For Those That Are Interested in Discussion

[Conley]

I will say that this thread has gone of the original topic like many do around here. I have absolutely no problem with that, I don't claim ownership of any thread (the thought is silly to me), and I appreciate the in-depth discussion of corporatism. I speak for no one but myself and will say that I'm interested and have learned quite a bit about corporatism and related subjects, and for that I am grateful to both DSolo and Mister D.

[MMC]

MMC, what precisely are you accusing me of doing, excellently? I responded to Conley's OP with specificity. You have my best suggestion for getting beyond the acrimony. Something I additionally wrote to Conley in a PM. I neither run nor want to run this place, so I can only suggest and hope you find merit in my proposal. What more do you expect me to do after I have offered my best suggestion?

From that point forward, my posts on this thread are responses to what Mister D wrote. If you want me to respond to something that you think is important, why not join in the fun?

Seriously, MMC, I have no clue what you are talking about. I've given you no reason to distrust me, or to make wild assumptions about me. What are you assuming I have masterfully done?

I could not have been more specific.

Yes, I genuinely want to get beyond the partisan bickering. I've posted enough on this board for folks to independently verify that. I am genuine when I say that we can get beyond the reaction and counter-reaction spin cycle, caused in large part by argument by label. You will find that all of my friends will make substantial contributions to meaningful discussions here. Many if not all already have.

Dsolo I was complimenting you on the deflection argument with the semantics which had nothing do with what we were all orignally discussing. Even tho you might not have understood it all. As you aptly pointed out that you did not know certain things then. Masterfully done is also a compliment and I explained why. To avoid more complications.

As I stated earlier with you. Yourself you have no need to worry as you have proven that you are willing to go beyond the fray. As well as not challenged Older Members here thinking somehow you can go around them and what it is they do here.

As a matter of fact there are several of your members that do not want to see all that you describe or other here make it even more difficult to work things out. Which you can see they are trying to curtail things. Sometimes it hard to do when you have a crew, that one in the crew likes to stir the $#@!. By going out the box so to speak. (Still able to catch up with the lingo or is there any confusions with terminology you don't understand?) I mean really trying to make a judgement on how somebody talks just makes me laugh, and shows that lack of intelligence that the one opening their mouth exihibits.

Are you speaking of making substantial contributions when one of your crew likes to play the inference and innuendo game. You know the red- crossing. Talk about somebody else while dissing them while talking to another. Usually another of the crew. As you said ALL For the most part, again many of your crew are fine and I dont think they have anything to be worried about. Again the goal is not to have a divided site. As one from your crew suggested. Which shows you where that one's head is. Which won't happen here anyways.

So far as it seems that one member has gotten into with almost every member here all in a matter of six days. As that member thinks that they are the only one bringing people here. (like I said.....thinks) Far be it from the truth. As I have invited some others from Debate Politics here to. Which I am sure some of your crew are familiar with. With what you stated before you cant control them nor speak for them or I should say that one. So know that you or any other of your people will not be held responsible for that ones own actions and the words coming out of it's mouth.

Yet you should surely understand that whatever consequences befall that member of your crew, group, clique, or whatever other approrpriate term you would like to use, will solely be the fault of that INDIVIDUAL. Just as it is with any other members around here.

Before you respond back. You need make no defense for that one slight problem. Other than that are we kool? Now you know where the problem lies within. Perhaps your crew can help to get a handle on that slight problem for the betterment of all. Thanks for your time!

[Dagny]

I will say that this thread has gone of the original topic like many do around here. I have absolutely no problem with that, I don't claim ownership of any thread (the thought is silly to me), and I appreciate the in-depth discussion of corporatism. I speak for no one but myself and will say that I'm interested and have learned quite a bit about corporatism and related subjects, and for that I am grateful to both DSolo and Mister D.

I'm not really sure how upset you are with the flaming?

It usually happens, especially with an influx of newbies. If you/admin see this as a real issue, I suggested to another member last night that you allow members to put most mods on ignore.

Seeing as how there is such a large staff here, and seeing as how some of the most inane product comes from them, if their input was invisible, some wouldn't be tempted to respond.

That is, only if you view the flaming as something you cannot tolerate.

[MMC]

I'm not really sure how upset you are with the flaming?

It usually happens, especially with an influx of newbies. If you/admin see this as a real issue, I suggested to another member last night that you allow members to put most mods on ignore.

Seeing as how there is such a large staff here, and seeing as how some of the most inane product comes from them, if their input was invisible, some wouldn't be tempted to respond.

That is, only if you view the flaming as something you cannot tolerate.

Don't know how to count. Not surprisng!

[Conley]

I'm not really sure how upset you are with the flaming?

It usually happens, especially with an influx of newbies. If you/admin see this as a real issue, I suggested to another member last night that you allow members to put most mods on ignore.

Seeing as how there is such a large staff here, and seeing as how some of the most inane product comes from them, if their input was invisible, some wouldn't be tempted to respond.

