Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[alastairq]

Has anybody noticed the recent spate of TV adverts, encouraging everybody to crowd into the home of [invade the space of?] one's nearest and dearest old  & vulnerable person?

What hope does our society have, of avoiding the Stupid Club's clutches, if so blatantly encouraged to go back to hugging again? With any stranger?  Or, robbing our old & vulnerable of their valuable, clean, bug-free oxygen?

 

Sadly I cannot get R4, on my 40 year old transistor thingy, with it's tinny sounds.  [Sunday evenings, a sad part to the weekend, and ''sing something simple'' just commencing? Guaranteed to give me a downer!!] {I say ''40 years old''...it was 2nd hand when I got it, 40 years ago!!!]

 

Every mention of R4, though, brings forth memories of a pleasant time in my life, when I would travel across the Pennines with my railroad models, in my Renault R4....to visit with others of a like mind [NMRA british Region]...

The R4 would also get me home again, jiggedy jigg....[when the weather conspired to strand a thousand others on the M62!]

[drmditch]

55 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

It is a fascinating and chilling listen.  Recommended.

 

Thank you for the reference, but I am finding it difficult to enough to avoid getting too worried and depressed anyway.

How many (within the rich world) of our current problems are actually being amplified if not actually created by the focussing and distorting mirror of 'social media'?

 

And in the meantime the pressure of eight billion humans to find better lives continues and will continue.

Pressure on the Polish border - BBC

 

On my bad days I see no future but a wrecked and overheated planet with humans involving themselves in wars of extermination.

 

 

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

TBH, I frequently feel the same, and the only suggestion that I can table is to use mind-monopolising activity to help prevent that line of thought turning into an ever-tightening spiral. Some will recommend Railway modelling as a diversion, but that doesn’t work for me, just about the only thing that does is cycling, specifically cycling up fairly steep hills, because that crowds out everything else from the mind.

[rocor]

22 hours ago, Regularity said:

You missed out the important, validating factor.

It is not whether someone more trained or qualified is right, but how many “votes”/likes/supporters/followers the random bloke on social media has. The “court of public opinion” must reign supreme in our lives, which to me validates having a general election every five years (to put in place some people to get on with it) but which will be used in the future (probably by the political descendants of those who evoke the phrase now) to justify why we have had such things as the vote taken away.

 

If we are, as some would have it, the sum of our actions, then not doing anything unless it is validated or chosen by followers on social media, means we have reached a strange position in the devolution of the human species.

 

The court of public opinion, is a 'judicature' that is easy to recognize, as they have the noose at the ready before the trial has even taken place.  

 

 

[Edwardian]

2 minutes ago, rocor said:

 

The court of public opinion, is a 'judicature' that is easy to recognize, as they have the noose at the ready before the trial has even taken place.  

 

 

 

Witch, sorry, which suggests we should pick up where we left off, with Sir Bedevere's masterly handling of the Mediaeval Stupid Club.

 

 

 

[Compound2632]

A point of information: witch-hunting and burning was really an Early Modern rather than a Medieval phenomenon. The Medieval church hierarchy was sceptical of accusations of witchcraft, with the burning of witches frequently condemned. Quite why there should be an explosion of witch-hunting in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is an interesting question.

[Edwardian]

Just now, Compound2632 said:

A point of information: witch-hunting and burning was really an Early Modern rather than a Medieval phenomenon. The Medieval church hierarchy was sceptical of accusations of witchcraft, with the burning of witches frequently condemned. Quite why there should be an explosion of witch-hunting in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is an interesting question.

 

Yes, a pity they thus allowed that scene to wreck the impeccable historical accuracy that otherwise characterised Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 

 

 

[rocor]

On 09/11/2021 at 15:53, Compound2632 said:

A point of information: witch-hunting and burning was really an Early Modern rather than a Medieval phenomenon. The Medieval church hierarchy was sceptical of accusations of witchcraft, with the burning of witches frequently condemned. Quite why there should be an explosion of witch-hunting in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is an interesting question.

 

Follow the money.

 

https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Matthew-Hopkins-WitchFinder-General/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2022 by rocor
Added image.

