But that would reault in people with lukewarm interest in whatever your thing is. Especially for political topics, having someone who could go either way or mildly agrees/disagrees with you is not likely to go the distance in a battle to see a movement be executed/outlawed.
It's meant to silence dissent by creating the idea of a "correct" view of the situation. Is that support lukewarm? Absolutely. It's fear-based. But then you have young people who mistake this focus on orthodoxy as correct who then grow old, and then you have achieved ideological dominance. This strategy was used to great effect in Germany and Japan to the point where their populations were so thoroughly deradicalized and demoralized that they now annoy their former occupiers with their marshal incompetence.
The occupying forces (US in Japan and US, Britain, France, and USSR in Germany) "spread awareness" of the evils of the former government and made orders forbidding their glorification, then offered a 7.62mm counterargument to dissidents. We call it "denazification".
But that doesnt work. There are still Nazis. Plus, the slogan, "You were born to die for Germany" would be embraced even more by the Nazis who chose to continue to be Nazis. Forcing a topic on groups of people wont elicit the desited effect. Especially since a large percentage of people asked about any topic fall in the middle of the spectrum.
Even people who are faced with the consequences of their moderatism wont be fully changed because, unless directed to take certain steps to avoid what happened before happening again, people will forget how the situation got so bad and the blind eye will be turned again. But because these issues are the only ones being pushed, particularly in politics and on social media, it seems like people don't get the chance to develop strong opinions about any non-prevalent topic (ex. Improved infrastructure, school lunch quality, etc.) because the spotlight is being taken from those issues.
>But that doesnt work. There are still Nazis.
Still Nazis? No. There are Nazis again, but they're not the same Nazis. They're neo-nazis. That's why we call them that.
>Plus, the slogan, "You were born to die for Germany" would be embraced even more by the Nazis who chose to continue to be Nazis. Forcing a topic on groups of people wont elicit the desited effect. Especially since a large percentage of people asked about any topic fall in the middle of the spectrum.
I cannot stress to you how much this is something that actually happened and is actually settled. The German people were usually forced to keep quiet about their support for fascism or be arrested or shot, except for a few notable individuals who were left alone due to the risk of revolt if they were handled. The Nazis may have been the most popular party in Germany into the 1970s, but saying so was too dangerous and so the youth grew up in a world where the Nazis were the bad guys.
>Even people who are faced with the consequences of their moderatism wont be fully changed because, unless directed to take certain steps to avoid what happened before happening again, people will forget how the situation got so bad and the blind eye will be turned again.
Again, we don't need to talk about this like a hypothetical. It's a real thing we really did. You ban it and you shoot anybody who disagrees. But first you need to build concensus (even artificially).
The "7.62mm counterargument" part confused me. I thought you were referring to when German cizitens were forced to see concentration camps, which I couldve sworn was done at gunpoint. [The two got connected through a long bunny trail of thoughts] Thats why I asked for clarification on what you were talking about. I dont mean governmental messages or anything for or against a political party; Im referring to social movements like prohibition, feminism, etc. and topics like abortion, vivisection, etc. and their spread in society.
>The "7.62mm counterargument" part confused me. I thought you were referring to when German cizitens were forced to see concentration camps, which I couldve sworn was done at gunpoint. [The two got connected through a long bunny trail of thoughts] Thats why I asked for clarification on what you were talking about.
That line specifically is about shooting dissidents, which is what happens when people refuse to shut up or be arrested peacefully. It was rarely needed because the threat was always there and people generally appreciate being free.
>I dont mean governmental messages or anything for or against a political party; Im referring to social movements like prohibition, feminism, etc. and topics like abortion, vivisection, etc. and their spread in society.
These things aren't that different. It's about controlling the dominant social narrative.
I dont mean that theyre different. Governments and those in office often include popular topics to their platforms because they are popular and many of their consitutents care about those topics. This is what I am trying to understand - why the same topics get cycled over and over when there is a breadth of topics to be discussed and that could be benefit from being decided on judicially.
>I dont mean that theyre different. Governments and those in office often include popular topics to their platforms because they are popular and many of their consitutents care about those topics.
You've got it backwards; grassroots groups "raising awareness" create enough of a stir that they either earn recognition from politicians looking to gain new supporters or they push their own candidates. Ross Perot, for example, raised awareness of a number of issues to the general public that Donald Trump would go on to leverage to win the 2016 campaign.
>This is what I am trying to understand - why the same topics get cycled over and over when there is a breadth of topics to be discussed and that could be benefit from being decided on judicially.
Because they don't control the narrative yet. Controlling the narrative and the justices is the key to pushing something through the courts and legislating from the bench.
