish to say something offensive - so those easily offended must stop right here." - [http://www.ebmb.de/http/mbs/board.php?sort=&num=1531985220&thread=1531985220]

    As you can see, I am forbidden from commenting.
    Far worse, you addressed only those that are "easily offended" like pterodactyls.
    You failed to address those that find a flaw with your reasoning.

    Hope you enjoyed the show and that you heard exactly what you expected to.
    After all, no reason to actually challenge your "world view"...

    When I dropped you a mail concerning my better half leaving me, you assumed something.
    In fact your assumption was dead wrong.
    Think about it...
    None of us are as smart as they pretend...

    Didn't get it? No worries, its all good...

 (18/08/18 20:53:47) Reply
    Social critic Neil Postman contrasted the worlds of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World in the foreword of his 1985 book Amusing Ourselves to Death.
    He writes:
    What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
    What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
    Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.
    Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.
    Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
    Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
    Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.
    Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
    As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."
    In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain.
    In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
    In short, Orwell feared that our fear will ruin us.
    Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

 (18/08/18 20:56:02) Reply
    Notice that none of them concerned themselves with what books one reads...

Corruption as the ultimate mover (29/08/18 06:26:49) Reply
    Reading Frankopan's Silk Roads and Harari's Sapiens have given me an entirely new view on history. Suddenly the shells fell from my eyes: History - the long lines of history with its struggles and wars:-The old history books presented them as ideological or economic conflicts or just presented the physical facts. No real analysis. Of course - a real analysis with honest words would be feeding the revolutionaries with arguments, so the (extended) cold wars prevented both the thinking and the presentation of facts that really only were signs of what we now call corruption.

    Fast forward to today. I'll just share a link.


come again

messageboard's PHP script is a courtesy of Laurent

 This board has been visited 252500 timesCurrent time is 10/08/22 12:03:30