Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Opting out (the other way forward)

Posted 4 months ago on Dec. 13, 2013, 12:39 a.m. EST by Builder (4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here we are, years after starting the #ows movement, still hashing out what to do about an obviously broken system.

A system so corrupted by money, that the Courts, Congress, Church, all seem deeply damaged, and far beyond repair.

Attempts by the current admin to start another war (police action, really) hit a brick wall, when the generals said a collective "NO" to the admin.

Moves are afoot to remove those same obstacles to the empire's plans for expansion. Generals are expendable. Yes-men are required to move forward with the NWO agenda.

I hear the same lament from people, far and wide; what can we do? They own everything; media; police; military; fuel; food stamps;

It does seem to be a kind of stalemate. That would explain why the juggernaut is seemingly acting with impunity; not bothering to hide what they are doing; not bothering to cover their tracks, or retract obtuse lies about their actions.

That alone infers that the time has come to draw straws, people. Are you going to become their serfs? Or are you going to become your own person?

Slavery is with us already. Conditions will never improve for the slaves.

Or, you can opt out. The choice is yours, as it always should be.

The oligarchy would have you convinced otherwise, of course.

164 Comments

164 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by shadz66 (17898) 4 months ago

Opting out could save the individual or even a family from that which you eloquently describe but society as a whole can't do that so easily. The hope is that people can 'opt in' to True Democracy and new 99% paradigms and reclaim and change their societies.

Universal healthcare, good schools, decent infrastructure, care of the elderly, addressing AGW are all best done together. OWS has changed the conversation in the USA in the less than 30 months that it has been extant and there's no going back. The struggle is generational. Don't despair. Human beings are capable of goodness and greatness. Solidarity to you and yours as your mid-summer approaches.

per ardua ad astra ...

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

The sickness has spread to our shores, Shadz.

People here are waking up to the depth of the corruption.

I've been listening to the teachings/musings of Echhart Tolle, and realising that my health is being affected by my anger and inner turmoil.

Time for me to take some R & R, and consider my options. My work in exposing the real issues that are now becoming obvious to Australians around me, is bearing fruit.

I'll either return to the coal-face, or work from behind the scenes.

Gotta think about myself for a while.

Solidarity, my friend.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17898) 4 months ago

"Unease, anxiety, tension, stress, worry - all forms of fear - are caused by too much future, and not enough presence. Guilt, regret, resentment, grievances, sadness, bitterness, and all forms of non-forgiveness are caused by too much past, and not enough presence" (ET - ''The Power Of Now'').

Many good things are possible. Keep working. Keep seeding. Keep watering. Keep hoping. Keep loving.

Man gets tired - Spirit don't

Man surrenders - Spirit won't

Man crawls - Spirit flies

Spirit lives when man dies

~

Man seems - Spirit is

Man dreams - Spirit lives

Man is tethered - Spirit is free

What spirit is man can be ... ..

~

Be well. Go get your R&R. Take stock. Enjoy nature. Breathe deeply. Solidarity, my friend ..~*~..

pax, amor et lux ...

[-] -3 points by davidhums (9) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Universal healthcare, good schools, care for the elderly, etc... isn't equal to democracy. That's called socialism. It could be that with a democratic vote people do not choose socialism over privatization. US is a notorious for being right wing and for privatization. The point is, what should we push for first? Socialism - find some way to implement it, or at least to convince people that it's a better system, or democracy, and risk that the people vote for privatization and not socialism. And, if democracy, what type of democracy exactly?

[-] 4 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

Damn the labels - I believe that we all know what we want already. For starters, universal healthcare, good schools, care for the elderly, etc. are perfectly fine.

Just to remind you, the distribution of prosperity across our fifty states show clearly that the ones sticking to the humanistic values achieve better results there - New York City where you live being a prime example.

There are excellent world-class public schools in New York City, for example. We do NOT call Bronx High School of Science, Stuyvesant High School, Brooklyn Technical High School, Brooklyn Latin School, etc. "socialism" in disgust. It is more like "meritocracy."

Democracy has its pitfalls but we MUST still let the people lead, with some guidance, I hope. The U.S. put the pragmatic concerns of the people above others for a long time and it shows. Most modern inventions and innovations are U.S. We may be "steerage" passengers but being so close to the power shaft, we must steer, either working with a helmsman or becoming one ourselves. Let the "steerage" steer.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

Most modern inventions and innovations are U.S.

I doubt that for statistical reasons of world population count

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

There are many different ways of measuring "most" - most patents, most Nobel prizes, etc. per capita, per country, or per decade, and so on.

I meant to say that the U.S. was most responsible for creating the world-changing (both the glorious and ignominious) inventions and innovations in the last century or so.

I have in mind: the Hall process for creating aluminum in large quantities, first powered flight, radios, super-heterodyne receivers, televisions, telephones, cellular phones, running hot water, solar cells, elevators, sky scrapers, assembly-line mass production of automobiles, the incandescent light bulb, optical fibers, transistors, the electronic computers, magnetic resonance imaging machines, the internet, the laser, the VCRs, the DVDs, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and on and on.

Of course, the U.S. also invented the bikinis, the nuclear bombs, the thongs, and fast food joints (McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken) that may not have been as glorious.

No matter, for better or for worse, the U.S. started many of the modern world's major changes and breakthroughs. The U.S. occupies a dominant piece of the world's mind-space and imagination.

[-] 1 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

It sounds like you are just describing industrialization and material goods. The issue isn't how to design a better product or technology, it's how to overhaul our economic and political systems to work better for everyone. That requires social innovation, not technical/industrial innovation. For that, you have to look outside the US to countries that have already been experimenting with things like community land trusts, cooperative interest-free banking, cooperative business networks, and direct democracy.

We also need to stop perpetuating the idea of American exceptionalism. To point to the many inventions that came out of the US is seriously misguided because, as a country, we are in the very privileged position of being an imperialist world leader. We have the most advanced capitalist system than any other country, which means we have gone farther down the path of exploiting our natural resources then moving on to exploit those of other countries. We have more economic power (thanks in large part to trade agreements, the WTO, and the World Bank), with the largest military in the world to back it up, and other countries under our thumb (from which we import more resources, export our waste, take advantage of lax labor and environmental regulations, etc...). That is why we have all the things that we do. We need to all realize that the US doesn't have all the material wealth and technology because we are better or smarter than everyone else, but because we are in an economically privileged position. We got where we are by exploiting other countries, not by being better than them.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

I am all ears if you can show me pilot-project successes in the U.S. of these things like "community land trusts, cooperative interest-free banking, cooperative business networks, and direct democracy."

Interest-free banking is unworkable as long as our U.S. Federal Reserve targets stealing ~2% of the purchasing power from whoever holds the reserves. Over time, such banking automatically disappears. Human nature, even lassoed by religion(s), still did not make this workable in the Middle Ages, when the Jews got the lucrative but ostracized business of collecting interests.

We need to reduce using the word "exploitation" of resources because something only becomes a "resource" when the know-how to use it well exists. I point to sunlight, a very widely available "resource," for people to "exploit" but some will say that I may be facetious. The matter hinges on the know-how and technology which depend on human and non-human capital. The U.S. put up many libraries that even very poor people can access.

The material comforts achieved for the average Joe and Jill also attracted much human capital from abroad. Werner von Braun and his cohort opted to surrender to the U.S. Army instead of the Red Army might have been thinking of the material comforts. I am a U.S. citizen today because of the Nazi scourge, apartheid, and "running hot water" in U.S. public toilets, believe it or not!

We were NO better than the other "wretched refuse of your teeming shore" but our ancestors sure got guts, going after "running hot water" after being "enlightened" in the U.S. toilets. That is why I believe that peoples around the world still have the potential. Let light lead the way: sunlight and the light of knowledge through online courses (many are free!).

