• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cultural Manipulation

clarsct said:
Have we not learned that prohibition does not function?

Of course, since we didn't learn the lesson in our current society, why would we learn it in this "Utopian" society?

If you were to really base your society on science, you would see rather quickly that PEOPLE LIKE THEIR DRUGS!!!!


In some cases, prefering it over sex or food, even. Sound scientific research into that phenomenon, but that isn't 'healthy', is it?
Click to expand...

So you look at one example of a very poorly planned out prohibition at a time when corruption was rampant in the government and say it could never work? That isn't very scientific. Besides, it would be a careful process, the first step of this would be taking away the socioeconomic power of such corporations. It's all about resocialization.

People like drugs for reasons, they have motivations or problems from society's ills, it is also due to socialization from their peers and media. After these problems are taken care of the problem will begin to naturally heal itself.

clarsct said:
So, who decides what I eat? What if a particular form of literature isn't 'Healthy'? What if I want to read 'The Story of O'? Or is this not healthy? Are you going to ban Pornography? What about the basic liberties we enjoy now? The Bill of Rights?
Click to expand...

FOOD: After the corporations are refined you will have great choices in food, except they will all be healthy and not "watered down" for profit.

LITERATURE: The only type of literature that would be partially limited is that which is proven to be lies or slanderous. There will be warnings on this type of literature. But after the economy and printing industry is refined by social technocratic standards, people will have little motivation to write books of pseudo-science and the like.

PORNOGRAPHY: No forms of art will be banned, but implimented healthy social activity will reduce the need for such things before they become unhealthy for the individual. That is generally something someone does when they are bored or have no sexual outlets. Addiction of pornography would naturally decline in a healthy social environment.

LIBERTY: There is no question in my mind that the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech must always be kept. The freedom of choice is also needed, but the freedom of choice cannot be misconstrued as "the freedom to start a business that offers a product that is scientifically proven to be unhealthy for the citizenry." The right to vote I also firmly believe in, but it must be earned through education, and one should only be voting in the field of their education.

clarsct said:
Oh, and what if we vote against you?
Click to expand...

Your wives come with me.
 
So why don't you and your party members just go off and form a commune? You could eat what you like and read what you like and create the art that you like. Why does everyone else have to follow your idea of what society should be?


_________________
Also, just as an aside, the black uniform and high peaked cap will slow down your efforts to recruit people (who read history books) to a political party which claims to know what is best for everyone in the country
 
Ladewig said:
So why don't you and your party members just go off and form a commune? You could eat what you like and read what you like and create the art that you like. Why does everyone else have to follow your idea of what society should be?
Click to expand...


:( Come on, I want to hear and respond to specific replies to what I said that stay on the topic.

But seriously, I could ask the same of you... the only reason you have greater numbers is because of socialization.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Also, just as an aside, the black uniform and high peaked cap will slow down your efforts to recruit people (who read history books) to a political party which claims to know what is best for everyone in the country
Click to expand...

:blush: Just wait 'till I get the Black Brigades' skull patches in.
 
Last edited:
ETA: I typed this up before you explained that you were joking, but I'll let it stand.

blakehaydn said:
:( Come on, I want to hear and respond to specific replies to what I said that stay on the topic.
Click to expand...

See, that's the problem right there. My response was on topic. There is no reason at all for people to want to vote for your political party. We live in a country with enough freedom that anyone can go off and start their own little community and do pretty much whatever they want. You are suggesting that we voluntarily throw away every aspect of that freedom. The fact that you "don't get" that no matter how much you tweek your platform, you will never capture more that a tiny fraction of one percent of the vote is the topic.

If you and your friends want to live that way, then you can go off into the woods and do so.
___________________________
The American populace may be among the most complacent, lethargic, politically-inactive people on the planet, but if you show them a four-year plan to rid them of cigarettes, alcohol, porn, publicly-traded stocks, and excess wealth, they will rally against your cause with a fevor that this country has never seen.
 
Last edited:
blakehaydn said:
But seriously, I could ask the same of you... the only reason you have greater numbers is because of socialization.
Click to expand...

You're asking why I don't go off and form a commune? Well, I don't want to eat only locally grown food. I want apples from New Zealand when apple trees in the U.S. are not giving fruit. I want a plethora of choices when I choose my entertainment. I want private ownership of property (including the opportunity to accquire excess wealth). In short, I want a society very much like the one we have. That's why I don't feel the need to restrict other people's choices.

Would society be better off if more people were scientifically literate? Yes. But forcing that on them is too big a price to pay.
 
Ladewig said:
You're asking why I don't go off and form a commune? Well, I don't want to eat only locally grown food. I want apples from New Zealand when apple trees in the U.S. are not giving fruit. I want a plethora of choices when I choose my entertainment. I want private ownership of property (including the opportunity to accquire excess wealth). In short, I want a society very much like the one we have. That's why I don't feel the need to restrict other people's choices.

Would society be better off if more people were scientifically literate? Yes. But forcing that on them is too big a price to pay.
Click to expand...

No, I was being sarcastic and rhetorical as I thought you were.

There would naturally be more choices in entertainment if the media was not controlled by the corporation.
 
Ladewig said:
If you and your friends want to live that way, then you can go off into the woods and do so.
Click to expand...

This is not technically possible, I'm guessing you're being sarcastic with this, either that or you really don't understand how we want to live.
 
Ladewig said:
The American populace may be among the most complacent, lethargic, politically-inactive people on the planet, but if you show them a four-year plan to rid them of cigarettes, alcohol, porn, publicly-traded stocks, and excess wealth, they will rally against your cause with a fevor that this country has never seen.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is obvious.

However, we are coming up with ideas that make things more efficient, reduce pollution, increase social and physical health, etc. You don't have to tell me that Americans don't want this, but it's because of how they're socialized. If you start changing socialization the citizenry will start wanting different things.
 
