Posted by:
Lot's Wife
(
)
Date: July 18, 2019 04:06PM
> Our era is "post-facial" for multifarious reasons;
> but not least of which because, one, craven,
> corrupt elites have lied and lied and lied.
You say that there was/is an order that is informed by lies. That is true. The lies conceal the facts. That is why more lies, more disavowal not just of facts but of the utility of facts is so horribly wrong. There are people here who frequently say things about race or women or politics and then assert that no one has the right to challenge their views because all views are equal regardless of those facts. That is the attitude of people who want social and political powers to insist upon a certain "reality;" it is the basis of totalitarianism.
---------------
> People have noticed. Their greed seems boundless,
> as does their heedlessness, and their lack of care
> for people and the environment is felt in the
> everyday lives of almost everybody. But also, the
> very institutions that are tasked to hold Power to
> account, and to offset Power's ill consequences,
> have failed, utterly. People simply do not
> believe the elites and the institutions designed
> to keep the elites in check. Nor should they.
I don't believe any elites should be liberated from responsibility for facts. My point is actually that those who hold power (the old elite or the new elite or any future elite) must never receive license against factual accountability. Ten years ago I would never have thought that the country would enter a period in which people and politicians prevented the release of facts on climate change simply because they didn't like those facts, refused to abide by existing legal and constitutional norms simply because they were inconvenient, etc. Yet that is where we are. Some of those with power globally, and some with influence in our community, insist on certain things and seek to crush opposition as illegitimate even when that opposition stands on firm factual ground.
------------------
> So it is for good and obvious reasons that people
> are trying to form their own opinions.
Absolutely. And it is conversely wrong when the powerful tell people that they are not free to form their own opinions--or that facts are irrelevant to the discussion. No one should enjoy factual unaccountability; no one should be able to shut down debate by saying facts don't matter.
----------------------------
> What "anybody" calls "the freedom to believe and
> act as they please without being held to account"
> is the natural desire to be free from the lies and
> cons of the elite, and free from the Institutions
> that would rather bully everyday people than to
> hold Power to account.
That is not at all what she was saying. She is arguing in favor of free speech and the freedom to challenge beliefs, without apology, under the same constitutional freedom. She was saying that a new elite, if you will, is insisting that their views and policies are totally okay even if they are factually untrue. Anyone was saying that when authorities shut down factual analysis, they become totalitarian. She, as I, criticizes the bully you describe and anyone else who wants to shut down "reality" in order to win a debate.
-----------------
> When you use the word "rebel" in, "when people
> rebel against science and logic and order" you
> leave out why people feel it necessary to rebel.
> It's not because they have embraced "unadulterated
> emotion", an overstatement at best, but because
> people have noticed that "science" lies and cheats
> them, "logic" is used to cheat and bully them, and
> "order" is used to shut them up and keep them in
> their place. The emotion is justified.
So you are saying that the emotional impulse should free a person from facts? My view is that facts are the tool with which one challenges an abusive power structure and that "escaping" from facts is simply obscurantism. And yes, if they "rebel against science and logic and order," people are acting on emotion, they are seeking a post-reality world, and they are the soil from whom totalitarianism arises. Why? Because if there are no facts, one can create and enforce whatever system one wants.
Science and facts are what liberate me from the errors of others, what saves others from my errors. They are the closest thing we can get to objective "truth." It is NEVER a good idea personally, as in Mormonism; or politically, as in demogogic movements, to surrender the importance of demonstrable facts.
-----------------
> And then on top of it all, you satirize the
> people's legitimate emotions and place them all
> beyond "reconciliation". You believe people,
> *those* people, are beyond conversation. In other
> words, you ape the very attitudes Power and the
> failed Institutions of our era have towards
> everyday people.
I disagree. My target in this instance was those who believe astrology leads to truth. If they insist on such a proposition, which means emotion is as valid, if not more so, than facts, there is no foundation for dialogue. For every fact elicits another statement of faith, usually counter-factual faith. I have no desire to shut such people up for the simple reason that their analysis reveals its own flaws. There is no reconciliation because the prophets of ignorance won't accept factual analysis, but most observers will walk away from that conversation with a wry smile on their faces.
I am merely stating that those who embrace ignorance won't ever reconcile with those who demand facts. I add that freedom of speech is a blessing insofar as it allows the willfully ignorant to discredit themselves. I tell no one to shut up: I merely assert that both sides should be legitimate targets of verbal critique. And I predict that until the irrationalists develop an interest in empirical facts, debate without reconciliation is all that one can hope for.
---------------------
> If we limit ourselves to the failing neo-liberal
> order of the past 40 or so years, step by step by
> step it can be shown that elites have grown
> bolder, greedier and more reckless *precisely*
> because no one holds them to account. Not once.
> As a consequence, the planet and its people have
> suffered.
Would it surprise you if I said that I agree with almost all of that?
---------
> We are where we are NOT because all of a sudden
> people have grown more irrational and emotional
> than some other time.
Here I disagree. The understandable reaction to what you described in your previous paragraph has been a burst of irrationalism and emotionalism. Historically this often happens; it is a dangerous time because such, again understandable, emotional impulse often leads to bad outcomes--often even worse than the flawed original system.
----------------
> We are where we are because
> elites have withdrawn an emotional connection to
> the planet and to the people, and have mindlessly
> pursued their "logic" no matter the consequences
> and no matter how faulty their premises have been
> shown to be.
I agree.
---------------------
> They continue on this path because
> it serves them; but even more to the point, NO ONE
> IS HOLDING THEM TO ACCOUNT.
You don't think there has been a change in the "elite" in the major OECD countries in the last 10 years? I do. And I believe we are in one of those historical periods in which the predictable bursts of emotionalism are doing great damage. Anger at a corrupt system is fine; an emotional determination to fix it is great. But that transition must be founded in facts and logic or bad things will soon ensue.
-------------------
> Bottom line: Institutions ('order', 'logic',
> 'evidence', 'empiricism', 'analysis'
> what-you-will) serve the elite and not the people.
That is utterly false. Facts, order, logic, evidence, empiricism, analysis, etc., are the things you and I have used to identify the flaws in a flawed system and they indicate the way forward. The moment you disavow facts and rationality, you condemn yourself and others to servility under a new elite.
-----------------
> People have noticed. Their thoughts and emotions
> are legitimate.
Legitimate, yes. But dangerous as well. Emotions lead to pogroms, to needless wars, to class structure, and even to greater disparities in income and wealth. If emotions lead to a break with a bad system, they should soon be curtailed so a new one can be built on a solid foundation.
-----------------
> As to the spectre of Totalitarianism: it comes
> about not because everyday people are too
> emotional and too illogical, but because
> Institutions fail to do their jobs. You are
> victim blaming. Stop punching down.
I think that is a misguided view of history. The way it usually goes is the old system proves flawed, there is a widespread emotional reaction, and the question then becomes what change ensues? There can be a quick return to factual reality as in the US Revolution, or there can be a perpetuation of the emotional phase in which Robespierre, Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others arise.
Emotion is a great motivator. It is terrible, however, as a constructive force.
-----------------
> Human, unsurprised people are putting their
> Yellow-Vests on...
I couldn't agree with this sentiment more. People's fury at the old system is entirely reasonable, even rational. The problem is that if the reaction remains emotional too long, the outcome is likely to be an equally or even more unfair new system.