Doc, It sounds like you purchased a ring-side seat and the magic show totally pulled you in. Don't you know you can't win Three Card Monty?
So why play a crooked game with immoral dealers? Find another game, or stop playing.
By not playing I mean take decisions seriously. Democracy ain't perfect and it never will be. It can only be as good as we, the participants allow. You simply won't always win and some simply won't play fair, honest, honorable or for the greater good.
What is the greater good? Seems now it's a delusional circus, in the early 1940s it was isolationism then war. In the early 1900s you could buy a vote for a glass of beer. It's all still us. we do this and choose this for ourselves just as you seem to focus on the performances. Turn around the show isn't in the ring, that's where the magic illusions happen. Look at the audience and the area around the tent, at the world we have made. That's where reality is happening.
It seems you're distracted by the theater, believe one lie and the slippery slope gets steeper with each step.
I find most people loving and basically honest, one on one but many are scared and scared people can't tell who to trust. The enemy is us, not some "them". We believe what we want to believe. Belief does not require proof or facts. Fear is often sufficient.
Is the circus at least entertaining? You could feel good about that.
Historically today is not much different than the elections of 1903 or Andrew Jackson's campaign in the 1800s. Did the Dutch have the Spice Islander's wellbeing in mind when they enslaved them for Nutmeg? The Africans for cotton? The Aztecs for gold?
Nah, it is just us doing our thing without understanding consequences that don't affect us personally. As long as that's defined as winning apparently people will back the winners distracted by the dancing bear in the ring.
You’ve painted a vivid picture, and I can’t argue with the metaphor—it does feel like we’re all sitting ringside, watching the same old tricks unfold in the centre ring. The problem is, the show’s been going on so long, it’s hard to tell what’s part of the act and what’s real anymore. You’re right though: playing a crooked game with immoral dealers is a losing bet. It’s tempting to keep playing, thinking maybe this time, the outcome will be different, but in the end, it’s all sleight of hand.
Democracy, like you said, is imperfect, but it’s what we’ve got, and we are the ones in the audience deciding how the show goes. Problem is, it seems too many are distracted by the illusions, buying into what’s happening under the spotlight, instead of looking at what’s going on in the shadows. The “greater good” has always been a moving target—changing with each era, each crisis, and each generation's fears and hopes.
You’re right about fear, too. Fear drives so much of the decision-making, both on an individual level and collectively. When people are scared, they do irrational things. They turn on each other, they follow the loudest voices, and they get lost in the spectacle instead of seeking truth.
We need to realize that we’re part of the audience and step out of the tent to see what’s really going on. But it’s hard, isn’t it? We’re all wrapped up in it, and the show is designed to keep our attention, keep us guessing, and keep us in our seats.
The world may not be much different from 1903, or Andrew Jackson’s time, or the Spice Trade era, but maybe the difference now is that we have more access to the truth—we just have to be willing to look for it. Easier said than done, especially when the show’s so loud, so flashy, and always promising something new.
But you're right, the enemy isn’t some "them." It’s the collective "us," distracted by the show and forgetting what’s happening just outside the ring.
However, I’m not here for the entertainment, and I can’t simply stand on the sidelines or claim that history is just repeating itself. Today, we’re in a worse situation than in 1900, because technology has made everything far more dangerous than it was 100 years ago. Staying on the sidelines is no longer an option.
Opening the conversation is not sidelining. I consider it direct engagement and I applaud you for it.
But worse “because” of technology?
My position would be technology is morally/ethically neutral. The application of technology, people’s application of it, it’s our application that has ethical consequences. Decisions are still about us not how fast or throughly they are implemented by technology.
Human existence has always been brutal, boorish, tribal and still has made remarkable discoveries and insights. Ethics and morality being highlights. Some will deny with or without evidence any insight or explanation that contradicts existing beliefs as progress.
Phlogiston was a great theory, that reasonably explained the process of fire. It satisfied the interests/curiosity of many but was fundamentally wrong. Despite being quantitatively disproven, the theory persisted for decades likely due to the fact that it was “logical” to most people’s experience and frame of reference.
Technology is the device that ignites the fire. Rubbing sticks, phosphorus matches, butane lighters all start fire, the succession is technology.
Phlogiston was the circus ring holding people’s attention. An easy, obvious, misunderstood explanation for something that does not exist. But it sure can be entertaining when playing with matches. And therefore useful.
I find the “Modern World” focus of your articles totally absorbing not because of specific topics but because you are describing “us” in real time.
Technology has overtaken civilizations for eons. Fighting with sticks instead of teeth and claws, then rocks, spears, arrows, each technology empowered one group over another. With the advent of nuclear weapons humanity, for the last 70 years, finally realized the insane, inevitable outcome. Learning however is not permanent, perhaps humanities fatal flaw.