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, rocor said:

Follow the money.

 

Quite. But as we know only too well, such charlatans can only thrive where there is public credulity.

[Regularity]

54 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Quite why there should be an explosion of witch-hunting in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is an interesting question.

It went hand-in-hand with Protestant Puritanism, which was very clear about the “role” (in their eyes) of women - there to please and serve men.

[Nearholmer]

23 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

can only thrive where there is public credulity.

So, more or less everywhere, at more or less all times, then.

 

IMO, the only difference between “then” and “now”, is that now mis-information-technology allows deluded thinking to spread faster, and more effectively, and facilitates manipulation of public credulity in a way that even the gutter press of earlier times couldn’t manage, and they, along with certain large institutions that I won’t name, were pretty good at.

[Compound2632]

1 minute ago, Nearholmer said:

IMO, the only difference between “then” and “now”, is that now mis-information-technology allows deluded thinking to spread faster, and more effectively, and facilitates manipulation of public credulity in a way that even the gutter press of earlier times couldn’t manage, and they, along with certain large institutions that I won’t name, were pretty good at.

 

In other words, we go backwards rather than forwards.

[Nearholmer]

56 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

In other words, we go backwards rather than forwards.

I’m not sure.

I guess it depends upon how deeply you think ‘enlightened’, by which I mean post C16th philosophical and scientific concepts penetrated in the first place. Did most people outside of the feared-by-nouveau-mediaevals ‘Metropolitan elites’ actually soak-up and internalise this stuff? Or, at least, did most people internalise enough key elements?

 

Does mis-IT simply take the lid off a situation that has persisted throughout, which I suspect to be the case, or does it create a new stupidity? Germany, 1918-45? Post-colonial South Africa? Endless numbers of fringe cults, some just laughably eccentric, others deeply dangerous?

 

When I’m feeling optimistic (decreasingly often, mostly on sunny mornings 0615-0800), I think that the next generation will be better at this than the present one, better equipped to see-through nonsense.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Compound2632]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I think that the next generation will be better at this than the present one, better equipped to see-through nonsense.

 

They ought to be, given our current school curriculum, for all its faults. But can taught critical thinking overcome societal pressure?

[Nearholmer]

There might emerge sufficient critical-thinking zealots, alongside a big-enough pool of generally-persuaded-by-critical-thinking people, to marginalise the medievals. Let’s hope so!
 

My nephew is such a zealot, and until he decided that it had become a serious thief of time, he devoted himself to fighting the culture war on social media on that basis. He could persuade anyone face-to-face, because he’s 6ft 4in tall, and roughly the same across his shoulders (when he wasn’t studying or fighting culture wars he was rowing).

[Compound2632]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 to marginalise the medievals. 

 

Early Moderns.

[Regularity]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

IMO, the only difference between “then” and “now”, is that now mis-information-technology allows deluded thinking to spread faster,

There has also been a concomitant rise in demands for “rights”, particularly to be heard and validated, along with the concept that all points of view are equally valid, and that everything needs to be “accessible”. 
This is all nonsense: deep understanding of many things requires hard work, although basic appreciation is within the grasp of nearly everyone (e.g. one doesn’t have to speak a foreign language or be aware of the story to simply enjoy the sounds and sights of an opera, although historical context, basic music theory and seeing how the tone and rhythm of the music fits the libretto enhances it). Verifiable facts are verifiable facts, even if they are unpopular. The basic scientific approach is understandable by most people, even if the detailed depths of it are very specialised. And whilst person A has every “right” to freely swing their fists, that right stops when it infringes person B’s right not to be thumped in the face.

There were signs of this before the internet came along:

21 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

But can taught critical thinking overcome societal pressure?

It depends. 
At school, a lot of people stopped short of the “thinking” bit, and simply became critical. And that, sadly, was some of the teachers…

[Nearholmer]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Early Moderns.

The most deep-thinking of ‘em, possibly.

 

The thing about the EM period so far as my limited understanding goes is that it was a bubbling ferment of new ideas. Now, some of those ideas turned-out to be ‘trouble on legs’ once they got into their stride, but others, and perversely sometimes even the same ones in different minds, were the seedlings of some very fruitful plants. 
 

