Official Copy of Reality
What we now know:
A) There is an official copy of reality.
B) Itâs self-evidently wrong, but benefits a minority.
C) Attempts to discuss that it is obviously wrong and benefits a minority at the expense of everyone else is interpreted as disinformation and harmful conversation.
Welcome! Many of us have known this for decades, glad to see you on this side.
@TuckerMax Iâve only been on this kick since the mid 1970s and the Church/Pike Comitteeâs when I was growing up which was formative for me. People like @danielsheehan45 and Noam Chomsky have been here a lot longer.
@TuckerMax @danielsheehan45 What is new for me is that the world in general now dimly intuits that this is true.
[People arenât parsing the above as intended. Forgive me.
The operative words were meant to be âweâ & ânowâ. Meaning that this used to be knowledge believed by a minority of iconoclasts, but is now dimly understood by nearly everyone, at least in some form or to some degree.]
Eric, if that is true, why do you spend so much time lamenting the definition of the left and the specific ideological lines of the Parties? If you know its a show, why don't you know that is a huge part of the trick?
@TuckerMax @danielsheehan45 The âofficial copy of realityâ changes character. For example the innovations of Dick Morris and Bill Clinton on the Left, along with Frank Luntz and Newt Gingrich on the Right were catastrophic in my opinion. Previous versions of this game were sustainable while ugly and unjust.
@TuckerMax @danielsheehan45 The Degradations of the 2008 crisis followed by the Dear Colleague letter of R. Ali in 2011, IMMACT90, Bayh-Dole in 1980, were specific worsenings of our corrupt picture of reality.
The Jenga tower was never the solid structure it was claimed to be. But it stood. It wonât now.
Precisely! My point is that arguing over whether right or left version is the "correct" one IS the problem. Overton window, two wings same bird, etc.
The frame is to understand its ALL BS--and to move on from the entire frame.
@TuckerMax @danielsheehan45 Left and Right were dialectical. The pre-Clinton Left served a role for labor. We needed the dialectic. Now itâs Thelma vs Louise to see who hits the ground last. I have no interest.
@TuckerMax @danielsheehan45 We canât just opt out. We can, theoretically, come up with new dialectics.
Why not? Why can't we decide we are done with that frame and create a new one?
The two party binary is likely emergent not from ideological left vs right but from the game theory of the way we count votes and determine leadership. And the binary will be called L v R.
Many of us moved on. But the game theory didnât.
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.