Doc, It sounds like you purchased a ring-side seat and the magic show totally pulled you in. Don't you know you can't win Three Card Monty?
So why play a crooked game with immoral dealers? Find another game, or stop playing.
By not playing I mean take decisions seriously. Democracy ain't perfect and it never will be. It can only be as good as we, the participants allow. You simply won't always win and some simply won't play fair, honest, honorable or for the greater good.
What is the greater good? Seems now it's a delusional circus, in the early 1940s it was isolationism then war. In the early 1900s you could buy a vote for a glass of beer. It's all still us. we do this and choose this for ourselves just as you seem to focus on the performances. Turn around the show isn't in the ring, that's where the magic illusions happen. Look at the audience and the area around the tent, at the world we have made. That's where reality is happening.
It seems you're distracted by the theater, believe one lie and the slippery slope gets steeper with each step.
I find most people loving and basically honest, one on one but many are scared and scared people can't tell who to trust. The enemy is us, not some "them". We believe what we want to believe. Belief does not require proof or facts. Fear is often sufficient.
Is the circus at least entertaining? You could feel good about that.
Historically today is not much different than the elections of 1903 or Andrew Jackson's campaign in the 1800s. Did the Dutch have the Spice Islander's wellbeing in mind when they enslaved them for Nutmeg? The Africans for cotton? The Aztecs for gold?
Nah, it is just us doing our thing without understanding consequences that don't affect us personally. As long as that's defined as winning apparently people will back the winners distracted by the dancing bear in the ring.
You’ve painted a vivid picture, and I can’t argue with the metaphor—it does feel like we’re all sitting ringside, watching the same old tricks unfold in the centre ring. The problem is, the show’s been going on so long, it’s hard to tell what’s part of the act and what’s real anymore. You’re right though: playing a crooked game with immoral dealers is a losing bet. It’s tempting to keep playing, thinking maybe this time, the outcome will be different, but in the end, it’s all sleight of hand.
Democracy, like you said, is imperfect, but it’s what we’ve got, and we are the ones in the audience deciding how the show goes. Problem is, it seems too many are distracted by the illusions, buying into what’s happening under the spotlight, instead of looking at what’s going on in the shadows. The “greater good” has always been a moving target—changing with each era, each crisis, and each generation's fears and hopes.
You’re right about fear, too. Fear drives so much of the decision-making, both on an individual level and collectively. When people are scared, they do irrational things. They turn on each other, they follow the loudest voices, and they get lost in the spectacle instead of seeking truth.
We need to realize that we’re part of the audience and step out of the tent to see what’s really going on. But it’s hard, isn’t it? We’re all wrapped up in it, and the show is designed to keep our attention, keep us guessing, and keep us in our seats.
The world may not be much different from 1903, or Andrew Jackson’s time, or the Spice Trade era, but maybe the difference now is that we have more access to the truth—we just have to be willing to look for it. Easier said than done, especially when the show’s so loud, so flashy, and always promising something new.
But you're right, the enemy isn’t some "them." It’s the collective "us," distracted by the show and forgetting what’s happening just outside the ring.
However, I’m not here for the entertainment, and I can’t simply stand on the sidelines or claim that history is just repeating itself. Today, we’re in a worse situation than in 1900, because technology has made everything far more dangerous than it was 100 years ago. Staying on the sidelines is no longer an option.
Opening the conversation is not sidelining. I consider it direct engagement and I applaud you for it.
But worse “because” of technology?
My position would be technology is morally/ethically neutral. The application of technology, people’s application of it, it’s our application that has ethical consequences. Decisions are still about us not how fast or throughly they are implemented by technology.
Human existence has always been brutal, boorish, tribal and still has made remarkable discoveries and insights. Ethics and morality being highlights. Some will deny with or without evidence any insight or explanation that contradicts existing beliefs as progress.
Phlogiston was a great theory, that reasonably explained the process of fire. It satisfied the interests/curiosity of many but was fundamentally wrong. Despite being quantitatively disproven, the theory persisted for decades likely due to the fact that it was “logical” to most people’s experience and frame of reference.
Technology is the device that ignites the fire. Rubbing sticks, phosphorus matches, butane lighters all start fire, the succession is technology.
Phlogiston was the circus ring holding people’s attention. An easy, obvious, misunderstood explanation for something that does not exist. But it sure can be entertaining when playing with matches. And therefore useful.
I find the “Modern World” focus of your articles totally absorbing not because of specific topics but because you are describing “us” in real time.
Technology has overtaken civilizations for eons. Fighting with sticks instead of teeth and claws, then rocks, spears, arrows, each technology empowered one group over another. With the advent of nuclear weapons humanity, for the last 70 years, finally realized the insane, inevitable outcome. Learning however is not permanent, perhaps humanities fatal flaw.
We’ll see.