Rupert Murdoch

[worm]

it means the same in this discussion as it would in any. Suggesting that we all want to be controlled is wrong

[worm]

those are assumptions based on your preconceptions

[worm]

is this where if you keep on saying it, it somehow becomes true..?

[worm]

my neighbour doesn't want to kill me. Why should she?

[kaosmark2]

Of course you do otherwise there'd be lawlessness. People would kill each other because they are stronger and want what they other has and there'd be no one to stop them. People want control at this social level, which creates a massive amount of power to be redistributed throughout the pillars of society. Those charged with power over our behaviour, via the way we see the world and intend to act in it, are bound by this power. If one fails, another replaces.

[worm]

There's noone to stop people killing each other now. Only peer pressure against killing enforced via political + legal systems. It only works at a deterrent level.

And taking things via force is just another way to exert power as taking things using political/social/media pressure.

You're taking the deductive leap that because people want the benefits of a system that implies certain restrictions on behaviour people actively want to be controlled. That's wrong. People want others to be put off from behaviour that would impact negatively on them, and various forms of control is one way to achieve that.

[worm]

you disagree with me saying I don't want to be controlled...?

[feral chile]

Example: You're on a computer. You didn't invent it yourself. So you conformed to computer culture and bought one and it now controls your behaviour and views to some extent, much like so many others such as myself. And that's done without any particular laws or something as transparent as being forced at gun point. You're a consumer now and you're being 'controlled'.by your desire to consume.

[eFestivals]

To be a social species we must enter into a social contract in which we have laws to protect each other. Every culture on earth has one, not one excluded. This is the sub-conscious desire to be controlled I'm referring to.

It's something you're referring to, it's something you have no proof for.

Just because the consequence of the social system we want for our self-protection means that social system attempts to control what we can do and can't do, it does mean that we want to be controlled.

It merely means that we're prepared to suffer an amount of control for the bigger benefit of the self-protection gained thru of a social system.

Anything beyond that is conjecture without any evidence or proof.

But don't let the facts get in the way of you making stuff up. I wouldn't ever want you to change.

[eFestivals]

No, they are facts based upon historical and cultural evidence.

You're not even able to give a consistent line with what you're saying here - you've just switched what you've been saying - so you're not working from facts or evidence at all. You are working from whatever has popped into your head that moment and you blurt out without thinking.

That aside, no one here is doubting that there is power to be taken and used.

What is being doubted - proven untrue in fact - is your statement that the fact of there being power makes everything that comes from that power meaningless and unable to be changed.

If you wish to be a nihilistic arsehole then by definition you have nothing to contribute to any debate. If you were the fantastic student of philosophy you wish to believe yourself you'd have realised that before you started.

Yes, there is power. What is meaningful about power is how it is wielded and used. That changes everything and not nothing.

[eFestivals]

Interesting point.

I'd suggest that I'm saying ....

.... that what you've previously claimed as proven fact is actually just your suggestion - as you 'suggest' just here.

Glad we've cleared up your bullshitting and the fact of you moving the goalposts.

Oh dear.

[feral chile]

Yes, there is power. What is meaningful about power is how it is wielded and used. That changes everything and not nothing.

[feral chile]

I'm not being controlled, I've made a choice, that's all.

Edited May 5, 2012 by feral chile

[feral chile]

But we do. Do you want to be killed by your neighbour? No, so you want to be controlled. You want laws to protect you.

It's irrelevant. People want to be controlled.

[feral chile]

That's why I asked how big a question do you want to ask? How big a picture are we looking at? The first choice no-one has is to be born, and from that moment on, our options are limited.

I had a bit of late night last night... I'm struggling

Edited May 5, 2012 by feral chile

[sifi]

Anyone who doubts Murdoch's power needs to watch that fox documentary.

[feral chile]

choosing to be controlled is different to having an innate desire for it, isn't it?

[worm]

Plus, there's a danger of labelling all social control as bad, and I think that's what Culty's getting at - I disagree that we want to be controlled, because it threatens our feeling of autonomy so I think we're hostile to the notion, but our distrust of control could prevent us from reaping its benefits.

Edited May 5, 2012 by worm

[worm]

You're not even able to give a consistent line with what you're saying here - you've just switched what you've been saying - so you're not working from facts or evidence at all. You are working from whatever has popped into your head that moment and you blurt out without thinking.

[worm]

.... that what you've previously claimed as proven fact is actually just your suggestion - as you 'suggest' just here.

[worm]

who suggested that?

[worm]

Murdoch won't be in charge (possibly), that's the only fact. Some people think him not having the power he's had is a good thing. I haven't read anyone suggesting there'll be a major change in anything. How does it make me feel any better about myself?

[worm]

That's an aspect of the whole saga I haven't noticed. Are the journalists who started this the people you're referring to? The publicly vilifying side of it is unavoidable if the Murdochs were ever going to be taken to task.

[eFestivals]

It was a minor matter-of-fact point regarding Murdoch and my point that if you remove him you'll not irradicate the machinations that put his ilk in charge.

no, you made what you presented as a major point, that removing Murdoch makes no difference to anything at all. You said that removing Murdoch was "meaningless".

The fact that you're now back-tracking on that as fast as you can gets to show that you know you were talking bollocks.

For what you're saying now, you're correct - after all, media barons will still be media barons.

But what media barons are able to do and influence has already changed hugely, and that makes the demise of Murdoch as anything but meaningless.