OT - Fascist oppression fosters dirty word humor

by benmor78 on Mar 15, 2009 1:16 AM CDT Comment 45 comments

I ran across this over at Hit and Run, which is Reason's blog. Who would have thought that oppressive government censorship would cause people to make high-school level dirty jokes as their only outlet for criticism of an oppressive regime? Although, too be honest, if my high school substitute teachers had the power to sentence me to hard labor or death, I probably wouldn't have written "I.P. Freely" on the attendance sheet.

Here's the wikipedia link to the "creatures" and what their names mean.

So the question becomes, is it possible to have a tyrannical government in the information age?

0 recs | Comment 45 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

somebody just showed this to me

he tried to explain to me how this is more clever than “if you seek amy.”

I’m not buying it.

"To be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant."

by ab03 on Mar 15, 2009 1:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Is it possible to have a totalitarian govt.?

Very interesting question. I think it is, you just have to be very adept at flooding media outlets with govt. approved opinions and info spin, and controlling access points. What China by straddling the fence is hard, though, since the import-export and quasi-capitalism offer so many opportunities for international contacts and smuggling in of alternative info and tech. N. Korea just gives up all the economic benefits and sacrifices the health and well being of their entire populace for control. Obviously religion can play a part, too. Some Islamic countries easily maintain an anti-western attitude with dogmatic justification.

If the economy gets much worse, I think some countries may end up even more tightly controlled. When people are fearful they tend to put up with stricter governments (such as the changes we experienced after Sept. 11 in govt. surveillance and lower tolerance of disagreeing with the administration here.) There may be a country or two that topples in the troubled times, but the new governments might come to power with even more totalitarian views as the people just want basic services and food with less attention paid to niceties like liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Mar 15, 2009 6:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

but what I was thinking is the idea that to be a totalitarian state, one must control the information. Stalin “memory holing” his opponents, etc. The idea from 1984 that if everyone believes 2+2=5, does that make it so? In the information age, can any government effectively control what the populace believes by controlling the actual information? China, in this example, would seem to say no. Iran, also, is an example: people have clandestine satellite dishes even though they’re illegal.

What I wonder is: are we seeing a new form of revolution? A revolution of the mind, instead of popular revolt? Or has it always been so? Did the people that lived in Stalin’s Russia have their own forms of Grass-Mud Horse and satellite dishes, living a private life that was much more revolutionary than their public lives?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 15, 2009 6:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe it has always been so.

I think there have been versions of the mud-horse. Shostakovich thumbed his nose at Stalin with hidden messages in his symphonies, for example. Yes, it definitely seems like it would be much harder to control information. But China is not trying to be Stalinist Russia, they’re trying a middle path. Iran has its clandestine satellites, but what has it led to in the way of reform or public clamor for change? Iranians seem content to have their small ‘vices’ without really actively pursuing meaningful change. Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia are likely to become Wahabist totalitarian states if the current government is overthrown and become even more tightly controlled.

Maybe I’m feeling pessimistic today, but I feel like though there is much more information, that just means there are that many more ways for a savvy despot to control his people’s thoughts.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Mar 15, 2009 7:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

One more thought

all the technology that makes it easier to sneak a peak at the outside world also makes it easier for the govt. to snoop on its citizens.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Mar 15, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's true...

but there’s a herd effect. The government can snoop, but they don’t have infinite resources, and a million people making slight heresies can mask the few making larger ones.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 15, 2009 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am hopeful

I do sometimes imagine a modern day Thomas Paine hacking into the government system and posting tracts. Photoshop and video mashups also offer unlimited opportunity for parody and satire.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Mar 15, 2009 11:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Curious

And unrelated, but did you happen to see the Stewart v. Cramer bit on Daily Show Thursday?

by brettgardner on Mar 15, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jon Stewart was brilliant

He’s like the Incredible Hulk of comedians: his guests won’t like him when he’s angry. Stewart smash.

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 15, 2009 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you say so...

I find it odd that he excoriates journalists for their shoddy work and really lectures people like Cramer and Carlson, only to throw up his hands and say, “I’m just a comedian!” when the spotlight lands on him.

Also, it’s pretty bush to bring a known talking head on and make him the face of the financial crisis, there to be punished by Stewart. Nobody in the world ever thought Cramer was a financial journalist there to uncover the dark secrets of Wall Street. The most ironic part was that Stewart continually denied that “this song” was about Cramer, while showing clip after clip of Cramer putting his foot in his mouth.

I love Stewart as a comedian, and I watch The Daily Show every night, but a few things were made pretty clear in that interview: Stewart doesn’t know very much about finance, he’s got a gargantuan messianic streak, and he doesn’t fight fair.