Ladewig said:
See, that's the problem right there. My response was on topic.
Click to expand...

This is simply a misunderstanding, because the topic to me wasn't "how far can we get the average American Joe to go?" To me, the topic is what is more efficient and can bring better health and happiness/fulfillment (not to the standards of the current socialization, but ultimately). This is why I expressed disappointment in your response.

Ladewig said:
There is no reason at all for people to want to vote for your political party.
Click to expand...

You mean there is no reason in their perception of values to choose us.
 
No thank you. While I relish the thought of being forcefully re-edumacated such that I wll eventually subcumb to your opinion of utopia, and willing agree with it and profess it to others, I'm rather busy of late and can't spare the time. Plus, I've tried hanging from my thumbs during a particularily interesting sexual encounter when I was but a teen. The memory of it is mixed but all in all, I'd rather forego the experience again...expecially since there will be no sex involoved.
 
blakehaydn said:
This is simply a misunderstanding, because the topic to me wasn't "how far can we get the average American Joe to go?" To me, the topic is what is more efficient and can bring better health and happiness/fulfillment (not to the standards of the current socialization, but ultimately). This is why I expressed disappointment in your response.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll withdraw all my comments in this thread except for post #74.

I'm still a bit curious as to how you round up all the excess wealth that is held in private hands. Do you search people's houses for gold, silver, cash, and other valuables? And what about the houses themselves - what happens when a family of three decides that they really like the 9,000 sq.ft. house they live in and don't want it divided up into apartments or razed to make way for the equal housing units that come with your equal society. Is the property simply seized? at gunpoint?
 
Last edited:
blakehaydn said:
PORNOGRAPHY: No forms of art will be banned, but implimented healthy social activity will reduce the need for such things before they become unhealthy for the individual. That is generally something someone does when they are bored or have no sexual outlets. Addiction of pornography would naturally decline in a healthy social environment.
Click to expand...

I was ready to join your revolution, but there is no way I am gonna let you take my porn! :mad:
 
blakehaydn said:
If you start changing socialization the citizenry will start wanting different things.
Click to expand...
No doubt. The problem is that you'll first have to socialise enough people into wanting this socialisation in the first place, and if you want to stay the course you'll have to do it while trying to be immune to the socialisation by other people who want to convince you that it isn't a good idea, it isn't worth it or that it can't be done to the extend you envision.

Socialisation isn't a one way street, it is by definition social. While you are socialising others, you are being socialised. You can make others want different things than they do now, but not without them making you want different things as well.
 
Blake,

I'm left to wonder. Say your party comes to power, what do you do with the people who do not contribute to society under your "scientific" standards. In fact, the people who are a drain on society. So far, you mentioned that education will take care of everything. I'm doubtful of this. I have friend I've had to explain the penalty of "roughing the kicker" for American football at least half-dozen times. She just doesn't get it. Your Utopia sounds more complex than football. Even with reeducation, there will be people in your Utopia that can't (or won't) comply with socialization. Even if its 0.5% of the population, this would be about 1.5 million people (going by rough estimate of the current U.S. population). What happens to them?

Also, you can have my beer, fried food, when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers:D
 
Ladewig said:
Fair enough. I'll withdraw all my comments in this thread except for post #74.

I'm still a bit curious as to how you round up all the excess wealth that is held in private hands. Do you search people's houses for gold, silver, cash, and other valuables? And what about the houses themselves - what happens when a family of three decides that they really like the 9,000 sq.ft. house they live in and don't want it divided up into apartments or razed to make way for the equal housing units that come with your equal society. Is the property simply seized? at gunpoint?
Click to expand...

There is still private property in this system, but the ammount of resources being controlled by one invidual must be limited to prevent excess socioeconomic control. Gold and silver matter little, actual resources are everything.

I don't think making equal housing units is the idea I'm trying to present, I'm basically trying to bring some balance to the economy while attempting to stop the misuse of resources for mere profitability and decadence and use them in important areas, mainly education.
 
Legalduck said:
Blake,

I'm left to wonder. Say your party comes to power, what do you do with the people who do not contribute to society under your "scientific" standards. In fact, the people who are a drain on society. So far, you mentioned that education will take care of everything. I'm doubtful of this. I have friend I've had to explain the penalty of "roughing the kicker" for American football at least half-dozen times. She just doesn't get it. Your Utopia sounds more complex than football. Even with reeducation, there will be people in your Utopia that can't (or won't) comply with socialization. Even if its 0.5% of the population, this would be about 1.5 million people (going by rough estimate of the current U.S. population). What happens to them?
Click to expand...

Certainly there are different lines of work for different people, right? Someone like her would probably work a regular job (which will be looked up upon in our society also) and may never aspire to earn her right to vote. I know that reeducation will not make everyone a critical thinker, but it will help a lot, eventually a majority of the people to become much more objective.

Legalduck said:
Also, you can have my beer, fried food, when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers:D
Click to expand...

By the time our grandchildren are born, no alcoholic industry or fastfood restaurants will even exist for them to desire that kind of thing. It isn't a natural or healthy need. Instead they would have a vast array of healthy foods to chose from without cheapened products to rob them of nutrients because some pig wants to make some extra cash for his Lexus. People have this stigma with healthy food plain simply because they aren't aware of all the different kinds and possibilities. Also, our grandchildren wouldn't need alcohol because they will acquire healthy social interests and there will be healthy social activities based upon their interests/hobbies that will be the social norm.

Don't bother saying "but alchohol is my hobby" I've seen that enough. Let me explain, when the children grow up in an environment without debauchery AND have a healthy social activity in it's place that fits their interests and fills their needs they wouldn't desire something like this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom