|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Better definitions were also provided, which you acknowledged and agreed too
I agreed there were other definitions, but I never agreed they were better.
To me, 'establishment' is a term for an elite group of people that the general public has reason to be upset with, maybe because they use their wealth and power to influence elected officials to give them even more wealth and power at the expense of the common person. To you, it seems perhaps the best definition is the one where you can call Tucker Carlson a member? Or how would you determine the "best" definition?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
The best definition is one that best describes what the Establishment is.
Your definition, limited to political influence, excludes things like 'my parents made me attend a private school where I built a network of valuable connections among my peers', 'grandads significant alumni donations influenced my uni acceptance', 'dad knows the ceo of this company and got me this cushy job on the board', 'I bought this newspaper so now I can exert editorial influence', 'I have a membership to an invitation-only country club that provides important opportunities for face-to-face interaction', etc etc etc
If your definition limits itself to 'political influence', than it misses the vast body of social power underpinning that political influence, and fails to accurately critique the Establishment.
--------------------
|
Lynnch
Strangerer



Registered: 04/29/09
Posts: 7,876
|
|
Some folks think the establishment is a ruling class of capitalist billionares. Other folks think it's any college educated folks who they feel talk down to them. And some folks think it's, well, the jews and the reptilians.
An actual working definition in common discourse might be: "That group which has power over me and which I imagine to be the cause of my oppression"
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: The best definition is one that best describes what the Establishment is.
Apparently, you're the only one here who seems to know exactly what it is. I've seen a lot of different definitions searching Google. I've expressed my opinion that the jist of it seems to be people who use their wealth to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Your definition, limited to political influence, excludes things like 'my parents made me attend a private school where I built a network of valuable connections among my peers', 'grandads significant alumni donations influenced my uni acceptance', 'dad knows the ceo of this company and got me this cushy job on the board', 'I bought this newspaper so now I can exert editorial influence', 'I have a membership to an invitation-only country club that provides important opportunities for face-to-face interaction', etc etc etc
If your definition limits itself to 'political influence', than it misses the vast body of social power underpinning that political influence, and fails to accurately critique the Establishment.
Ok, I agree that's also important. How about:
Establishment: people who use their wealth to collectively benefit themselves at the expense of others.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 5 days, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: What are some of these radical or countercultural positions that you see Conservatives supporting?
I hope the following rambling piece helps to answer your question. The valuing of freedoms, willingness to question dominant narratives, broadmidedness rather than narrow mindedness, "conspiracy theories" and alternative thinking were at one time associated with the left, now it's more likely to be found with the "conservatives"(although perhaps only in America). Although it didn't play out the "draining of the swamp'. This last represents anti-establishmentarianism. Hillary was seen as solidly establishment and Trump was seen as more happy go lucky, more laid back with a sense of humor. Unlike someone like Nixon. The "conservatives now seem like the rebels. Like Joe Rogan a really cool dood, likes pot and psychedelics and is willing to just question everything and anything. Rogan is a good example of what I am talking about. He doesn't seek power over others, it's just live and let live. The counterculture were against the "establishment" which they saw as oppressors. Basically anarchist by nature, freedom lovers.
And a contribution to the establishment definition discussion. I think we get the term 'establishment' culturaly speaking from the 60's hippys. As far as I know I don't think they were confused about who the establishment were.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 21,251
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Establishment: people who use their wealth to collectively benefit themselves at the expense of others.
That's just Capitalism. That's literally what capital is and the basis for the entire economic system. As a society we acknowledge this with anti-trust laws etc. yet at the same time generally refuse to admit that the system itself is predatory in general.
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: Lynnch] 1
#27446047 - 08/28/21 08:12 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lynnch said: Some folks think the establishment is a ruling class of capitalist billionares. Other folks think it's any college educated folks who they feel talk down to them. And some folks think it's, well, the jews and the reptilians.
An actual working definition in common discourse might be: "That group which has power over me and which I imagine to be the cause of my oppression"
Meh that definition is reductive to the point of being useless - it sounds more like an insult against those who use the term, rather than an actual attempt at a working definition.