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

people are at the center of their own universe

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

Absolutely, it is blessed by the reigning theory of physics - the theory of relativity.

[-] -3 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Your doubt would be unfounded. It is true. Inventions don't have that much to do with population count. They have a lot to do with money. Well funded universities, many research grants, modern hi-tech companies, angel investors, etc... These are the things that lead to US being the number one inventor of the world.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

people with minds search for solutions

[-] -3 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

People with minds do all sorts of stuff. Some search for solutions, some do theoretics, some write poetry, some clarify problems, some just play chess, etc... There is no written rule as to what one should do with his mind.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26733) 4 months ago

For instance.

I can clearly identify this as a major political parties successful attempt to leverage the current level of tyranny in Michigan, to regulate women's rights.

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/12/michigan-republicans-pass-plan-ahead-for-your-abortion-law.html#13870778042891&action=collapse_widget&id=9935288

What do you see as a solution?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shooz (26733) 4 months ago

The first step to finding solutions, is to CLEARLY identify the problems.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

a college education might get one are higher paying job if one wants to think for another

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Labels aren't just random words. They categorize thought so we can go deeper in understanding. Without categories, thinking is near impossible. All words are labels and using those labels to create sentences is what thinking is all about.

I agree socialism is a great thing. I strongly believe a society should be organized in a way that people help each other, and not in a type of jungle law where each person fights for himself.

I'm just wondering what Americans really want. Even though socialism would be better for any society in my opinion, I strongly believe Americans would not choose socialism if it were put to a vote. As lame as it is, I think most Americans would choose capitalism over socialism.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

The U.S. lives with an astounding amount of ridiculously biased media and we certainly have gazillion tons (proper measure under the Golden Arches) of people who will believe in that crap. They fly off the bottom of their brains when the planted words of Babel-PR are used.

I dislike using any corrupted labels to avoid the emotional reactions which can cloud the thinking of people. I believe that governments can give the private sectors beneficial and healthy competition in serving our people. It is not really "taking over" them in the name of "socialism" nor is it "cutthroat dog-eat-dog no-holds-barred" competition of "capitalism."

Capitalism when pushed to extremes can be as bad as socialism pushed to extremes. Some services are better provided by private sectors while others are better provided by the governments. In the not-so-clear-cut areas, I would let competition decide.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Only because, as you know, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't really understand socialism. Nor do they realize that we already have some limited forms of socialism here already.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Democracy ( real Democracy ) is socialist - as it gives everyone the power of the process.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

On basic terms, that does make sense, although I'm pretty clueless when it comes to political or economic theory. There is a Wiki page on Democratic socialism, but apparently it takes many forms and is hard to define.

This shit should definitely be taught in high school. That sure would make our job easier, wouldn't it?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

They used to teach English - as in what words mean and where they originated from and different tenses and roots - it all was put towards thimking about material content.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

We did touch upon that a little when I was in grade school. There was a point when I'd use a dictionary just as much for etymology as for the definition. I think that's interesting and puts a historical spin on the word.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

" etymology " - Yes - nice. Many people have no idea as to root meanings let alone historical drift.

Definition of etymology (n) Bing Dictionary

et·y·mol·o·gy [ èttə mólləjee ]

  • study of word origins: the study of the origins of words or parts of words and how they have arrived at their current form and meaning
  • history of a word: the origin of a word or part of a word, or a statement of this, and how it has arrived at its current form and meaning.
[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

I've always been a big fan of dictionaries. They're one of my most-used reference books. I've been using the online ones recently but I still like to do it "old school" when I can. And as an aside, the origin of dictionaries is pretty interesting as well. They've come a long way from those mostly unusable early days.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

They've come a long way from those mostly unusable early days.

Yes they have come a long way. From trying to dictate absolutes they have come to reflect cultures and ideas in the defining of language - now even including some slang. Yes it is awesome to be able to reference a dictionary while trying to explain a position or make a point as it allows one to see if the words/terms used are the ones wanted or are close but not quite right. As language/words have grown in possible use.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Early dictionaries were often vague or downright inaccurate. It wasn't an easy or clear path from then till now.

One of the definitions from an early dictionary that I can't get out of my mind was the definition of "oats" from one of Samuel Johnson's early ones. He defined oats as "a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people."

That's funny as hell, and doesn't really tell you anything about what oats actually are. But it does tell you something about history, specifically the way the Scottish were treated by the English.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

That's funny as hell

Too True - definitions for separation of class as well as ethnicity.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Yeah, that's the way I took it. I'd love to get my hands on some early ones just to see how things have changed.

There's a girl that lives in NYC, Madeline something (can't remember her last name) that has a dictionary collection, literally thousands of them. I'd like to check out some of her collection, especially some early dictionaries of slang terms. She's got one from 1935 that no American publisher would agree to publish, so the author, well the lexicographer, had to have published in Paris. I'd like to see what was in that that made it unpublishable here.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Oh, I knew what you were referring to. Just wanted to add a little to the conversation, it wasn't meant as a correction or anything. I was curious about the word inflammable and why it means the same as flammable.

Oh yeah, the word inflammable is a weird one. Seems extraneous to the language. It gives a lot of problems to new learners of English. Tricky little monkey that one.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Yep, that's a word that's "bumfuzzled" many a new learner, heheh.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5711) from St Louis, MO 0 minutes ago "To answer your question, the prefix in means not." The prefix "in" also means "in, into, within, toward." As in inbreed, infer, induct, etc. At least according to my hard copy of Websters. Which would explain why "inflammable" means the same as "flammable."

You're right gnomunny. There are different meanings for the prefix in. I was referring to the two words I was discussing. In invaluable and incorrect, the examples given by grapes, the prefix in means not in both cases. I should have perhaps specified that.

The problem was that grapes thought invaluable meant without value, when it means without the possibility of being evaluated. He confused invaluable with a non-existent word invalue.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

I have just discovered that our Earth is actually an "inhabitable" planet, so is Venus. Does "inhabitable" mean "not habitable" or should we use uninhabitable for Venus? Words in English seem to like to acquire the opposite of their original meanings, perhaps due to excessive usage of ironies.

@gnomunny: I heard that somewhere in the U.S., a dude saw the word "inflammable" printed on the outside of a container of fuel gas and lit up a cigarette. Kaboom! Thereafter, the U.S. started using "flammable" instead to suit its personnel better. Yes, damn our inheritance from British English in order to save lives - a deed worthy of our pragmatic culture.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Oh, I knew what you were referring to. Just wanted to add a little to the conversation, it wasn't meant as a correction or anything. I was curious about the word inflammable and why it means the same as flammable.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

What's your favourite word origin?

It's nice that Google has an etymology feature. I love it! Just search for "someword etymology". Like "house etymology"

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Wrong. What? That government is not a singularity. It is a singularity unless one talks state and federal. If one is only talking federal government - then - there is only one. Same goes for talking state government if one talks about a particular state - then that is also a singular government. It becomes plurality when one talks about a mixture of state's governments and/or state and federal at the same time - or singular state and fed gov or plural state and singular fed gov at the same time.

No, you miss the point entirely. The government is made up of many people with many different ideas. It's a constant push and pull to see what ideas will be implemented in practice. Using the expression "the government" is extremely reductionist because it does away with that complexity. This is why political analysts don't talk of "the government", they talk of the various politicians, parties, etc... They go into detail, and that's the only place you can start seeing truth.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Wrong - you are not talking about the government - but are talking about the make-up of government. You are talking about parties and individuals - you are not talking about the whole. The whole being singular.

