Our Socioeconomic Position is at Risk

So when jar asserts that "We live in the world we create" you think that this meaningfully includes new born babies? 1 year olds? 2 year olds? 4 year olds? Those who invented the wheel? Isaac Newton? Benjamin Franklin? Who exactly are the "we" this inane statement applies to? If jar were suggesting some sort of practical solution I would indeed agree with you that the solution is of far more importance than the cause. But when the sum total of his wisdom in this thread amounts to stating that "We live in the world we create" as if it were some sort of enlightening pronouncement I am compelled to point out the vacuity of this statement.By all means promote a solution. But spare me the soundbites.

It is indeed this obviousness that makes your repeated assertion that "We live in the world we create" so blatantly non-sensical. The use of "we" is conflating different overlapping groups of people for the purposes of inane and vacuous soundbite effect. Except that now you have acknowledged that not all roles in shaping society are equal this silly assertion rather falls apart doesn't it?

Of course not.It is simply not an issue except for you, but if it makes you happy then fine.Edited by jar, : .

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

In response to your assertion that "We live in the world we create" I asked you back in Message 12 "But we don't all have equal power to create the world we want do we?"In light of your recent concession that your use of "we" incorporates a vast spectrum of roles, some more influential than others, would you like to modify or further clarify your answer to that point? Do you acknowledge that some individuals have significantly more influence over the future shape of the world than others?This is not a rhetorical question.

I never denied that and actually went on to explain how WE created that situation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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.

It is my opinion, Straggler, that you simply like to debate for meaningless reasons of forcing people to agree with you,thus putting them on the defensive and allowing you to "frame the issue".It is quite obvious what jar means. We means society in general. We means the ability of some to influence others, and the duty of such people to do so. We means our kids, whom (we=parents) have the charge and duty to influence, educate, and inspire.It is obvious that your kid is not responsible for the mess that he/she inherits, yet in the big picture, they are responsible as they come of age. In the same context, you and I inherited problems and challenges (or in some cases assets and legacies) from the generation prior to us.Thus (we=you, I, and the current generation) are responsible for how we spent what we inherited and in how we vote. True, an individual vote may not change the status of reality-- nor may an entire movement.The point is that we(we=voters) must try to do our best at critically examining the issues and being as active citizens as we can to change our countries hopefully for the better.To say that jar is coming across as unclear is simply your ego talking. It is not important for you to frame this issue nor for you to win this debate. You are free, however, to add your opinion and to attempt to win the audience that way. Do you acknowledge that some individuals have significantly more influence over the future shape of the world than others?Yes. The loudest activists (or the most effective at selling their message) often win elections. We (who voted for the winner) are responsible in that we voted, as are we who did not vote at all. We (who voted for the loser are also responsible for perhaps acknowledging that we could have done more to push our candidate. Only if we did the best that we possibly could have done would we(who backed the loser) be off the hook.Edited by Phat, : fixedEdited by Phat, : added final sentence

I think that overall, the point of the "We" is to emphasize that every single person is responsible...in one way or another...for the world that we live in and the forms of government that we now have. Some of us may have gotten duped or lied to or pushed aside, but that does not absolve us of sharing societal responsibility.

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.

I think that the point is that we are all intertwined and are responsible for the society that we have. The dishwasher at the corner pub has nowhere near the influence of a Rupert Murdoch yet s a member of society...a citizen...the dishwasher shares the overall responsibility of helping to shape society for future generations.
The point is not that everyone has equal influence. The point is that everyone has equal responsibility. If this is obvious, so be it. Many of us seek to place blame outside of ourselves. I know I do.

No, I said that WE are responsible for our not having equal influence, that it was our decision to create that situation.We did it to ourselves.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Oh yeah?, so what?! How does this shed any new light on the situation? How is this "earthshaking" conclusion useful?How is it that Phat managed to simply say everything you have been unsuccessfully trying to say? I think you owe him a couple of those heaping bowlfuls of monster cookies. He, at least, gave us some of the "so what" of it.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I never claimed it was earthshaking, in fact I have consistently said that it should have been just plain obvious.It is important though because until WE understand that WE did it to ourselves it is unlikely that WE will even begin thinking about how to fix it.We decided to repeal the laws that limited concentration of media.We decided to repeal the laws that limited the creation of a moneyed class.We created the world we live in and I think it might be useful to see where we screwed up so that just maybe we don't continue making the same mistakes.I have also said repeatedly that I don't think We will do that.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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?