It's a nebulous term for sure because 'the Establishment' doesn't refer to a monolithic entity, but to the cumulative effects of professional and personal relationships and networks among the ruling class (which is also not a monolithic entity). Personally, I think it's better to refer directly to what we're critiquing rather than use 'the Establishment' but that doesn't mean the concept has no use - and if you look to the origin of the term you will find that it was initially used to describe how the privilege of the ruling class is maintained, and colloquial usage aside, that is still the better definition:
By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot]
#27446053 - 08/28/21 08:24 AM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: What are some of these radical or countercultural positions that you see Conservatives supporting?
I hope the following rambling piece helps to answer your question. The valuing of freedoms, willingness to question dominant narratives, broadmidedness rather than narrow mindedness, "conspiracy theories" and alternative thinking were at one time associated with the left, now it's more likely to be found with the "conservatives"(although perhaps only in America). Although it didn't play out the "draining of the swamp'. This last represents anti-establishmentarianism. Hillary was seen as solidly establishment and Trump was seen as more happy go lucky, more laid back with a sense of humor. Unlike someone like Nixon. The "conservatives now seem like the rebels. Like Joe Rogan a really cool dood, likes pot and psychedelics and is willing to just question everything and anything. Rogan is a good example of what I am talking about. He doesn't seek power over others, it's just live and let live. The counterculture were against the "establishment" which they saw as oppressors. Basically anarchist by nature, freedom lovers.
I still don't think you can simplify the political landscape to two opposing sides. How does the massive movement against police violence factor into your rebel dichotomy? "Back the blue" doesn't seem like the radical position here, but that was the dominant Conservative position during the protests.
--------------------
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Ok, I agree that's also important. How about:
Establishment: people who use their wealth to collectively benefit themselves at the expense of others.
Too simplified imo, because it's not just about wealth either - wealth, social power, official authority are all necessary aspects. Your definition would seem to include, for example, working class unions who pool their resources together to get better compensation, and that doesn't seem fitting.
Can you accept this definition? By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised.
--------------------
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 5 days, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: I still don't think you can simplify the political landscape to two opposing sides. How does the massive movement against police violence factor into your rebel dichotomy? "Back the blue" doesn't seem like the radical position here, but that was the dominant Conservative position during the protests.
I agree with what you are saying about that police stance and that is where it is off kilter. On the other hand when you look at someone like Joe Rogan, he's not a great supporter of police which can be seen in his support of the Occupy Movement. ' Your comment reminds me of a song that was posted in the 'political music thread'. From memory I think it was titled 'Woke' by Michael McDonald. In it he's doing quite well criticizing rigid 'politically correct' positions and then fucks up the whole song by coming on like a cop-lover. 
Cops aside which I never mentioned, the stuff that I did bring up ought to be acknowledged and come to grips with.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: ballsalsa]
#27446277 - 08/28/21 12:15 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ballsalsa said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: Establishment: people who use their wealth to collectively benefit themselves at the expense of others.
That's just Capitalism. That's literally what capital is and the basis for the entire economic system.
So capitalism is bad?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said: How about:
Establishment: people who use their wealth to collectively benefit themselves at the expense of others.
Too simplified imo, because it's not just about wealth either - wealth, social power, official authority are all necessary aspects. Your definition would seem to include, for example, working class unions who pool their resources together to get better compensation, and that doesn't seem fitting.
But union members generally aren't wealthy.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Can you accept this definition? By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised.
If we ever elected a group of decent politicians who wanted to help the common man, they would be included in this definition. I think establishment was intended to have a negative connotation?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Union members may not be wealthy, but they do have wealth. The most general definition of wealth would be something like "anything of value" - although most commonly it specifically refers to monetary savings, personal property, and capital. Possessing wealth in abundance makes one wealthy, but we all possess some amount of wealth.
If we wanted to get super philosophical (I usually do), the concept of wealth can even transcend economics. Social wealth would refer to the value of friendship, family, and status; and physical wealth would refer to bodily health and ability. Similar to 'the Establishment', wealth is a very non-specific term - we're usually better off referring directly to what we are critiquing.