Another brief sun-shaft of optimism: maybe, out of this unsettled time in which we find ourselves, a few genuinely new and good ways of looking at things will emerge, alongside all the stuff that makes you shake your head and clutch your forehead.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Nearholmer

[monkeysarefun]

A large component of the modern stupid movement is a  new-found desire to "öwn the libs". 

 

To the point that doing something that is clearly against your best interests or will harm or even kill you - refuse the vax for example, condemn public funded health care as "socialist", deny climate change  and so on - is based not on critical thinking  but entirely on the fact that  "the Libs, "greenies", "lefties", and these days even  "scientists", and  "doctors" etc are proponents of it.

 

Its just mental and their memes arent even funny, just stoopid and usually don't make sense, or they  use twisted logic.

 

Societies simpler folk however must think they are profound and cutting  cos they pop up everywhere with attached endorsements, usually 2 dozen  laughing emojis or "this is so true!" then 2 dozen  laughing emojis..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Nearholmer]

It is possible to get too worked-up about all the rampant stupidity, though, in that the biggest clue to what people really think is what they do, rather than what the ‘like’ on Facebook/Twitter/WHY, and even among the adult age-group probably most prey to this sort of rubbish, 20-30yo, somewhere over 60% are vaccinated in the U.K., which considering that the advantage of vaccination to most of them personally will be tiny, isn’t too bad. Not brilliant, but not terrible.

 

 

[Edwardian]

2 hours ago, Regularity said:

It went hand-in-hand with Protestant Puritanism, which was very clear about the “role” (in their eyes) of women - there to please and serve men.

 

Yes, such a break from the Roman Catholic church which had a whole two ways of looking at women; Virgin or Whore. And not at all patriarchal, Father. 

 

Let's face it, no one had a monopoly on such wrong thinking.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

The thing about the EM period so far as my limited understanding goes is that it was a bubbling ferment of new ideas.

 

Yes, indeed; "18, no, even better, 18.2!"

 

So much more sensible in many ways than what came p'fore.

 

48 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

A large component of the modern stupid movement is a  new-found desire to "öwn the libs". 

 

To the point that doing something that is clearly against your best interests or will harm or even kill you - refuse the vax for example, condemn public funded health care as "socialist", deny climate change  and so on - is based not on critical thinking  but entirely on the fact that  "the Libs, "greenies", "lefties", and these days even  "scientists", and  "doctors" etc are proponents of it.

 

Its just mental and their memes arent even funny, just stoopid and usually don't make sense, or they  use twisted logic.

 

Societies simpler folk however must think they are profound and cutting  cos they pop up everywhere with attached endorsements, usually 2 dozen  laughing emojis or "this is so true!" then 2 dozen  laughing emojis..

 

 

48 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

All too dumb to get how dumb they are. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but you have to love Brandi Lyn.  You have to love anyone whose porn star name is also their actual name.  

 

Feckin' eejit, mind.

 

 

[figworthy]

3 hours ago, Regularity said:

There has also been a concomitant rise in demands for “rights”

 

The problem with "rights", is that they are usually accompanied by "responsibilities", and those demanding the "rights" seem to ignore them (or those that don't suit them).

Adrian

[Regularity]

21 minutes ago, figworthy said:

 

The problem with "rights", is that they are usually accompanied by "responsibilities", and those demanding the "rights" seem to ignore them (or those that don't suit them).

A point frequently made in this discussion, including by me!

[monkeysarefun]

4 hours ago, Edwardian said:

Yeah, but you have to love Brandi Lyn.  You have to love anyone whose porn star name is also their actual name.  

 

Feckin' eejit, mind.

 

Sure was!  

 

Her demand that "you" need to prove "your" right to force her to get vaccinated got answered by the Fates going "hold our beer"..

 

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/post/brandi-lyn-heidemann-45-houston-tx-debutant-anti-vaxxer-dead-from-covid

 

Now she lives forever on an internet memorial dedicated  to the tragically misguided. 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Annie]

Years from now when all this is over will they construct a tomb for the unknown Anti-Vaxxer.