There are real issues surrounding social injustice, abuses of power, government policy, international affairs, and so on. That much is a given. My question is: do the lunatic dystopians who simplify everything into black and white detract and distract from these concerns? For example. Somebody who thinks that the world is in the grip of the New World Order. Do they distract from genuine issues in international affairs, foreign policy, the concentration of power? Somebody who thinks that any arrest made under the Public Order Act means that there is no freedom of expression. Do they conflate and confuse issues to the extent that genuine concerns about police misuse of powers and the application of legislation are overshadowed by nonsense? People who think that the world is going to end, people who think that everything is the fault of a government or a faith or an ideology - do they divert attention from real problems of resource allocation, climate change, political representation or tolerance? Do they oversimplify and dumb down? For these reasons are their contributions actively dangerous? Obviously, I think so. I once saw the conspiracy theorist David Shayler give a talk about the illuminati and how they were responsible for just about everything, including global warming. The man was frothing at the mouth. I couldn't help thinking that people who do abuse power could not do much better than to have somebody like him around spouting nonsense and diverting attention from issues of real concern, and belittling a sober evaluation of genuine causes and effects. Discuss.
" Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives . I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that That's what's insane about it " John Lennon If you think for one second that the world isn't controled by an oligarchy few , call them what you will big business , n.w.o. , war for profit, banksters , globalists , war criminals , drug dealers or what have you . Whose purpose is to destroy your soverign nation for their own ends and greed . Then sir, I surmise that you're the lunitic in which you seek . You need look no futher than your own mirror.
I think the problem with your question is that lunacy is a broad spectrum and a relative term. at the end of the day we all have our opinions to which we are entitled. going on the range of issues you've raised, I wonder if a lunatic in this context is someone who is insane, or perhaps just someone who disagrees with you?
Given that I didn't actually express any opinions on the subjects I mentioned, simply gave some gross oversimplifications of what are clearly very complex issues, I don't see how anyone could make such a judgement. Lunacy is of course a broad spectrum and the term is not really appropriate for the narrow sense I have defined, which is why it was relegated to the thread subject in order to provide a snappy tagline, while not really having anything to do with the substantive content of the post it headed. Does anybody have anything to contribute that is not a basic misunderstanding? I mean, it's just something that occurred to me, I thought it was an interesting idea to ponder on a Sunday night.
I must have misunderstood you then, but it did sound from your post that you don't believe the world is in the grip of the new world order, any arrest under the public order act doesn't mean there is no freedom of expression etc. so really what you're saying is that some people argue well, and others badly, which can be annoying and counter-productive? I agree.
weeeeeeeeeeell.. to a certain extent you're right, but the blame lies primarily in a media who choose to give voice to more "dramatic" views simply because they see themselves as being more part of an entertainment, rather than informative, industry (and of course, us, for enjoying watching them, i literally just stopped watching a david icke video, again, for entertainment rather than because i think that 12 foot lizards run the world). so yeh, the more reasonable people do tend to get drowned out by the shoutier/crazier people. everyone deserves some sort of platform for their views, and whilst you cannot say definitively which arguments are valid and which aren't (although with some, "jewish NWO poised to take over the world!", for example, dismissal seems fairly reasonable) its also true that certain voices and opinions have more urgency and authority than others and should be listened to first. unsubstantiated rubbish should be reported, certainly, but focussing on it for entertainment value or alarmist japery is irresponsible as it drowns out the more significant voices on the issue.
moreover, i can't help but think that we live in such a climate of apathy that even without david shayler and his ilk, those who abuse power at the very top would still be in a fairly insurmountable position. we don't need distracting from these issues, we already know of them. the terrible thing is we just don't seem, as a cohesive group, anway, to give a crap.
Totally agree with you. 'Lunatics' as you call them are pretty detrimental to our society. That's why I make it my job to learn as much as I can about issues before I talk about them. There are plenty of intelligent people and intelligent news organisations around that see the subtleties of the issues. The Economist is one magazine I think is great for going beyond the high pitched debate in the mainstream media. They have articles specific to industries or countries that you wouldn't normally hear about. If you think that lunatics are lunatics and I agree, then you should seek to be as unlunatic as possible. Find the counterpoint to every view that you hold, read about both sides of the issues and learn the whole truth. Then when you do meet a lunatic you will have the truth and facts on your side to support you. (You'll never convince him of course but you may well succeed in convincing other people in the room that he is wrong.)