And I don't think 'the Establishment' was intended to hold a negative connotation, although it certainly has that connotation now. The first modern usage is from this article (I can copy and paste the thing if you can't get past the paywall), and I think a relevant quote is "The exercise of power in Britain (more specifically, in England) cannot be understood unless it is recognised that it is exercised socially." As you say, exercise of power is not inherently negative - we could hypothetically elect a government that isn't self-serving, just as we could conceptualize a State that doesn't require coercion. Even if the exercise of power is beneficial, recognizing the social aspect of how power is exercised would still be a prerequisite to a more holistic understanding.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
So I'm trying to give the definition of 'establishment' that has the negative connotation as it's used today, which you agreed "it certainly has that connotation now."
I'm not sure why you're trying to use a different definition.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Because connotation is based on an emotional association, and shouldn't be the foundation of our definitions if we want to facilitate proper communication. Otherwise, as Lynnch pointed out, we might all be using the term 'the Establishment' while referring to different things (ruling class of capitalist billionares; any college educated folks who they feel talk down to them; the jews; the reptilians).
'The Establishment' is a non-specific term that refers to the social institutions that underpin the exercise of power in human societies. What those social institutions are, how they influence the exercise of power, and how that power is exercised will vary from society to society.
You're much better off describing the specific manifestation in your head, rather than referring to 'the Establishment' and assuming it means the same thing to everyone.
So, without using the term 'the Establishment', what exactly are you critiquing? Something about political influence and the MIC if I remember correctly.
Quote:
Connotation- a commonly understood cultural or emotional association that any given word or phrase carries, in addition to its explicit or literal meaning, which is its denotation. A connotation is frequently described as either positive or negative, with regard to its pleasing or displeasing emotional connection.
Denotation - a translation of a sign to its meaning, precisely to its literal meaning, more or less like dictionaries try to define it. Denotation is sometimes contrasted to connotation, which includes associated meanings.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Because connotation is based on an emotional association, and shouldn't be the foundation of our definitions if we want to facilitate proper communication.
But as you pointed out, "it certainly has that (negative) connotation now." I'm here discussing politics, not English grammar. If you prefer I not use the word 'establishment' as everyone is using it today, then give me another term that has a negative connotation, and I'll that instead.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Otherwise, as Lynnch pointed out, we might all be using the term 'the Establishment' while referring to different things (ruling class of capitalist billionares; any college educated folks who they feel talk down to them; the jews; the reptilians).
Lynnch is right. That's why I've been saying we need to provide our definition of establishment when discussing this.
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: 'The Establishment' is a non-specific term that refers to the social institutions that underpin the exercise of power in human societies. What those social institutions are, how they influence the exercise of power, and how that power is exercised will vary from society to society.
You're much better off describing the specific manifestation in your head, rather than referring to 'the Establishment' and assuming it means the same thing to everyone.
You're right, except I'm not assuming anything. Haven't you heard how many times I've given my definition of 'establishment' and asked other people for theirs?
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Connotation- a commonly understood cultural or emotional association that any given word or phrase carries, in addition to its explicit or literal meaning, which is its denotation. A connotation is frequently described as either positive or negative, with regard to its pleasing or displeasing emotional connection.
Denotation - a translation of a sign to its meaning, precisely to its literal meaning, more or less like dictionaries try to define it. Denotation is sometimes contrasted to connotation, which includes associated meanings.
I agree. Haven't you heard how many times I've given my definition of 'establishment' and asked others for theirs?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
mycot
Crazy as fuck


Registered: 05/31/06
Posts: 1,112
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 5 days, 21 hours
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Because connotation is based on an emotional association, and shouldn't be the foundation of our definitions if we want to facilitate proper communication. Otherwise, as Lynnch pointed out, we might all be using the term 'the Establishment' while referring to different things (ruling class of capitalist billionares; any college educated folks who they feel talk down to them; the jews; the reptilians).
Out of all those things that are mentioned in brackets in the last sentence, only 'ruling class of capitalist billionares' would qualify as establishmet. But establishment also refers to oppressive power like the cops busting your ass for pot or the military-industrial complex. Hippy's understood all these things.(Except for the airheads)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
Re: Coronavirus Chat [Re: mycot] 3
#27446743 - 08/28/21 06:30 PM (2 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mycot said: I agree with what you are saying about that police stance and that is where it is off kilter. On the other hand when you look at someone like Joe Rogan, he's not a great supporter of police which can be seen in his support of the Occupy Movement. ' Your comment reminds me of a song that was posted in the 'political music thread'. From memory I think it was titled 'Woke' by Michael McDonald. In it he's doing quite well criticizing rigid 'politically correct' positions and then fucks up the whole song by coming on like a cop-lover. 