[+] -4 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Lol, When it comes to the government talking about the whole is meaningless. That is my point.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 0 points by henry1234 (19) from New York, NY 1 minute ago

Analyzing politics by saying "the government" wants this or that or whatever is simple minded surface politics. It's not deep enough to have any meaning. It has nothing to do with what issue is discussed. If you want meaning out of a political discussion you have to delve in the complexity that is formed from having many political minds and politicians that come and go. Only conspiracy theorists generalize to such a high and useless level. You never noticed conspiracy theorists always talk of "the government" and very seldom about politicians?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

" You never noticed conspiracy theorists always talk of "the government" and very seldom about politicians? "

Wow - that sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[+] -4 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

No, it's an observable fact. Just read the works of conspiracy theorists and you'll see. You could also read the works of scholars like Michael Barkun or Tyson Lewis. One of the main traits of conspiracy theories defined by scholars is this simplistic us vs them rhetoric, a cartoon-like black and white analysis of the world using the all evil government vs the all good people. "The government" is the evil entity used in most conspiracy theory literature. It is considered like a person with one idea, not like a complex machine which is operated by many minds that come and go. Again, reductionist. Simplistic. Meaningless.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Obviously not - not meaningless. All depends on your issue (s). Because whatever your issue (s) it is only addressable in context of existing government. So you may have a meaningless issue (s) - but that does not mean that government is meaningless.

[+] -4 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Analyzing politics by saying "the government" wants this or that or whatever is simple minded surface politics. It's not deep enough to have any meaning. It has nothing to do with what issue is discussed. If you want meaning out of a political discussion you have to delve in the complexity that is formed from having many political minds and politicians that come and go. Only conspiracy theorists generalize to such a high and useless level. You never noticed conspiracy theorists always talk of "the government" and very seldom about politicians? They present the government as a singular entity with a singular idea. It's reductionism at its worst.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

It's crucial. Everyone should have a Thesaurus which gives etymology as well as the usual synonyms and antonyms.. Etymology elucidates the deeper meaning of words making it so it's possible to clearly distinguish between synonyms. It's also interesting across languages. For example, pending comes from the French verb pendre which means hanging.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

You do get a fuller understanding of the word that way. And sometimes it makes for an interesting story, like the origins of assassin and hashish have the same origin in an Arabic word.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Also East Indian - if I rememberize correctly - there it has to do with the thuggies - a root for thugs.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Rememberize? That would be a "neologism," heheh.

I don't remember a connection between assassins and the Thugees but I wouldn't be surprised. The legend of the word, from what I remember, comes from one of the Arabic leaders practice (don't remember which one) of getting the young boys stoned on hashish, then when they passed out, he would have them carried into a special garden he had constructed that was supposedly pretty laid out. When they'd come to, they were told that garden was heaven and that's what awaited them if they died for the cause. He'd then send them out to do his bidding.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

ne·ol·o·gism [ nee óllə jìzzəm ]

  • new word or meaning: a recently coined word or phrase, or a recently extended meaning of an existing word or phrase
  • coinage of new words: the practice of coining new words or phrases, or of extending the meaning of existing words or phrases

Huh - who woulda thunk it?

Interesting - your Arabic connection.

Thugees ( again if I am rememberizing correctly ) were a sect of assassins that worshiped Kali and part of their ritual was to get stoned on hash prior to committing an assassination.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Yeah, I had to look that word up, too. I kinda liked the second definition on Merriam Websters site:

"a meaningless word coined by a psychotic."

I read a bit about the Thugees a long time ago but don't remember anything about them except they were assassins from India until the British pretty much eliminated them. If I'm rememberizing correctly. ;-)

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Indeed. Etymology also helps when creating neologisms.

[-] -3 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

I had to look that word up, heheheh.

[+] -4 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

One of the strangest etymologies in English is the word black. It's not from Germanic words - schwarz, svart, etc... nor is it from Latin based words like noir. Not Welsh (du) either.

Black is actually related to blaze. From Wikitionary:

From Middle English blak, from Old English blæc. Cognates include blaze', bleach, blond, bald, bale, pale, Latin flagare, to shine, Latin blancus, white, Gothic removed (bala), paleness, German erbleichen, bleich, go -, turn pale, German bleichen, bleach and Russian белый, white.

So, black as to do with light! Very closely related to the word white.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

Black is really the lack of colors according to modern physics so the ancient ones might have gotten it correct - blanching it out. White on the other hand is the presence of all colors so "colored people" might have been the corrupt unscientific invention by Caucasians of Babel-PR. NAACP should really be advancing the causes of the Caucasians.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

LOL

BTW - the way I have heard it explained is - that Black ( true Black ) is the absence ( or absorption ) of all light and that white is the reflecting of all light ( full spectrum - rainbow and beyond visible ).

[-] 2 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

It is actually not that modern as I thought. Newton already knew it in the 17th century. Well, we discover old truths anew, don't we?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Or origins to answers of asked questions - complete finding or just theorizing.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Blanc, blanco, blanca, bleichen, etc... were all the roots of black. Huh - I am pretty sure that what you have listed - is - in the English language what Blonde relates to.

Yes, blonde relates to this group of words, so does black. Black relates to blonde. As I stated above, the etymology is similar. Only, black doesn't fit for some reason. It seems like a mistake.

Again, I copy. Please read this time.

From Middle English blak, from Old English blæc. Cognates include blaze', bleach, blond, bald, bale, pale, Latin flagare, to shine, Latin blancus, white, Gothic removed (bala), paleness, German erbleichen, bleich, go -, turn pale, German bleichen, bleach and Russian белый, white.

Black comes from words that all refer to pale, white, etc.. in other languages. That was my point. It's interesting in this way.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 1 points by henry1234 (15) from New York, NY 1 minute ago

Yes, I know those words. I'm French. Your point?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

MY Point? Post your definition from Oxford. Is perhaps you should learn french - comprehension does not come benefit of ancestry - it comes from knowledge:

Blanche Look up Blanche at Dictionary.com fem. proper name, from French Blanche, from Old French blanc "white," of Germanic origin (see blank (adj.)). A fairly popular name for girls born in the U.S. from about 1880 to 1900.


blanc is not a root of black.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Oh, but it is a root for black. I explained this already. No need to go over it again. It seems to me you just want to be a contrarian.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 1 points by henry1234 (11) from New York, NY 2 minutes ago

Post your source - I posted mine which disagrees with your postulation.

Oxford 2013 edition.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Funny when I looked all I got for origin was:

Origin: Old English blæc, of Germanic origin

Which I found the definition of:

Old English blæc "dark," from Proto-Germanic blakaz "burned"

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Do you have the 2013 version? The extended one, not the smaller pocket one.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

I think this is what you are looking for:

white (n.) Look up white at Dictionary.com Old English hwit, from Proto-Germanic khwitaz (cf. Old Saxon and Old Frisian hwit, Old Norse hvitr, Dutch wit, Old High German hwiz, German weiß, Gothic hveits), from PIE kwintos/*kwindos "bright" (cf. Sanskrit svetah "white;" Old Church Slavonic sviteti "to shine," svetu "light;" Lithuanian sviesti "to shine," svaityti "to brighten").

[-] 2 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

You should not be surprised. We exaggerate often enough to corrupt our language. How did "invaluable advice" come to mean "extremely valuable advice" while "incorrect" is the opposite of "correct"? Perhaps the Gothic sense of removal of all colors through bleaching was where the meaning of black turned into its opposite.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 1 points by grapes (2061) 0 minutes ago

You had better wake your brain up if you trade stocks of China. They seem to use red for gain and black for loss, exactly opposite. Ah, the theory of relativity reigns supreme.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Huh - the root for the term = different strokes for different folks?

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I'm not surprised, I'm interested. Not the same.

