The Empath Guild

[AdamTG02]

Well, I admit this comes a little late, but you're right. A semi-market economy is not what the US has now. Planed implies wage and price controls and extensive entitlements. Neither of those fit the US of the early 21st century.

[Hercules]

* Hercules looks in: looks at debate and exits very quckly*

Aghhhh.

[GeneralTacticus]

good point. i think i'll stop before this turns into a "Frankychan vs. Everone else" thread.

Good idea.

Still....i'm just debating in a friendly matter, no need to get .....if in fact you are.

Nah, no problem. It's good to debate with people, it makes you think about things more.

[Maniac]

It's not Frankychan vs everyone else. I agree with your position on Centralized Mass Media = Thought Control, Frankychan.

[GeneralTacticus]

It's not Frankychan vs everyone else. I agree with your position on Centralized Mass Media = Thought Control, Frankychan.

Only in a very primitive sense. the media can only influence people's perceptions, not control them; while this can have an enormous impact if it's very biased, it loses effect altogether if people realize that it's biased. And like I said, you're free to disagree with the media; you can't do the same about Thought Control.

[Maniac]

Ok, of course Centralized Mass Media isn't the same as the Thought Control proces as invisioned in SMAC, but it has the same intention. And I'm sure some media moguls and 'democratic' presidents would want to thought control, if they just had the technological means.

And like I said, you're free to disagree with the media

Unless you are trained in historical critique or something, the common wo/man can never be fully aware when s/he is being influenced. If you are told your entire life by the media that socialism is bad, most people will think it's bad. If you grow up in a social security system, many support such a system. How else do you explain such differences as between the US and Europe? Media and culture in general conditions you from your birth on. Thoughts can never be independent or neutral from the information you receive.

[AdamTG02]

Maniac: You ignore the fact that the "barons" of the media are raised in the same environment that we are raised in. They aren't doing it to control others -- they're doing it to spread what they believe is the truth.

Now, a Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson, a manipulative public official -- those you have to watch out for. (By naming a President from each of my nation's major parties, I hope to not offend anybody. Nice try.)

[lucky22]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
Maniac: You ignore the fact that the "barons" of the media are raised in the same environment that we are raised in.

What would you suppose the proportion of "media barons" and other CEOs who went to private versus public school would look like compared to a given society as a whole? How about compared as an exclusive sample to the other strata of society.
That would only be the tip of the iceberg of social-environmental considerations.

[AdamTG02]

It doesn't matter whether they're raised in wealthy families or not -- the point is that they're indoctrinated in culture, either from their schools or from their parents. They're going to spread that culture without consciously meaning to.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ok, of course Centralized Mass Media isn't the same as the Thought Control proces as invisioned in SMAC, but it has the same intention. And I'm sure some media moguls and 'democratic' presidents would want to thought control, if they just had the technological means.

I agree, IRL I'm quite sure that most politicians would love some kind of Thought Control, as long as they were the ones in control. That, though, is beside the point.

As for the rest, I think Adam covered it sufficiently, so I won't bother to repeat his points.

[lucky22]

Originally posted by AdamTG02
It doesn't matter whether they're raised in wealthy families or not -- the point is that they're indoctrinated in culture, either from their schools or from their parents. They're going to spread that culture without consciously meaning to.

Culture is not a homogenous quality in modern society. Those in control spread a mass consumerism rather than the culture in which they are raised. They promote whatever soul-destroying pap will sell without necessarily being conscious of it, sure. Next quarter's bottom line is usually the conscious concern of the moment.

[Kirov]

Indeed, there's a big difference between culture of upper class and culture of working class. The 'mass culture' is directed to working and middle classes. "Media barons" are of course from upper class and they do not inherit the culture they spread.
Of course I generalize, but you get the point.

And it really does not make sense to argue whether "media barons" consciously use techniques of manipulation or not. IMHO their priority is to sell as much informations as possible, not to make people more and more stupid but these two goals are in fact the same (they will sell more if people will be more stupid), so the argument about it is really meaningless.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by lucky22
What would you suppose the proportion of "media barons" and other CEOs who went to private versus public school would look like compared to a given society as a whole? How about compared as an exclusive sample to the other strata of society.
That would only be the tip of the iceberg of social-environmental considerations.

This goes a way back, but anyway. What's your problem with Private Schools? While I personally went to a public school, I've got no problem with people getting a better education if they can afford to pay more for that education. Education is just like any other good, from a TV to a VCR to whatever. The higher the ticket price, the higher the expectation of quality.

Originally posted by lucky22
Next quarter's bottom line is usually the conscious concern of the moment.

A popular misconception, but completly out of line with modern management theory and practise. Go back 50 to 100 years and it might've been right, but this hasn't been the case for quite some time now. The ones only concerned with the short term bottom line are the shareholders, those generally being the mum and dad investors who just want as high a dividend on their share portfolios as possible.

Originally posted by Kirov
Indeed, there's a big difference between culture of upper class and culture of working class. The 'mass culture' is directed to working and middle classes. "Media barons" are of course from upper class and they do not inherit the culture they spread.
Of course I generalize, but you get the point.

Ah, now here's the heart of the problem. You're all assuming
1) There's only the Upper Class and the Lower (Working) Class.
2) One is born into his class and cannot move between them.

1) is rebutted by the simple existance of the (Ever-growing) Middle Class
2) is rebutted by the existance of Media Moguls from humble backgrounds who worked themselves up from, for example, delivering papers, to owning the paper, to owning a stack of papers domestically, to owning many papers internationally, etc, etc, etc, to being the guy who owns News Corp. Hey, this refutes lucky22 as well. "Those in control spread a mass consumerism rather than the culture in which they are raised." See the contradiction between this and fact yet?

I think you might be failing to grasp there lucky that people in the upper classes in general deserve to be there, either through their own personal effort to get there, or through the effort of their ancestors, who worked themselves up to provide an easier life for their decendants.

Originally posted by Kirov
And it really does not make sense to argue whether "media barons" consciously use techniques of manipulation or not. IMHO their priority is to sell as much informations as possible, not to make people more and more stupid but these two goals are in fact the same (they will sell more if people will be more stupid), so the argument about it is really meaningless.

*BUZZ* Wrong! The better educated the populace is, the better things sell. That holds true for everything from computers to TV's to newspapers. You think they'd print the "Far Eastern Economic Review" if everyone was so dumb that they couldn't sell it? And let's not forget that dumb unskilled employees aren't of any use in this day and age. Blue collar is out, white collar is in. Better education works for everyone.
Now, while they *do* aim a significant amount of stuff at the LCD's, they don't make the LCD's any dumber than they already are. Only problem is...LCD's are generally the ones who breed faster. A sad fact, but the more intelligent you are, the longer you generally leave off having a child, and the less children you eventually have.

[GeneralTacticus]

A popular misconception, but completly out of line with modern management theory and practise. Go back 50 to 100 years and it might've been right, but this hasn't been the case for quite some time now. The ones only concerned with the short term bottom line are the shareholders, those generally being the mum and dad investors who just want as high a dividend on their share portfolios as possible.

So what is it they ARE after?

[Archaic]

Long term growth and profitability. They'd rather invest in the community now to reap the future benifits of that investment. It's partly for security. Rape everyone for all they're worth now, and your business is screwed within a few years. Invest in the community, and reap the profits of happy and satisfied consumers (And a consumer base that's constantly growing) for many years to come.