Cops aside which I never mentioned, the stuff that I did bring up ought to be acknowledged and come to grips with.
But just because you don't mention the contradictions that come with saying 'Conservatives are the new rebels', doesn't mean you can just wave them away. I still believe that your confusion comes from reducing the political landscape to 'Dems vs Conservatives'.
"The valuing of freedoms, willingness to question dominant narratives, broadmidedness rather than narrow mindedness, "conspiracy theories" and alternative thinking were at one time associated with the left, now it's more likely to be found with the "conservatives"(although perhaps only in America)."
Consider the above quote; if we consider the response to police brutality, the left is much more likely to be associated with the listed values; if we consider covid-19, then Conservatives are much more likely to be associated with the listed values (except open-mindedness imo).
Even going back through the decades, these values have never been associated with just one political group. Has there ever been a group against freedoms? The difference is what they considered freedoms (freedom to live anywhere in this country vs freedom to segregate). Questioning the dominant narratives and alternative thinking? Sure, we have hippies and punks - but we also have religious cults like the Branch Davidians and anti-government terrorists like Timothy McVeigh. All of these groups go against the dominant narrative going back decades. There is no 'two sides' to politics.
So how can you expand the political landscape to avoid these contradictions?
Well, the most obvious is to not conflate the political left with the Democratic party. If you think the hippies of the '60s or the punks of the '80s were representative of the Democratic party back then, of course it would be confusing to think that it went from the party of rebels to the party of Hillary Clinton - but that's not what happened. The closest the Democratic party has every gotten to radicalism would be, imo, during the civil rights movement - but the Democratic party was decidedly moderate compared to the actual radicals of that time.
Another conflation is the political right with Conservative with the Republican party. You use Joe Rogan as your main example. Sure, Rogan holds some socially conservative views, but he also holds some socially progressive views - why should he be considered a progressive Conservative rather than a conservative Progressive? I don't think that's how he self-identifies. My guess would be that, since Rogan was more supportive of Trump than Biden, you consider him a Republican and therefore a Conservative. Why should he be a better representation of Conservatives than, for example, religious fundamentalists? They have vastly different views on psychedelics compared to Rogan. These contradictions disappear if you don't try to collapse all these things into one tiny package.
Politics isn't composed of two teams who always take opposing sides - it's a series of intersection spectrums. There's conservative vs progressive - do you support traditional beliefs or new ones. Radical vs moderate - do you keep your methods of support within cultural and legal limits? Left vs Right - which originally referred to supporters of the French revolution (Left) or the monarchy (right), but now usually means something like socialism vs reactionarism; it's also probably the most useless of all political labels.
But wait! There's more spectrums. Human societies are complex. Authoritarian vs anarchism; communitarianism vs individualism; clericalism vs anti-clericalism; urban vs rural; interventionism vs isolationism; pacifism vs militancy; multiculturalism vs nationalism; and so on.
Expand your political horizons, and the confusing problem of the Conservatives seemingly being the new rebels goes away. Rebels and toe-the-line'ers exist on both sides of your Democrat vs Conservative dichotomy - always have - always will.
--------------------
Edited by shivas.wisdom (08/28/21 06:37 PM)
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 14 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Quote:
If you prefer I not use the word 'establishment' as everyone is using it today, then give me another term that has a negative connotation, and I'll that instead.
[...]
That's why I've been saying we need to provide our definition of establishment when discussing this.
[...]
Haven't you heard how many times I've given my definition of 'establishment' and asked other people for theirs?
[...]
Haven't you heard how many times I've given my definition of 'establishment' and asked others for theirs?
Since the problem of precisely defining the Establishment is detracting from your actual point, why not just drop the term completely? It's not necessary for any discussion. Without using the term 'the Establishment', what exactly are you critiquing? Something about political influence and the MIC if I remember correctly.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
|
Again, I'm using a negative connotation and you agreed the term "certainly has that connotation now."
But if you want to use to the original definition that isn't necessarily negative, then ya, perhaps we shouldn't be using the term.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (08/28/21 07:06 PM)
|
|