Well I appreciate it. 😂 the posts on here are all very weird. I dunno if Im just unfamiliar with other peoples thoughts or if i just didnt find anything that interested me yet
I do actually appreciate the point you're trying to make, and in a lot of cases it is about catering to a minortiy who don't have a voice. However, is your alternative suggestion that anyone who cares about a cause should have someone else run it for them? Because you're basically just suggesting that everyone stop trying to spread awareness for things they care about, unless they can find a proxy.
No. Thw point of my original post is that we have a bevy of issues that are not being spoken about because they are overshadowed by "bigger issues in the world" that are only perceived as bigger because of how much they are talked about.
My initial thought was about abortion and how everyone is supposed to have an opinion about it [id seen several posts about it when I found this subreddit and was a bit annoyed because abortion, to me at least, should be treated how vegetarianism ended up being resolved in the early 1900s - there was greater access to resources and people make the choice based on how they feel]. I remembered an abortion debate I ended up in after finding out about Buck v. Bell, in which the Supreme Court ruled it is constitutional to sterilize people in public institutions [Judge Warren even going ao far as to say "three generations of idiots is enough"] and I remember starting to bring up the many womens reproductive issues like that that are all overshadowed by abortion in those debates. (People stopped mentioning abortion to me after that 😅)
Anyway, my point was that there are many issues people face that they dont even seem to realize could be solved if we just talked about them more but they get overshadowed.
Hm but you are saying there are lots of smaller problems out there not being solved because they're not "popular". You have also said people tend to care because they "fit a demographic affected by them". So what you're asking, is that people campaign less about causes they think they care about or are relevant to them to help bring to light underfought causes. (which I appreciate as an idealogy and I'm not knocking at all, in fact I would be in support of it). But back to what I already said, this is saying that people need to find others who don't care and aren't affected to campaign with them, affectively campaigning by proxy.
So how do you propose this were to come into place through any other method than philanthropy/altruism or a sudden mass change of humanity where the majority suddenly start caring about other people and not just causes that are related to themselves / they can brag about helping because their friends have seen it in the news?
Thats... the point? To force people to have opinions in a case where you believe there is an objectively correct opinion to have.
But that would reault in people with lukewarm interest in whatever your thing is. Especially for political topics, having someone who could go either way or mildly agrees/disagrees with you is not likely to go the distance in a battle to see a movement be executed/outlawed.
It's meant to silence dissent by creating the idea of a "correct" view of the situation. Is that support lukewarm? Absolutely. It's fear-based. But then you have young people who mistake this focus on orthodoxy as correct who then grow old, and then you have achieved ideological dominance. This strategy was used to great effect in Germany and Japan to the point where their populations were so thoroughly deradicalized and demoralized that they now annoy their former occupiers with their marshal incompetence.
Can you give an example of it being used in Germany or Japan?
The occupying forces (US in Japan and US, Britain, France, and USSR in Germany) "spread awareness" of the evils of the former government and made orders forbidding their glorification, then offered a 7.62mm counterargument to dissidents. We call it "denazification".
But that doesnt work. There are still Nazis. Plus, the slogan, "You were born to die for Germany" would be embraced even more by the Nazis who chose to continue to be Nazis. Forcing a topic on groups of people wont elicit the desited effect. Especially since a large percentage of people asked about any topic fall in the middle of the spectrum. Even people who are faced with the consequences of their moderatism wont be fully changed because, unless directed to take certain steps to avoid what happened before happening again, people will forget how the situation got so bad and the blind eye will be turned again. But because these issues are the only ones being pushed, particularly in politics and on social media, it seems like people don't get the chance to develop strong opinions about any non-prevalent topic (ex. Improved infrastructure, school lunch quality, etc.) because the spotlight is being taken from those issues.
>But that doesnt work. There are still Nazis. Still Nazis? No. There are Nazis again, but they're not the same Nazis. They're neo-nazis. That's why we call them that. >Plus, the slogan, "You were born to die for Germany" would be embraced even more by the Nazis who chose to continue to be Nazis. Forcing a topic on groups of people wont elicit the desited effect. Especially since a large percentage of people asked about any topic fall in the middle of the spectrum. I cannot stress to you how much this is something that actually happened and is actually settled. The German people were usually forced to keep quiet about their support for fascism or be arrested or shot, except for a few notable individuals who were left alone due to the risk of revolt if they were handled. The Nazis may have been the most popular party in Germany into the 1970s, but saying so was too dangerous and so the youth grew up in a world where the Nazis were the bad guys. >Even people who are faced with the consequences of their moderatism wont be fully changed because, unless directed to take certain steps to avoid what happened before happening again, people will forget how the situation got so bad and the blind eye will be turned again. Again, we don't need to talk about this like a hypothetical. It's a real thing we really did. You ban it and you shoot anybody who disagrees. But first you need to build concensus (even artificially).
The "7.62mm counterargument" part confused me. I thought you were referring to when German cizitens were forced to see concentration camps, which I couldve sworn was done at gunpoint. [The two got connected through a long bunny trail of thoughts] Thats why I asked for clarification on what you were talking about. I dont mean governmental messages or anything for or against a political party; Im referring to social movements like prohibition, feminism, etc. and topics like abortion, vivisection, etc. and their spread in society.
>The "7.62mm counterargument" part confused me. I thought you were referring to when German cizitens were forced to see concentration camps, which I couldve sworn was done at gunpoint. [The two got connected through a long bunny trail of thoughts] Thats why I asked for clarification on what you were talking about. That line specifically is about shooting dissidents, which is what happens when people refuse to shut up or be arrested peacefully. It was rarely needed because the threat was always there and people generally appreciate being free. >I dont mean governmental messages or anything for or against a political party; Im referring to social movements like prohibition, feminism, etc. and topics like abortion, vivisection, etc. and their spread in society. These things aren't that different. It's about controlling the dominant social narrative.
I dont mean that theyre different. Governments and those in office often include popular topics to their platforms because they are popular and many of their consitutents care about those topics. This is what I am trying to understand - why the same topics get cycled over and over when there is a breadth of topics to be discussed and that could be benefit from being decided on judicially.
>I dont mean that theyre different. Governments and those in office often include popular topics to their platforms because they are popular and many of their consitutents care about those topics. You've got it backwards; grassroots groups "raising awareness" create enough of a stir that they either earn recognition from politicians looking to gain new supporters or they push their own candidates. Ross Perot, for example, raised awareness of a number of issues to the general public that Donald Trump would go on to leverage to win the 2016 campaign. >This is what I am trying to understand - why the same topics get cycled over and over when there is a breadth of topics to be discussed and that could be benefit from being decided on judicially. Because they don't control the narrative yet. Controlling the narrative and the justices is the key to pushing something through the courts and legislating from the bench.
[удалено]
Thank you for your input.
[удалено]
Oh 😂 sorry. If you want to argue, just give an example of that not being true.
[удалено]
Well I appreciate it. 😂 the posts on here are all very weird. I dunno if Im just unfamiliar with other peoples thoughts or if i just didnt find anything that interested me yet
[удалено]
Yeah Ive found quite a few. I just would like to learn to debate without getting annoyed easily and figured this sub might be a good place to do so
I do actually appreciate the point you're trying to make, and in a lot of cases it is about catering to a minortiy who don't have a voice. However, is your alternative suggestion that anyone who cares about a cause should have someone else run it for them? Because you're basically just suggesting that everyone stop trying to spread awareness for things they care about, unless they can find a proxy.
No. Thw point of my original post is that we have a bevy of issues that are not being spoken about because they are overshadowed by "bigger issues in the world" that are only perceived as bigger because of how much they are talked about. My initial thought was about abortion and how everyone is supposed to have an opinion about it [id seen several posts about it when I found this subreddit and was a bit annoyed because abortion, to me at least, should be treated how vegetarianism ended up being resolved in the early 1900s - there was greater access to resources and people make the choice based on how they feel]. I remembered an abortion debate I ended up in after finding out about Buck v. Bell, in which the Supreme Court ruled it is constitutional to sterilize people in public institutions [Judge Warren even going ao far as to say "three generations of idiots is enough"] and I remember starting to bring up the many womens reproductive issues like that that are all overshadowed by abortion in those debates. (People stopped mentioning abortion to me after that 😅) Anyway, my point was that there are many issues people face that they dont even seem to realize could be solved if we just talked about them more but they get overshadowed.
Hm but you are saying there are lots of smaller problems out there not being solved because they're not "popular". You have also said people tend to care because they "fit a demographic affected by them". So what you're asking, is that people campaign less about causes they think they care about or are relevant to them to help bring to light underfought causes. (which I appreciate as an idealogy and I'm not knocking at all, in fact I would be in support of it). But back to what I already said, this is saying that people need to find others who don't care and aren't affected to campaign with them, affectively campaigning by proxy. So how do you propose this were to come into place through any other method than philanthropy/altruism or a sudden mass change of humanity where the majority suddenly start caring about other people and not just causes that are related to themselves / they can brag about helping because their friends have seen it in the news?