To answer your question, the prefix in means not. Invaluable literally means it cannot be evaluated. This would be different than saying the neologism invalue which would mean having no value. Something that cannot be evaluated cannot have no value since that would be an evaluation. Thus it has a value above nothing, but we cannot know which value it is. The practice has been to say that something that cannot be evaluated, something on which we cannot put a price, is extremely valuable. It makes sense because things of low value can easily be evaluated. If something is worth nothing, we have no problem giving it out for free. We usually put it in the trash. When we have a problem putting a price on something, it usually means that thing is dear to us.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 0 points by henry1234 (15) from New York, NY 1 minute ago

I posted the definition and posted my source. The Oxford dictionary is not online. There is no link. You'll have to go to the library. Some things are not on the Internet.

Look. It doesn't matter. It's not important. Don't get all worked up about it. It's not a competition or a fight or something. If you don't agree, that's fine. I trust Oxford, some trust web dictionaries. Whatever. Who cares?

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

The Wikitionary is not the oxford dictionary. Who cares? I do. You come in here and with erroneous comments - then dismiss reality when it is presented showing you are wrong.

My definitions come with the following references: ( oh lookey - Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford Univ. Press, 1926.)

The Online Etymology Dictionary

PRINCIPAL SOURCES

Barnhart, Robert K., ed., Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, H.W. Wilson Co., 1988.

Buck, Carl Darling, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, University of Chicago, 1949, reprinted 1988.

Cassidy, Frederic G., and Hall, Joan Houston, eds., Dictionary of American Regional English, Harvard University Press, 1985-2002.

de Vaan, Michiel, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, vol. 7, of Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, Alexander Lubotsky ed., Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Farmer, John S., Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present, London, 1890.

Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford Univ. Press, 1926.

Gamillscheg, Ernst, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Französischen Sprache, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1928.

Hall, J.R. Clark, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 1894, reprint with supplement by Herbert D. Meritt, University of Toronto Press, 1984.

Hindley, Alan, Frederick W. Langley, Brian J. Levy, Old French-English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Kipfer, Barbara Ann, ed., and Robert L. Chapman, Dictionary of American Slang, 4th ed., HarperCollins, 2007.

Klein, Dr. Ernest, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1971.

Lewis, Charlton T., Elementary Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1890.

Liberman, Anatoly, Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology, University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, eds., Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford Univ. Press, 1883.

McSparran, Frances, chief editor, The Middle English Compendium, University of Michigan, 2006.

Room, Adrian, Place Names of the World, 2nd ed., McFarland & Co., 2006.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, 1989.

Watkins, Calvert, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000.

Weekley, Ernest, An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, John Murray, 1921; reprint 1967, Dover Publications.

Whitney, William Dwight, ed., The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, New York: The Century Co., 1902.

Zoëga, Geir T., A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic, reprint, University of Toronto Press, 2004.

OTHER SOURCES

Agnes, Michael, ed. in chief, Webster's New World College Dictionary, fourth edition, MacMillan, 1999.

Allen, Richard Hinckley, Star Names and Their Meanings, London: Stechert, 1899.

Ayto, John, Dictionary of Word Origins, Arcade Publishing, 1990.

----------, 20th Century Words, Oxford University Press, 1999.

Bardsley, Charles Wareing, English Surnames, London: Chatto and Windus, 5th ed., 1915.

Barney, Stephen A., Word-Hoard, Yale University Press, 1977.

Barrère, Albert, Argot and Slang, London, 1889.

Barrère, Albert, and Charles G. Leland, A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant, Ballantyne Press, 1890.

Bartlett, John Russell, Dictionary of Americanisms, 2nd ed., Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1859.

Brachet, A., An Etymological Dictionary of the French Language, transl. G.W. Kitchin, Oxford, 1882.

Bright, William, Native American Placenames of the United States, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.

Brockett, John Trotter, A Glossary of North Country Words, Newcastle, 1829.

Chappel, C., Dictionary of Buckish Slang, University Wit and Pickpocket Eloquence, London, 1811.

Craigie, Sir William A., and James R. Hulbert, A Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles, University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Diez, Friederich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Romanischen Sprachen, Bonn, 1853.

Donkin, T.C., An Etymological Dictionary of the Romance Languages, Edinburgh, 1864.

Elson, Louis C., Elson's Music Dictionary, Boston: Oliver Ditson Co., 1905.

Farmer, David Hugh, Oxford Dictionary of Saints, Oxford Paperback, 1978.

Flood, W.E., The Origins of Chemical Names, London: Oldbourne Book Co., 1963.

Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd edition, revised by Sir Ernest Gowers, Oxford Univ. Press, 1965.

Gelling, Margaret, Signposts to the Past: Place-Names and the History of England, Chichester: Phillimore & Co., 3rd ed., 1997.

Gildersleeve, Basil L., Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar, Macmillan & Co., 1895.

Gordon, E.V., An Introduction to Old Norse, 2nd ed., rev., Oxford University Press, 1956.

Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1911.

Hatefeld, Adolphe, & Arsène Darmesteter, Dictionnaire Général de la Langue Française, Paris: Librairie Delagrave, 1926.

Hoblyn, Richard Dennis, A Dictionary of Term Used in Medicine, 2nd ed., London, 1844.

Holthausen, Ferd., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache, Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1927.

Jamieson, John, D.D., A Dictionary of the Scottish Language (abridged edition), Edinburgh, 1846.

Johnson, Francis, A Dictionary of Persian, Arabic, and English, London, 1852.

Karttunen, Frances, An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, University of Texas, 1983.

Kent, Roland G., Old Persian, New Haven, Conn., American Oriental Society, 1953.

Kluge, Friedrich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 24 durchgesehene, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2002.

Lass, Roger, Old English, A Historical Linguistic Companion, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Lyovin, Anatole V., An Introduction to the Languages of the World, Oxford University Press, 1997.

Mencken, H.L., The American Language, Alfred A. Knopf, 4th ed., 1965.

Mills, A.D., A Dictionary of English Place Names, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Monier-Williams, Sir Monier, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Etymologically and Philologically Arranged, Oxford University Press, 1899.

Partridge, Eric, Slang To-day and Yesterday, 3rd ed., Barnes & Noble, 1950.

Pickering, John, A Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phrases Which Have Been Supposed to be Peculiar to the United States of America, Boston, 1816.

Pokorny, Julius, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 1959.

Rawson, Hugh, Wicked Words, Crown Publishers, 1989.

Simpson, D.P., Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, Funk & Wagnall's, 1959.

Smith, William, ed., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London: John Murray, 1878.

Stratmann, Francis H., & Henry Bradley, A Middle-English Dictionary, Oxford, 1891.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, American Book Co., 1889.

Thornton, Richard H., An American Glossary, Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1912.

Tucker, T.G., Etymological Dictionary of Latin, Ares Publishers, 1976 (reprint of 1931 edition).

Upton, Clive & J.D.A. Widdowson, An Atlas of English Dialect, Oxford Univ. Press, 1996.

Venezky, Richard L., The American Way of Spelling, The Guilford Press, 1999.

Walsh, William S., Handy-Book of Literary Curiosities, Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1892.

Watts, Victor, The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.

Wilson, R.M., and Reaney, Percy H., Dictionary of English Surnames, 3rd ed., Oxford Univ. Press, 1995.

Wright, Joseph, The English Dialect Dictionary, London, 1900.

Wright, Thomas, ed., Popular Treatises on Science Written During the Middle Ages, London, 1841.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 0 points by henry1234 (15) from New York, NY 0 minutes ago

Oh, but it is a root for black. I explained this already. No need to go over it again. It seems to me you just want to be a contrarian.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Post your definition and the link to that definition. As all you have so far is BS that you have spouted.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I posted the definition and posted my source. The Oxford dictionary is not online. There is no link. You'll have to go to the library. Some things are not on the Internet.

