Our Socioeconomic Position is at Risk

If your use of "we" fails to make the distinctions you yourself concede exist then your use of "we" is vacuously meaningless. Is by your own admission a conflation of the term "we" for silly soundbite purposes.

Jar started out in this thread implying that all those included in his we had equal influence to shape the world they find themselves in. Follow the link above and downthread from that if you need to remind yourself of this. Now he seems prepared to acknowledge that not all have equal opportunity for influence which is a far more realistic (albeit less able to be snappily soundbited) position. A position I have been advocating throughout (e.g. Message 90) Then you simply misunderstand my motivations. I am of the unshakeable (yet rarely fulfilled) belief that no debate is over until even the most ardent adherents of a refuted or discredited position have been forced to confront the inadequacies of their position to such an extent that even they start to realise it’s failings. Furthermore when I see people making superficially profound soundbite style assertions such as "We live in the world we create" it is indeed like a red rag to a bull. I feel compelled to ask what exactly is meant by such proclamations. When I inevitably I get fobbed off with response such as it’s obvious I am further compelled to point out that far from being the seemingly profound statement the author thinks they are making it is instead so obvious as to be vacuous and inane to the point of being essentially worthless. Consider the case in point - "We live in the world we create" — If this simply means humans are responsible for creating human society or American society consists of Americans then why even go to the bother of stating such an obvious vacuity? Never mind repeating it as if it were some sort of pearl of wisdom for which we should all feel gratefully enlightened. Then his proclamation was indeed as vacuous as I feared. Pity. Jar is actually someone capable of saying interesting and meaningful things when he can actually be arsed to do so. If winning elections were the sole, or even primary route, to exerting influence on society then the idea that simply voting intelligently would ultimately achieve the society we want would have much more merit. But who votes for people like RupertMurdoch? How much power and influence does he and a few others like him possess? And once in place how do those who inherit such a skewed society break that situation?At the risk of going entirely down the Onifre style aluminium helmet wearing conspiricist route let me ask you this — In whose interests is it to keep the population at large fearful, misinformed and ignorant to the point that they genuinely believe that their interests are best served by promoting the interests of those who already possess disproportionate wealth and power?It isn’t a balanced playing field. And inane proclamations such as "We live in the world we create" do nothing but detract from even recognising the nature of the problem. Never mind resolving it.

OK. Read Message 15 (the subtitle is the clue here) and upthread from that and then tell me this is what jar meant. OK. But has anyone really argued against that at all? Said dishwasher would no doubt agree with the idea that all in society are intertwined and are responsible for the society that we have. But if you glibly tell the dishwasher that "We live in the world we create", patronisingly say Awwww if he points out that not everyone has equal influence and then tell him that that this we that shares the responsibility includes his four year old son - You might piss him off and cause him to reject your glib soundbite as overly simplistic trite drivel.(Now excuse me while I finish my dishes) Except that I specifically asked about equal influence and jar did indeed say that this what he did mean. Responsibility without power has little effect on shaping the world. And spreading responsibility so far as to be meaningless shifts it away from those with the power to actually shape the world. It isn’t a balanced playing field. And inane proclamations such as "We live in the world we create" do nothing but detract from even recognising the nature of the problem. Never mind resolving it.

Well in that sense we might just as well say that everyone is responsible for everything. Where everyone includes every member of the human race past present or future and everything includes everything humanity as a whole ever does.Or we could stop talking in soundbites and actually use terms meaningfully?

How much do you think responsibility without power can achieve with regard to changing society?Look at your answer in Message 15Do you think that the system you are leaving to future generations provides sufficient power for them to wrest back the disproportionate wealth and influence held by a tiny minority democratically and without more extreme action? Then, with this aim in mind, my advice is to cease posting pseudo-profound one line soundbites.

How?If you were them how would you do that?And why haven't you?

Then on what basis do you think they will have the democratic power to make the changes you failed to?

What was it you were saying about taking responsibility........? I question how much power that really provides in the social situation "you" have passed on. Don't go resting on your failed laurels yet old man!!! jar - "The important thing to remember is that it is only the living adults that can take responsibility".As long as you live it is your responsibility too!! More seriously - How do you suggest one goes about this in a meaningful and non-futile way? It seems kinda...hopeless..... When a small minority with power, wealth and influence exert that over information and educational opportunity in society they create a self perpetuating system don't they?How is that cycle broken? How can future generations wrest back the disproportionate wealth and influence held by a tiny minority democratically and without more extreme action?

Maybe the first step is to not take the "Aw Tough kid, you're screwed." approach to future generations?Surely short termism is one of the key problems ingrained in the current system?

OK. For once I am gonna ignore my natural inclination to pursue and leave it there.

Maybe not. But is that really the question being asked here?The question, as I see it, pertains to power and influence and the disproportionate amount of it held by a small minority.Was the decision to allow Fox to stand as a legitimate news channel really democratically made by a seething mass of the electorate who have a love of biased information?

When was that question put to the people to democratically vote on? "WE".....? "They"........?

When those who have been elected are subject to intense lobbying by those with the most wealth, power and influence how much difference does it ultimately make which individuals get elected? That is a genuine question rather than a point as such. Speak for yourself.?

And when those who do the lobbying reward those elected officials who succumb to their demands with increased funding and exposure for their future electoral campaigns.........?

Against the might of media ownership, propaganda, misinformation and an entire self perpetuating system where those with great wealth and influence implement that system to their ongoing benefit - That is a pretty tough ask. You seem to be effectively saying that "WE" will have to stop behaving in a manner that is innately human. Well obviously. Who has actually disagreed with that? Where I find your stance wholly unsatisfactory is here - Message 15Because I continue to find the idea that everyone included in your "WE" as having an equal say in shaping society by virtue of being able to vote as unrealistic in the extreme.