The government fears an informed public

http://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/04/06/quote-of-the-day-409/

In the quote stated in the link above, Edward Snowden states that the government does not fear whistle blowers like him, because they can easily target them.

He states that it is an informed public that they really fear.

It is my thought that the number of people who are intelligent enough to actually understand what is really going on is so small, that the government is not really worried at all........

 

Look at how well fear plays. The people that understand that say, Islamic terrorism, is not a threat to their daily lives and that the massive overreaction is a much larger problems (trillions strong!) are shut down easily by people yelling "shutup, I need security now!". Fear is used all the time to sway the masses and get votes be it terrorism, mexicans, guns, etc.

 

Of course they do. That's why the left reports in emotional terms...rarely getting into policy.

 

You act as though the right does not. Both sides do it.

 

From what I have seen the right does it almost exclusively. All of their positions are based on either fear or hatred.

Last I heard those are emotions.

 

The raging masses have been dumbed down down down.

Ignorant sheep are easier to control. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach a kid how to think for himself.

No education in the bare basics of Philosophy (logic, logical fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument.

No education in the bare basics of Civics ( principles on which this nation was founded, Social Contract, Legitimacy of Authority and so on)

 

The left is constantly pushing a fear of guns. It's a major plank in their platform

 

Oh yeah, the Government family. They used to live next door. They were fearless.

Speaking about the government as if it's a real person with emotions like fear is pretty damn silly.

 

Or global warming, the KKK, Donald Trump, the Oligarchy.

The Left has an interest in swaying masses, too, you know.

 

for example?

Emotions aren't a problem. The problem is when you try to make an argument based on emotion, such as "I'm afraid of guns, so you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun"? Now if you base the premise on an objectively true statement such as "Without guns, there would be no gun deaths", that's something else. Then we would of course, agree, even though it is a red herring.

so what are the examples of positions that the right takes? For example, pro-second amendment arguments are based on the need for defense. I recall just recently that your reply to that was something like "well, you're just wrong" which is a mere opinion, thus can be ignored.

 

Yes, not only do we not keep the truth of the past, we pretend we do not know why people must keep that truth.

 

Snowden is a government propagandist disguised as a dissident. He tell people exactly what the government wants them to believe. Specifically, he overstates the government's abilities for the purpose of making people believe they cannot get away with things they might would otherwise try to get away with. He is a tool.

 

No, they don't.

 

Belch, not all of us predicate our defense of the 2A on defense/public safety.

Exactly. The idea that the average cow is going to unite with other cows and do something about the system is laughable. As long as universal suffrage, the run-off electoral system, and mass media exist they have nothing to fear. The American public is inherently incapable of being a serious threat to our masters, at least through legal or conventional channels.

 

So how would an informed public make things different? Are you guys saying that we would all suddenly agree on things?

If the entire nation took philosophy and civic classes what exactly is going to change? Will we all support abortion or be against it?

This is really a silly debate.

 

You can do what you want, but that's the intent of it, and why it is in the constitution. You can't change that.

 

It's not about whether or not people will agree on things, it's about people actually understanding when the structure of an argument is sound and/or valid, about recognizing fallacious or misleading arguments AND what it is that makes them so, and understanding the basic structure and history of the legal and political system which their vote has an effect on.

 

I agree with the thread title. I have long suspected that the reason why the minimum wage is so low in the US and that people need to work 50-60 hours a week is a way to keep people from having time to inform themselves and take active part in politics.

The more benefits, higher pay and less work hours mean that people have time and energy to engage in politics.

 

And what is going to change exactly?

Absolutely nothing. If someone is against abortion now they still will be when they are more informed. Knowing how many congressmen are in the House of Representatives or understanding the republic by Plato is not going to change anything.

As I said, this is a ridiculous debate.

 

Probably not, but the things you've listed are an entirely different matter from things like understanding when a politician is making promises they won't have the power to make in the office they're running for, and things like understanding whether someone's assumed premises actually support their conclusion.

Raising general awareness in these fields = raising the level of intelligent discourse beyond emotion, fearmongering, and deception.

It's not going to create an intellectual utopia, obviously, but saying it wouldn't change anything is about as ridiculous as saying that further dumbing down the population wouldn't change anything.

 

So what is it going to change exactly?

Are people going to vote differently?

Will politicians change the way they campaign?

 

Many things seem silly to the ignorant raging masses who lack the capacity to understand.

If people vote differently ... things change. Speaking about abortion look at the fight over one seat on the SC ?

The Gov't is trampling on the constitution and individual rights and freedoms like crazy. If the people realized that this is "illegitimate" they would vote these clowns out.

The problem is that people actually think this is functional Gov't at work.

 

Of course people vote differently depending on what they ingest. This is how people decide who to vote for.

Ignorant and uneducated voters drink the koolaide like its good for them and they vote how on the basis of what the koolaide tells them.

 

`
`
Scientia potentia est or "knowledge is power." This is one of those aphorism where if you have to explain to someone, they will not understand.

 

I have to agree. With an uneducated, uninformed desperate, depended people, the government can easily use the media to spin and get votes or persuade the people to support things they want. Case in point. Anyone who are the few who understand that high income does not mean wealth, Obama used that to gain support to raise taxes on hard working Americans while the truly wealthy did better. Do people actually believe that the truly wealthy would support government taking more money from them? Really? "the stupidity of the American people" as Democrat Gruber said it.