Hattip to Derek DeVries and his wonderfully thoughtful and oft loquacious blog (he even uses the word “loquacious” to describe his blog, that rapscalion) for giving me something to do on an incredibly boring day. I have replied multiple times to multiple comments that can be very inane, elitist and moronic. In other words, my favorite kind of comments!
I know you’re probably getting tired of me quoting other people, but I do this for the entertainment value (and prosperity). Here’s Bo, a non-American responding to an American who said something using that good ol’ American bravado and sickening patriotic attitude:
What a totally selfish point of view. Free people in a free/open and democratic society place their trust in elected representatives who purport to conduct domestic and international affairs on their behalf. I do not for one minute believe that the populations of free and democratic societies support representatives who go behind their backs and set up or undermine other governments, supply arms and finance to terrorist organisations and many other unscrupulous activities to suit their own ends. Yes – we all agree that there is a great deal of corruption in ALL governments and especially within major corporations, especially the banking sector, but that does not mean that we support it. Dealings made on our behalf by representatives elected by us should be open and honest. If we need to protect ourselves and our interests by initiating war or participating in war – then we MUST be given ALL the facts and have a say in whether or not our men and women should go off to foreign countries and lay down their lives. Why must our children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers be blown to bits or shot up in foreign lands? Tell the bloody truth and give us a say. And who the hell made America the world’s policeman anyway? (This bit is what told me he’s probably an Australian tosser)
To which I agree – I think America should stop being there for everyone. If England or Australia or Germany has an earthquake or invasion of robots that robs them of all power, food, water and medical assistance, let them deal with it. Let’s just sit at home and smirk. (I’m being sarcastic here) So I replied to Bo in this manner:
The problem is that you assume that the human race is capable of maintaining a free and open society with a government that is truly democratic and fair. That a majority are ready to give up easy lives and/or stability for a length of turmoil that is required to reach true change.
As long as there are two or more human beings working together, there will always be an ulterior motive and a secret agenda to gain more benefit than the other human beings they represent or manage. 99% of human beings are focused on survival by any means necessary, and then to add comfort and power afterwards. Those truly altruistic are easily used by those who are not. Even if they oppose it.
I applaud efforts to try to bring us closer to the ideal government that really represents and helps people. That we all get freedom and have some sort of equal footing. The only way that’s going to happen, though, is if you instigate an internal war that disrupts everyone’s basic needs and doesn’t rely on the Internet to function. Once this fight starts, we’ll lose power, communications, clean water, etc. So the only way to create the ultimate society is to eliminate all human beings. And most people are afraid of that so they stick to the status quo.
Or start a society governed by robots. And if I’ve learned anything from Hollywood, it’s that you can’t trust robots (because they’ll eventually kill us all anyway).*
*Since we’re going to talk paranoid conspiracy and unrealistic goals, I thought I’d add that last bit.
No disrespect to anyone I actually reply to on that blog. I realize that we’re just flinging opinions out there, and none of my responses are any less opinionated than yours. However, I tend to use logic and proper spelling/grammar when writing my opinion. Unlike a majority of other people. I like a good debate when people can spell “authority” and “presumably” correctly. My attempts at humor may go way above most of their heads.
Save Mr. DeVries, who seems to understand me and respond in a very civil and intelligent manner. And hates self-aware robots as much as I do (well, I don’t honestly know if he does, but I like to imagine we’re like-minded on this point).