That is, only if you view the flaming as something you cannot tolerate.

My post was complimenting DSolo and Mister D for their well thought out responses. I said nothing of flaming. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post?

[Dagny]

My post was complimenting DSolo and Mister D for their well thought out responses. I said nothing of flaming. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post?

This thread is geared toward finding the right blend of attitude, unwritten rules per se, and an attempt to create more harmony, as opposed to flame wars.

It occurred to me last night that if we were allowed to ignore some of the worst flamers here, it would go a long way toward achieving your goals.

Personally, I won't respond to those in question. But....without the ignore feature, the temptation to respond to the repeated insults is greater.

[Mister D]

Agreement is sweet after such a long, hard slog. It is a credit to two stubborn souls that it has happened: We are in agreement that corporatism is a culture, and springs from culture. With these two pieces in place, perhaps the rest will fall like dominoes.

You were saying, you largely agree with me, and are sympathetic with corporatist philosophy - and don't know where i see a conflict. I can explain. One can agree with the corporatist philosophy and yet not be very happy with either the nature of the source culture nor the kind of corporatism that is likely to emerge from it.

It is true, I have focused on the influence of Big Money, but I have also spoken of a rapidly changing culture and a re-evaluation of national priorities. As I see it, these two things are happening simultaneously and catalyze each other. Globalization, in my view, is an outgrowth of this fundamental change in views.

Chomsky is right that consent can be manufactured for war. Dick Armey and FreedomWorks demonstrated that the "organic process" giving rise to the Tea-Party movement could be accelerated with a lot of guidance and money. And the ability to create consent for war, and to translate the outrage of people who feel something is wrong, but can't articulate what that is, into a potent political force, demonstrates the very effective power of a well-designed and funded communication campaign. Speech in general, and targeted communications in particular are very powerful things, capable of shaping opinions about most anything - and shaping values in the process.

My take is, there are people who are actively participating in a campaign to transform culture, that which comes before a corporatism in America can fully emerge. Perhaps that is part of every organic process. Still, I think there is a very high degree of sophistication that is brought to this task.

You mentioned that you don't see how government can actually become obsolete. I see a world where our military has been privatized and strong forces are pushing and accelerating the trend to privatization: in social security, education, space exploration, and law enforcement. If my vision is correct, and both of our parties are increasingly puppets to Big Money, the policy that will be implemented, regardless of who wins come election time, will be drawn up in board rooms and not in the halls of Congress. We already content ourselves with the mere appearance of self-government, whilst the substance of it is methodically being stripped away.

What do you think?

I see globalization more as the outgrowth of liberalism and the ideals (e.g. individualism and universalism) of the European Enlightenment. I don't think we've seen any fundamental change of views but only what you would expect from a worldview that sees the market as humanity's raison d'être , that sees the individual as supreme, that scorns collective identity, and treats tradition as an obstacle be to be removed. There is no doubt that our political and economic elite champions this worldview and labors, at least indirectly, to further it but this has been a centuries old transformative process. We have all been subject to it. What is important to bear in mind is that corporate identities (race, religion, ethnic group, nation etc.) are an obstacle to the homogenizing forces of liberal modernity. The dominant ideology of today seeks to level humanity into a mass of atomized consumers. The modern history of the western world has been one of cultural destruction. We've undermined our traditional ways of life and now we seek to force our 'universal' values on the often unwilling colored peoples of the world.

I'm not a big fan of Noam but I agree that manipulation is prevalent. That said, hasn't that always been the case? Isn't this true of the left as well as what passes for a right in the US? Isn't this true everywhere? I also agree that it can help shape values but the underlying values that have shaped modernity are centuries old. These aren't new values They are old values that are in conflict with and ultimately cannot coexist with the older, primordial values of a people.

Regarding your last comment, I think you're spot on. I say this as a man of the right who isn't particularly sympathetic to democracy but that doesn't mean we can't agree to detest a common enemy.

[Mister D]

This thread is geared toward finding the right blend of attitude, unwritten rules per se, and an attempt to create more harmony, as opposed to flame wars.

It occurred to me last night that if we were allowed to ignore some of the worst flamers here, it would go a long way toward achieving your goals.

Personally, I won't respond to those in question. But....without the ignore feature, the temptation to respond to the repeated insults is greater.

You are one of the worst flamers here.

[Conley]

This thread is geared toward finding the right blend of attitude, unwritten rules per se, and an attempt to create more harmony, as opposed to flame wars.

It occurred to me last night that if we were allowed to ignore some of the worst flamers here, it would go a long way toward achieving your goals.

Personally, I won't respond to those in question. But....without the ignore feature, the temptation to respond to the repeated insults is greater.

Seems reasonable to me. I think anyone should be allowed to ignore anyone and have said as much.

[Dagny]

Seems reasonable to me. I think anyone should be allowed to ignore anyone and have said as much.

You think they should be able to scroll past the posts, or that the ignore feature should work for mods too?
Right now, the board is set up so that staff cannot be put on ignore