Look. It doesn't matter. It's not important. Don't get all worked up about it. It's not a competition or a fight or something. If you don't agree, that's fine. I trust Oxford, some trust web dictionaries. Whatever. Who cares?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

blancmange (n.) Look up blancmange at Dictionary.com late 14c., from Old French blancmengier (13c.), literally "white eating," originally a dish of fowl minced with cream, rice, almonds, sugar, eggs, etc.; from blanc "white" (also used in Old French of white foods, e.g. eggs, cream, also white meats such as veal and chicken; see blank (adj.)) + mangier "to eat" (see manger).

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Yes, I know those words. I'm French. Your point?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

[-] 1 points by henry1234 (15) from New York, NY 0 minutes ago

Do you have the 2013 version? The extended one, not the smaller pocket one.

↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

Look it comes down to the fact that you are confused as to what you think you found. All references I have found ( and posted ) say that you have it all wrong.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I always trust Oxford. It's the best English dictionary in my opinion. Who knows, it could be wrong. To me, it seems evident that blaec of old English comes from blanc in French. Many old English words were from French. In any case, it's not so important. Just a word. Thanks for your research.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Didn't take much time to look at the definition hey?

" The same root produced Old English blac "bright, shining, glittering, pale;" the connecting notions being, perhaps, "fire" (bright) and "burned" (dark). "

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Post your source - I posted mine which disagrees with your postulation.

Oxford 2013 edition.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

The Online Etymology Dictionary

black (adj.) Look up black at Dictionary.com Old English blæc "dark," from Proto-Germanic blakaz "burned" (cf. Old Norse blakkr "dark," Old High German blah "black," Swedish bläck "ink," Dutch blaken "to burn"), from PIE bhleg- "to burn, gleam, shine, flash" (cf. Greek phlegein "to burn, scorch," Latin flagrare "to blaze, glow, burn"), from root *bhel- (1) "to shine, flash, burn;" see bleach (v.).

The same root produced Old English blac "bright, shining, glittering, pale;" the connecting notions being, perhaps, "fire" (bright) and "burned" (dark). The usual Old English word for "black" was sweart (see swart). According to OED: "In ME. it is often doubtful whether blac, blak, blake, means 'black, dark,' or 'pale, colourless, wan, livid.' " Used of dark-skinned people in Old English.

Of coffee, first attested 1796. Meaning "fierce, terrible, wicked" is late 14c. The color of sin and sorrow since at least c.1300; sense of "with dark purposes, malignant" emerged 1580s (e.g. black magic). Black face in reference to a performance style originated in U.S., is from 1868. Black flag, flown (especially by pirates) as a signal of "no mercy," from 1590s. Black dog "melancholy" attested from 1826. Black belt is from 1875 in reference to districts of the U.S. South with heaviest African population; 1870 with reference to fertility of soil; 1913 in judo sense. Black power is from 1966, associated with Stokely Carmichael. black (v.) Look up black at Dictionary.com c.1200, "to become black;" early 14c., "to make black, darken;" from black (adj.). Related: Blacked; blacking. black (n.) Look up black at Dictionary.com Old English blæc "the color black," also "ink," from noun use of black (adj.). From late 14c. as "dark spot in the pupil of the eye." The meaning "black person, African" is from 1620s (perhaps late 13c., and blackamoor is from 1540s). To be in the black (1922) is from the accounting practice of recording credits and balances in black ink.

For years it has been a common practice to use red ink instead of black in showing a loss or deficit on corporate books, but not until the heavy losses of 1921 did the contrast in colors come to have a widely understood meaning. ["Saturday Evening Post," July 22, 1922]

[-] 1 points by grapes (2651) 4 months ago

You had better wake your brain up if you trade stocks of China. They seem to use red for gain and black for loss, exactly opposite. Ah, the theory of relativity reigns supreme.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

You're not going back far enough. For example. black comes from the old English blac, but earlier than that, it came from words that meant white in other languages.

I do hope you realize that the old English blac is actually blaec and comes from the word blanc in French which means white.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Well, the ancient ones come from German and they were using bleichen to mean white, not black. Black was schwarz. Somehow, when the word was translated into English, they made a mistake by switching things up. I mean, black is related to terms that means things like "turn pale". It's a bit weird.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Dark is an absence of light.

There was no "mix-up". Germanic languages are full of paradoxes. That isn't because of mistakes. It is because of the many people who took them on as part of a trade language, or Pidgin.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Agreed on the last poke. Liberal used to mean open-minded, and accepting of new concepts. Now, it seems to mean hippy dope-smoking hillbilly. Libertarianism is the concept that the founding fathers used to co-write the constitution. What does is mean now? Something akin to socialism, or communism? '

You're talking about the meaning of words that vary through time in the similar language. And, words in politics always vary because there is always a gap between theory and knowledge. For example, Anarchy means a whole bunch of things depending on which anarchist scholar you read. Words like libertarian and libertarianism are complex with long and loaded histories.

What I'm interested in are simple words that all the other languages mean one thing, but when adopted in a different language mean the opposite.

For example, if the English word rich came from French riche, but meant poor instead. I find those occurrences very rare indeed. Words that change meaning, especially in complex fields like art and politics are quite normal.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I'm an individual. It's not rare that the root meaning of a word is reversed. The one percenters have been doing exactly that for a while now. Haven't you noticed? Miss Linguist?

No I thought it was rare. Can you provide examples of other words whose roots mean the opposite? I find those types of words quite interesting.

BTW - No need for cheap shots like "miss linguist". We are adults here. We can discuss without name calling I hope. It's OK to disagree. Not need to get angry, vindictive, insulting, etc...

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

"To answer your question, the prefix in means not."

The prefix "in" also means "in, into, within, toward." As in inbreed, infer, induct, etc. At least according to my hard copy of Websters.

Which would explain why "inflammable" means the same as "flammable."

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Agreed on the last poke.

Liberal used to mean open-minded, and accepting of new concepts. Now, it seems to mean hippy dope-smoking hillbilly.

Libertarianism is the concept that the founding fathers used to co-write the constitution. What does is mean now? Something akin to socialism, or communism? '

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

You don't find it interesting that English is the only language in which black means black and not white? Blanc, blanco, blanca, bleichen, etc... were all the roots of black. But, only in English does it mean black. It's white in all the other languages. All European languages. Germanic and Latin based. Why the exception only for English, unless a mistake?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Blanc, blanco, blanca, bleichen, etc... were all the roots of black.

Huh - I am pretty sure that what you have listed - is - in the English language what Blonde relates to.

Hah - that's funny - blonde roots.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Again you missed the point.

English is a pidgin lingo. It has its roots in several major dialects, and several dozen minor languages.

Blanco to banco, is just one letter. Two meanings. I made a study of this topic during my edu years at Uni.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

An absence of light. You still don't get it. Do you? Either that, or you're trolling.

My friend, I do get it. I do get it's an absence of light. What you don't get is that in ALL prior languages it meant white. Then English took that word, the root from other languages that meant white, and made it mean black. This is interesting for linguists. It's rare that a root is used and ends up meaning the exact opposite in the appropriating language.

If you don't find that interesting, that's OK.

It seems to me you're a contrarian just like shooz.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Post your source - I posted mine which disagrees with your postulation.

[-] -3 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

I'm an individual.

It's not rare that the root meaning of a word is reversed.

The one percenters have been doing exactly that for a while now.

Haven't you noticed? Miss Linguist?

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Again you missed the point. English is a pidgin lingo. It has its roots in several major dialects, and several dozen minor languages. Blanco to banco, is just one letter. Two meanings. I made a study of this topic during my edu years at Uni.