I guess I’m one of the few who thought Stewart came out looking pretty bad. I’d rather work on solutions than have some quasi-newsman deliver a national catharsis.

by brettgardner on Mar 16, 2009 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Cramer made that whole ordeal about himself...

When he chose to respond to Stewart’s criticism of the whole network, with an emphasis on Rick Santelli. Cramer was the one who responded, and Jon Stewart ran with it. Stewart also made it pretty clear that he’s a “snake-oil” salesman," and though he may have a messianic complex, I always enjoy seeing it manifest because I happen to agree with most of what he says.

More to the point, I think what Cramer does is dangerous. There are a lot of (very misguided) people who take his advice. I thought he showed the same charisma as a puppy that had just been beaten. And clearly, Kramer takes himself seriously or he wouldn’t have agreed to “do better.”

Jon Stewart does have total deniability. He’s more of a deconstructionist than a news man. And that Cramer happens to irritate the shit out of me. I suppose I could of told you how I was going to feel about that interview before it ever happened.

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 16, 2009 1:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What Cramer does

Is not dangerous in any way. They came up with this invention a few years back called a brain. Lotta people have them now. One of the bonuses of a brain is that you can acquire discretion about what you choose to believe and act upon. Dummy traders get exactly what’s coming to them if they make any kind of short-term, unresearched investment, especially if they did it on a whim from a TV hawker.

In any case, I think it’s always been pretty clear from his show that he offers a gigantic “do your own research” disclaimer at all times.

Cramer responded to a guy trying to negatively portray his livelihood and his character with a little blurb. Then Stewart “ran with it” to pretty ridiculous excess (admittedly funny, however). NBC then decided it would be a good decision to run Cramer onto every shit NBC show and have him respond to the growing “feud”. It was clear Cramer did not want to be a part of it, and the big bait by Stewart was sure enough followed by the switch—there was no “debate”, just a proselytizing sermon that was boring and unfunny, which are bad traits for a comedy show.

And yeah, I wish Cramer had showed a bit more spine, but what else is he really going to say? Would it really have done him any good to start berating Stewart for his obvious lack of knowledge at anything more a cursory level of the market? Doubt it. He should have, however, said something to Stewart about his ridiculous assertion that CNBC had done something criminal.

by brettgardner on Mar 16, 2009 2:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You give too much credit to Cramer's viewers...

if you think they use their brains. That show preys on week minds who are seduced by the promise of money for nothing. Television personalities are fair game for guys like Stewart. My guess is Cramer never thought he’d actually have to confront Stewart, and jumped at the chance for cheap publicity. But, he would have looked like a giant vag. if he refused the interview request from The Daily Show. This is by far the most pub. Cramer’s ever received. It’s win-win. Stewart gets to grandstand, and Cramer got to make the talk show circuit. I also wish Cramer would have fought back a little, just for better theater — which is all that was. Brilliant theater, IMHO.

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 16, 2009 2:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think...

you have any understanding of how the market works if you think that people watch Cramer and are “seduced by the promise of money for nothing.”

That’s just a stupid statement.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 3:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't know what you're talking about

I wasn’t talking about my understanding of the market, I was talking about the ass-clowns that watch that show and think they’re getting good info. And that is what people like Cramer promise. They are infomercials for retards who want to turn a quick profit on the market.

I hope you’re drunk or you misread what I’ve been saying. Otherwise, you might want to find the nearest mirror for all things stupid

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 16, 2009 3:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You...

are a market idiot. Obviously. Shut up and don’t opine about it, because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And you...

Are a waste of board space. Even on your own post. They don’t make buses short enough for you.

What does anything I’ve written have to do with my market savvy? Did you even watch the Cramer vs. Stewart interview that we were talking about before you stumbled in like a drunken sailor in the gay district trying to get’s his nuts drained?

I don’t need a market lecture at all, let alone from someone who can’t put together an argument better than ’you’re stupid, shut up.’

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 16, 2009 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You appear to be stupid...

but, you’re right, I shouldn’t have implied that your stupidity is all-encompassing. I’ll limit my statement and say “you appear to be stupid about this specific situation,” with the caveat that you also appear to be stupid about judging pitchers by their won-loss totals.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132270.html

That’s a nice post summarizing why it’s stupid to obsess over Cramer or CNBC as the causes or somehow symptomatic of the current problems.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 17, 2009 3:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Cramer’s embedded quote in that post could very well be true.

by brettgardner on Mar 17, 2009 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Cramer doesn’t promise money for nothing nor your chicks for free, but he is bangin’ on the bongos like a chimpanzee.

I think what Ben is saying is that the market doesn’t reward flighty risks by small-timers with gigantic brown sacks with $ symbols on them. So even if you were somehow “seduced by the promise of money for nothing”, you’d find pretty early that it ain’t gonna happen.