Yes indeed, but what's interesting is that the root of the word black in ALL other dialects (not just some) refers to white.

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

An absence of light.

You still don't get it. Do you?

Either that, or you're trolling.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Etymology - They still teach it. I learned Latin and Greek mythology. You know that the Milky Way was named after a Greek myth? Zeus had a child with a mortal. The child was Hercules. Zeus' immortal wife Hera raised Hercules in the heavens. One day, when Hercules was still a baby, she was breast feeding him but then got angry when she thought that Hercules wasn't her child. She sprayed the skies with her breast milk instead of feeding Hercules. That created the Milky Way. That's also why the word Galactic is related to lactose. Fun little story.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

There definitely should be a socio-economic course in high-school. Socialism usually means an economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the people as a whole, not by private individuals. The people as a whole can either be the government (which represents the people) or without government like in anarcho-socialism or libertarian anarchism. However, you could have socialism with very little democracy. You could imagine a government which is one party (no voting), and which implements socialism as the economic model.

In any case, democracy and socialism need to be better defined if we wish to embark in the discussion seriously. There are different types of democracy and different meanings to the word socialism.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

In an ideal world it would be taught in school but the last thing this government wants is a population of politically savvy citizens. That's just my opinion, of course.

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

What does "the government" even mean? The government is made up of thousands upon thousands of people from the President all the way down to municipal politics. And these people change all the time, they are citizens before becoming politicians. The idea that the government is one entity which thinks in one way and is always against the people is conspiracy theory like. It's nonsense and an insult to intellectualism.

There is no shortcut. Things are not as simplistic as the paintings of conspiracy theorists. Life is not a cartoon with one character that is all evil against others that are all good.

To understand what's going on in political America, you need to dig much deeper than the simplistic portrayals given by conspiracy theorists.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

You're obsessed, man. The 'government' may be composed of thousands of people, but as far as the 'federal' government goes, which is what I was referring to, it's essentially one entity with various pieces, with the President as figurehead.

Sometimes simplistic, or painting things "with a broad brush," is good enough. My statement still stands. The government, in my opinion, doesn't want a population of politically savvy citizens.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I think your analysis is on the simplistic side. It's very complex. Americans were never known for their intellectualism. They prefer watching TV than reading books. Generally speaking, the education system isn't absolutely horrible. Students learn to read and libraries have books. You can't always blame the government. Well educated citizens make more money, thus making more money for those on the higher echelons. Rich people with power always benefit from a strong and educated working force.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

My comment may have been on the simplistic side, but my analysis of the situation certainly isn't. In fact, one could argue that your statement about Americans preferring TV to books is simplistic and inaccurate (you should've said "most" or "some" Americans). In fact, you're entire comment is simplistic and a broad generalization.

There are two educational systems in this country, T, and I can only speak of 'public education,' which was iffy when I was in school and far worse now, and since it's the government that ultimately determines our policies in regards to educating the masses, it most certainly is the fault of the government that our education system sucks. I'm assuming you didn't go to public schools in the US, nor do you have any kids in the system, right?

Here's the fact: public schools aren't for educating as much as they're for indoctrinating, and they only want the average grad smart enough to be a loyal, patriotic worker bee. It does NOT encourage critical thinking in any way. And the school system is an integral part of the 'dumbing down' of Americans that has been going on for nearly a century now. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact, and there's plenty of evidence out there, and plenty of intelligent people have spoken of this.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Well, you just made it clear that you just want to argue. If it's okay for you to generalize, then it's okay for me as well. See: "the government doesn't want a population of politically savvy citizens."

Fair enough. Although, there is a big difference. When I say "Americans" I am talking about a lot of people. I'm making a generalization about them. When you say "the government" you talk of it as if it was some kind of singular entity. It isn't. There is no such thing as "the government". It's a collection of people with a collection of ideas. If you said "politicians" it would make more sense. Then you could generalize. I never understood this idea of the government as some kind of singular entity.

I really think this comes from the culture of conspiracy theories. The idea that "the government" is a single entity with a precise and singular agenda. It really isn't.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 4 months ago

Wrong.

What?

That government is not a singularity.

It is a singularity unless one talks state and federal. If one is only talking federal government - then - there is only one. Same goes for talking state government if one talks about a particular state - then that is also a singular government. It becomes plurality when one talks about a mixture of state's governments and/or state and federal at the same time - or singular state and fed gov or plural state and singular fed gov at the same time.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Nope. Referring to the "government" as a singular entity has nothing to do with conspiracy theories (really, T, you need to get off that obsession of yours). Nor does referring to the 'government' as a singular entity in any way imply a singular purpose or agenda.

It's also incorrect, in this context, for it to have been more accurate for me to have used "politicians" instead. You're splitting hairs. A group of politicians = a government. Referring to the government as a singular entity in casual conversation just makes the conversation easier.

It may be more accurate to say "the executive branch" wants this, or the "legislative branch" wants that, or the Democrats want, etc. but it's not always necessary. When someone says something like "the government doesn't want informed citizens" it isn't necessary to get into specifics about who or what branch or particular entity. Not in casual conversation anyway because people generally understand.

I do get what you're saying to an extent, though. This kind of problem often crops up when laymen are trying to talk to specialists. I had a short conversation recently with a professor at the U. of Florida and he had a problem with me saying "testing for safety." It's like proving a negative, I think. He said you can't test for safety and by me saying that, I was showing my lack of scientific understanding. What they do is test for toxicity, but from a laymen's point of view, they're just two sides of the same coin. Is it toxic, is it safe? To the man on the street, what it boils down to is, is it safe to eat, or grow?

My point is, in casual conversation among nonprofessionals, generalizations are often good enough to get the points across. If it results in a misunderstanding of some sort, then yes, more exact definitions would be needed.

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

When people use a an expression like "Americans prefer TV over books" it's understood they mean most or more. I shouldn't have to specify that I didn't mean 100% of Americans. It's called a generalization. We all know there are always exceptions.

No, I didn't attend public school in US. I'll take your word that it sucks. I know from experience that most Americans I meet seem less educated than Europeans.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Well, you just made it clear that you just want to argue. If it's okay for you to generalize, then it's okay for me as well. See: "the government doesn't want a population of politically savvy citizens."

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

It's not that complex at all.

There's currently a revolving door between being a congressman, a lobbyist, and a CEO of a corporation.

As for well-educated citizens earning more money? There's statistics to show that earning a degree does not guarantee a job today. Hellooooooooo? That's why people hit the streets and camped out in the first instance.

Remember? Or weren't you there?

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

There's no guarantees any more. If you are related to someone in a position of power, you are relatively heaps better off, education or not, than someone with an education.

Sure, but the tendency remains that those with higher education have better prospects than those without.

http://www.pacificweb.org/DOCS/rmi/pdf/Education%20and%20wages.pdf

http://chronicle.com/blogs/bottomline/better-higher-education-leads-to-a-better-regional-economy-report-says/

[-] 2 points by shooz (26733) 4 months ago

http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/Privatizing_Public_Education,_Higher_Ed_Policy,_and_Teachers

There's who wrecking education here in the States, along with Christian coalitions in the South that want to refuse global warming and teach creationism, and "revised" history.

Privatization, has been hit or miss, and the misses are particularly bad and costly.

[-] 1 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

Everybody could be educated, but if most jobs are low-wage, low-skill jobs, it won't change a damn thing. Then you just end up with a bunch of highly educated people working at walmart.

[+] -5 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

We are speaking of two different things. Being well educated no longer guarantees a good job, but the people with better jobs still are usually better educated than those with lower education. The highest paying jobs are things like lawyers, doctors, university teachers, and so on. It's still true that a masters degree will offer you more prospects than a high school diploma. The guarantee is not like yesteryears, but it's still better to be well educated.

And, like I said, richer countries are usually those where people have better educations. Countries like Japan, Germany, US, etc... have more people with master degrees and doctorates per capita than countries like Vietnam, Kenya, etc...

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Better for whom?

There's no guarantees any more. If you are related to someone in a position of power, you are relatively heaps better off, education or not, than someone with an education.

[+] -5 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Statistics still show that better jobs are generally held by more educated people. Also, countries where people have higher educations usually fair better in the world market. Poor countries rarely are those with very strong education. That's my point. US is a leader in tech. That's because a lot of bright minds come from US. This creates companies that do well internationally, makes the country richer, and benefits the 1% quite a lot.

It's some kind of conspiracy theory fantasy that the government either wants to keep people really dumb, or wants to lower the population with things such as FEMA camps. The 1% would not do well without a strong and educated working force. It's a pyramid. If you're on top. you need people below to support you.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Well, henry, your finger is clearly not on the pulse.

Riots in many developed nations, including Norte America, indicate that the new unemployed are educated youth, with scant job prospects, short of flipping burgers, or polishing autos.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/01/jobless-europe-young-qualified

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10262174/Bright-young-things-with-nowhere-to-shine.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2011/07/25/9992/the-black-and-white-labor-gap-in-america/

[-] -3 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

No. Socialism mostly refers to a type of economic system. You could have it with little democracy. Democracy has to do with politics. You could have a pure democratic system where everyone votes on everything and it could be capitalist, socialist, communist, or could use another economic system. People keep mixing up politics and economics.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Emphasis on mostly. Check Wiki again, T, fourth paragraph down. Also check out the page on Democratic socialism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist

[-] -2 points by henry1234 (-37) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Yes indeed, that's why I said mostly.

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Perhaps. The point is, if what you say is correct, we won't achieve a better place by starting with more democracy as people would not choose socialism over capitalism. Thus, we must first start with educating. Only when people are ready should we strive to increase their say.

BTW - I don't understand why you got a stinkle for your few sentences above. It seems to me what you say is quite obvious. US governments have used propaganda agaist communism and socialism for years. I remember when Hilary Clinton tried socialized health care in the 80's, she was pawned as the devil!

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Well, educating is what we're trying to do here on this website, but considering how ingrained the propaganda is in regards to socialism (and anarchy, for that matter), I'm not sure we can ever change that perception. Which is why I'm all in favor of a new 'label.'

As for the 'stinkle,' it's meaningless.

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Changing labels is not the way to go. It doesn't add any new meaning, and when the learners realize you're just packaging known ideas with new labels, they'll think you're trying to trick them. There's no easy path, no shortcut. We have to properly educate people. Also, there are plenty of good books and scholarly articles on socialism and other 'labels'. If you change the word, then you throw all that information out. Not a good idea at all. Again, labels are not artifice. They are simply words with an assigned meaning. If propaganda was used to soil a word, then you can't simply ignore that by using a new word. You must educate to counter the propaganda. A well educated person needs to be aware of the propaganda effort used against ideas. It's part of being educated. For example, to understand anarchy is also to understand the history of the concept, and that includes the propaganda efforts used against it. All this must be taught. And really, that's the most important part to learn! That a propaganda effort took place!

This forum is not good for education. It doesn't reach a wide enough audience, and the material is not organized. Also, it's not good for younger people since many long time users use a lot of profanity. I wouldn't want my two kids to read the material here for that reason. 't need a platform that reaches many with a very well planned out and organized body of information from which to teach and learn.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

I wouldn't want my two kids to read the material here for that reason.

been anywhere else on the internets ?

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Many places. I use this site a few minutes here and there.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

You may be giving too much credit to the American people, and things get relabeled all the time. Also, whether or not the general population feels "tricked" might depend on how the new idea is 'sold.' If you want to reeducate the general population as to the true meaning of socialism, it's going to take a very long time. That's the problem I see in trying to reeducate the masses.

As far as this website, well, it's not perfect but it's about the best we have right now. Plus, it gets a lot more readers than you might expect. On a good day, there may be hundreds of readers here and all it takes is a particular message to hit the right group of people. So, we'll just keep plugging away. Do you have a better option?

[+] -4 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

As far as I can tell, this forum is mostly a waste of time. I don't think it as as many readers as you think. Not even close. It would be much better to spend time directly in your community. To meet people face to face. To start local.

As for teaching socialism taking a long time, for sure. I don't think there are any shortcuts. It will take the time it takes. Relabelling is really not the solution in my opinion. Socialism and anarchy are good words. They should not be changed. As I said above, teaching these concepts also means teaching the propaganda they suffered. I think this is actually the most important part. You can't teach concepts without their accompanying history. To try to is in vain. You'll just hit the many pitfalls already talked about in the past. Both these ideas come with a long history of scholarly debate. These need to be talked about while teaching. You can't teach anarchy without Propotkin for example, or Socialism without Marx. To do so is to miss out on crucial chapters. We need to teach why socialism and anarchy weren't adopted in US. The history. The propaganda. The main players. Etc... A big job indeed, but you can't reach heights of good intellectual discussions without this. Again, there are no shortcuts to good education.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

If ten percent, or even five percent, of the daily visitors to this site read the forum that would translate into a couple hundred readers a day, so it's not completely ineffectual. As I stated above, all it takes is some comment or forum post to reach the right individual or group for the seed to spread. And again, do you have a better internet alternative?

You make some good points in your second paragraph, MJ. Food for thought, to be sure.

[+] -4 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I don't think there is even 100 daily readers on this site. Probably 50 at most.

Do I have better Internet alternatives? Probably going to a hard right capitalist site would be better. You wouldn't be preaching to the choir. At least accepting them here so we can hope to change their mind would be better. However, like I said above, I really don't think the Internet is the best place to help create a better world. Time spent face to face working in communities is much better. One day volunteering to give a speech at your local school about socialism and then having a discussion amongst the students, a debate of capitalism vs socialism, is worth a year on this site.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

It doesn't matter how many readers there are, what matters is the spread of knowledge. As an example, my nephew is practically illiterate. He wouldn't open a book or magazine if his life depended on it, but things I've learned on here I've passed on to him, and he's passed them on to others. Each one teach one. Don't discount this place as a viable tool for spreading information. I can't argue with your idea of face to face interactions in our respective communities though, but that might not not be an option for some of the people here.

[+] -5 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I think the size of the reader pool does matter. If you spend a lot of effort teaching a small reader pool you are indeed wasting your time. You could reach a much bigger one using another medium. Sure, you'll reach some people with this site, but I see people here spending many hours a day posting and commenting, and posting again. I really feel this is a waste of time. If these people spent the same amount of time in real life creating community discussions, or going on right wing sites to talk about socialism, they would be much more effective. Don't forget it's not only about the size, but also who. The people here already agree with most of the ideas you talk about. People here are left wingers with a penchant for socialism and anarchy.

This site is essentially talking to a small choir. Small amount of people who already agree with what you say. Not much teaching going on.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

You and gnomunny could go to the Tea Party Nation, Politico and Slate and expand your discussions there. Then you could teach to your hearts content.

[+] -5 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Got your message. Can't reply as a new user. The site you use to estimate the number of daily visitors isn't that good. It's an estimate. The only way to know the real numbers would be to ask the website owner. For example, I have a few sites and when I compare the states for that site you listed and the real stats I get from my server, the numbers aren't even close. You can only take those numbers with a very big grain of salt. If they go up or down it indicates a tendency to get more or fewer users, but that's about all you can gather from the numbers. The problem is they'll count many hits from the same user as different users. The numbers are inflated.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 4 months ago

Give me the links to some of your sites, I'm curious. Why would you discount that site? Because their numbers don't jibe with those other sites? I imagine they're all just estimates, and that site says "unique visitors" a day, which I would assume is derived from IP addresses. I have seen wildly different numbers in the past, but it's been a long time since I checked.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

Opting out is all well and good, but people need something to opt IN to. What might that be? Why is it better? You aren't really answering the question "what can we do about it?" by simply telling them to opt out. They don't know what that means.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Who is "they"?

You don't need anything to opt into, after opting out.

You can do whatever you please.

[-] 2 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

Who is "they"? The people you are addressing with the post. The "people" you refer to who are asking "what can we do?"

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Well, if you read the OP, here are the options suggested there.

"That alone infers that the time has come to draw straws, people. Are you going to become their serfs? Or are you going to become your own person? "

[-] 2 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

"You don't need anything to opt into, after opting out." "become your own person". These are all vague statements. It's really unclear what you are suggesting that people do. Opting out could include abandoning society and going to live a subsistence lifestyle in the woods. While that might be fine for some, it's antisocial and doesn't address the larger problems we face. I hope that is not what you are suggesting.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Your concerns are yours alone.

What I decide is right for me, is my concern.

Opting out of a life of servitude, when done en masse, is exactly what is required to destablise the current imbalance of the 99% versus the 1%.

You either see that as a positive, or you don't.

The choice is yours, as it always should be.

[-] 2 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

Opt out of a life of servitude en masse.....how? These vague statements aren't helping anyone. They are just confusing.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

You clearly have access to the internetz.

Aware of google? Or twocows?

[-] 2 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

I am trying really hard to understand what you are getting at here but you are making it impossible. You aren't explaining anything.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

You've lost your imagination?

There are likely to be as many ways to opt out, as there are people considering their options.

But you desire instructions? Are you that programmed, that you require a push towards something intangible?

I'm really sorry for you. Most people are not ready to be unplugged, so you're not alone.

[-] 0 points by 4parecon (16) 4 months ago

How is this behavior of yours constructive? You are coming across as an ass. Are you here to pick fights and belittle people, or to engage in productive conversation? It certainly doesn't seem like the latter.

This has nothing to do with what I already know. The question was what do YOU think people should do. You specifically addressed people who are asking "what can I do?", but you don't offer a real answer. How in the world do you expect to help people unplug and become actively involved if all you do is repeat vague statements and attack people when they ask you for clarification? Your behavior is juvenile. Grow up.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

maybe start with location and state the problem to address

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

The main problem, to my mind, is that most of the voting populace simply don't have the time to address any of the major issues we are all facing from the corporate criminals.

The location being; anywhere in the world today.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

I've told you what I think people can do.

I'm not wishing anything upon anybody, or saying they "should" do anything.

I've not attacked you in any way, shape, or form.

What I'm doing, is not responding to inciteful posturing.

I'll do my maturing at my own pace, and in my own space.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20556) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

Attempts by the current admin to start another war (police action, really) hit a brick wall, when the generals said a collective "NO" to the admin.

what? You got a link for that?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20556) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

OMYFUKINGGOD

You do understand that the current administration was not in power in 1991 - you do get that, right?

YOur dexterity really is amazing. The Generals said no to the Admin on starting another war . . .

And so I guess that means McCain must be up for a Peace Prize because we know -

It's the Generals who come up with these plans. That is what they do. Whether or not any particular administration picks up on these plans and runs with them may depend largely on the influence of scum like DICK CHENEY.

.

IT really is amazing to watch you gyrate. I bet you can even suck your own ass. REally. Go ahead.

Do not expect me to be entertained by such nonsense. It is an insult to my intelligence.

.

YOu do realize they even tell you what they are doing - you don't get that?

  • scriptonitedaily
[-] -1 points by AlwaysIntoSomething (42) 4 months ago

Its the same people running the country then as it is now. You can rearrange the chairs on the deck all you want, but the people in the control pit are still the same.

You really think they would allow the general population to "vote" away their power and control?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20556) from South Burlington, VT 4 months ago

that's right you fukin fools

script on it daily

go ahead you fukin scumbags

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

He's a bit overwound at the mo.

Understanding takes time, when your cognitive dissonance passes for a thinking system.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

There is no opt out.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Your thread on rent indicates that more and more people can't afford to stay opted in.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

Opting indicates a choice.

[+] -4 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Very deep. Insightful. A cornerstone of intellectual truth. Philosophically just. Pertinent. Opting does indeed indicate a choice. option is a synonym of choice. Why didn't we all think of that?

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

Here let's try it your way. Can't afford to pay rent it's all about choice. Just choose to live on the street. This isn't a choice. It's an attempt to make it look like it was a personal decision so that no one gets their hands dirty.

Feel better?

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

People don't have much choice in a capitalist economy, unless they were born from wealthy families. It's a crappy system.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

Rent control.

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

Capitalists are always trying to fix their broken systems with things like rent control, welfare, etc... Certainly, this is better than an uncontrolled capitalism. However, the fact that capitalism needs to be highly controlled with all sorts of exceptions indicates that it is a sick system. A good system would work without too many tricks. Rent control is a good short term solution, but we really should be looking at the larger problem which is capitalism itself.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

Which isn't going anywhere fast. Rent control worked rather well where instituted until greed took over. It isn't necessary to reinvent the wheel.

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

In the long run, I think it's definitely necessary to reinvent the wheel. Capitalism makes poor people poorer, and rich people richer. It destroys the environment. The danger with quick fixes is that it makes it seem like capitalism is working when it's not. We need to fight for the real important grand solutions, not for the quick fixes.

It's time to rethink politics and economics in US. High time.

[-] -2 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

If you're right, then it's only a question of getting states to vote. Easy. Occupy should organize a campaign to create a referendum for the most socialist friendly state. Have the people vote to change their economy to socialist instead of capitalism.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

Or, you start locally and build from there. Alternatively, one could always spend the next year or so

attempting to argue ideology. But that was last years gig, no?

[+] -6 points by michaeljames (-78) from New York, NY 4 months ago

No, I think ideology should always be discussed. It should be a flexible discussion that adapts and changes with time. People have been discussing political and economic systems for thousands of years, it won't stop tomorrow. We haven't yet seen a perfect system in practice, so there's always something new to talk about. Fields like socialism and anarchy keep getting more books, more scholarly analysis, and so on... There's still a lot to be said.

However, I think this needs to be married with solutions tried in practice. In my opinion, Occupy hasn't brought enough solutions on the table. They really should be organizing more practical events and trying to build projects with communities.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (21783) 4 months ago

I knew you would do it. Same/same.

[+] -4 points by davidhums (9) from New York, NY 4 months ago

I think it's too easy to draw a clear cut them vs us scenario. Real life is not a grand conspiracy theory or some kind of cartoon. Viewing problems in this type of simple dualism of government vs the people misses a lot I believe. We have to look deeper. The government are made up of people too. We have to identify exactly what is broken with the system before we can hope to repair it. I'm not sure we really did that. I think this simplistic false dichotomy approach blinds us. We just shout that we hate the 1% and the government, and that's that. We say we don't like corruption, but don't explain exactly how we could get ride of it. We need to start looking at the problems in more depth if we want to hope to find solutions. OWS has been great, but it's analysis of the situation is usually very much a surface analysis.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 months ago

depth is often used to tell others

"they don't know what they are talking about"

but I find many things intentionally overcomplicated

for example: computer code is often written so the layman can not understand it

[-] -1 points by Builder (4202) 4 months ago

Then you haven't been here long at all.

Years of analysis, of every aspect of the corruption within the banking system, the MIC, the SCOTUS, Cointelpro, the electoral scams, the list goes on and on, and that is your assessment?