In any case, I’m pretty sure Mad Money is for day traders, not a civil engineer with a wallet full of cash and an itchy finger. Even if it were for him, though, he needs to take responsibility for himself.

by brettgardner on Mar 16, 2009 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I agree

I know the market doesn’t reward bad decisions, I know that Cramer’s show is intended for people who are serious about investment and do their own research, but it’s not a smart bomb. There is going to be some collateral damage. I agree with everything you said. But don’t speak for Ben, or he’ll never learn to do it for himself.

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 16, 2009 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This post...

doesn’t square itself very well with your above post about how Cramer preys on people who want money for nothing.

I speak to retail investors, that’s my job. Cramer is seen in the investing community as analagous to an astrology column.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Astrology columns

Don’t throw little plastic bulls and mash big red buttons!!!

by brettgardner on Mar 16, 2009 8:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If they did...

they’d be more popular.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They'd also

Tempt people with the promise of money for nothing.

by brettgardner on Mar 16, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What is an investment?

Is any investment “money for nothing?” It’s only money for nothing if you put nothing on the line. If you put up money, then by definition, it’s not “money for nothing,” no?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

If the money you get surpasses the money you invested, then it’s sorta like money for nothing.

Of course, we call that a profit, and it’s the way the world has worked since the dawn of man, but no, CRAMER IS PROMISING MONEY FOR NOTHING!!!

Of course you’re right. The notion that anybody is being duped by Cramer of all people is ludicrous, and the notion that people need to be protected from dumb investments is sickeningly paternalistic. I don’t think the credit market is in the shitter because CNBC didn’t find the boogeymen in time.

by brettgardner on Mar 16, 2009 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah...

that’s what I don’t understand. How does a systemic failure in the pricing of risk, particularly in the housing and mortgage markets, fall on Jim Cramer?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clown nose on...

clown nose off.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 16, 2009 2:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Didn't see it

though I had seen several of the clips leading up to it. The Daily Show has gotten very good at sniffing out inconsistencies and hypocrisy for ridicule, and Stewart is very good at delivering what he and his crew come up with. I’m sure on some level he realizes he’s playing a role just as Cramer is. To hold Steward up to some journalistic standard is like saying Cramer is a real financial adviser. Occasionally I think Stewart steps out of his clown nose a bit too far, but then I ask myself who else could have gotten this kind of attention paid to the role financial journalism has played in the bubbles?

I wish, though he’d stick to being funny and not scold people like a schoolmarm. I agree that the clown nose is a convenient way to blunt criticism of himself and his show.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Mar 16, 2009 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh

“The idea from 1984 that if everyone believes 2+2=5, does that make it so ?”

Reminds me of this movie – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/plotsummary

by Keyser Soze on Mar 15, 2009 11:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's a great movie

Free Frank Catalanotto

by egriffey on Mar 15, 2009 11:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can you have a totalitarian gov?

One word answer: North Korea

Ok that’s two.

"Evolution happened, now get over it." Michael Shermer

by rodcarew on Mar 15, 2009 12:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Cuba?

Now blogging again (temporarily) at "Hello Win Column".

by lonestarJon on Mar 15, 2009 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But North Korea...

isn’t in the information age.

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 15, 2009 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

nor

is the Palin household…..

I had a secret meeting in the basement of my brain.

by red shoe ranger on Mar 15, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So...

if a thread involves politics, you figure it’s time to flamebait?

"I know you're a bit dense but no, it doesn't. Obviously lying isn't a problem for me."

by benmor78 on Mar 15, 2009 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm generally

labeled a neocon on this board believe it or not….

There’s only one type of baiting I’m into, and it aint flame….

Fair enough, you guys were having a flame free discussion and then I went and took a shot. Its like a fat kid walking by a cookie jar, sometimes I just can’t help myself. I apologize.

I had a secret meeting in the basement of my brain.

by red shoe ranger on Mar 15, 2009 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK fellow LSBers... I offer this

if you feel like dying of laughter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ6kHlvCBz0

hardest I’ve ever laughed

Bobby Jindal '12

by dstar442005 on Mar 15, 2009 10:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Please kill yourself.

by brettgardner on Mar 15, 2009 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Pretty upset about about the game, huh?

"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract

by tyd3311 on Mar 15, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only upset

Because I was teased.

Even if they had won, it was so clear who the better team was, I wouldn’t feel any better about a playoff push. This can’t end well.

by brettgardner on Mar 15, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The West is wide open in the bracket

I think the winner of the Wash/Miss St. game will take down UConn.

by tyd3311 on Mar 15, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty tough times

when Anthony Anderson has to do this for a living.

"Yeah, like I had a chance there" - Lancaster batter, after striking out against Derek Holland

by chrisR on Mar 16, 2009 10:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gimme some

White Tiger, before I have an Intelligent Fragrant Chicken.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Mar 16, 2009 9:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs