Social Engineering

from JoeUser Forums

Hi there, I would like to open a discussion about Social Engineering.

Now, most people, when thinking about SE, think about major upheaval that usually destabilise a society (such as a revolution). That is not my goal, I am talking about minor and delicate SE, which is aimed at changing the people's view of things & habits on the long run.

To simply show you a few examples of SE that affected the U.S.:

- You grew to think Liberals are automaticly a bad thing (well, at least many of you in JU)

- You grew to think that a man's right to have a gun should be inalienable

- You grew to think that a man should have his own success, and that if he wants, he can. (the actual american dream)

- You grew to think that anything patriotic is a good thing (I mean, I look at your politicians, your adds and others things, and I find it pretty cheesy. Doesn't it bother you to being told again and again to "Love your country"?)

- (a recent one) You grew to think that smoking is not a good thing (well, I don't know about USA. But in Qc, smokers are usually frown upon since 10 years)

etc..

In summary, all ways of thinking/acting typical in a culture is the result of Social Engineering, be it intentionnal or not.

First of all, I would like to ask to you: is intentionnal SE a good thing or not? Should peoples have the right to choose what people should think or add?

Second, I would like to ask you: If it is a good thing, who should decide which way the society should lean? Should the Governement? The Businesses? The Church? A mix of all three?

And on the other hand, who SHOULD NEVER be allowed any say in social engineering?

The Governement in some country have used social engineering (Soviet Union, for example. USA too, recently) to make the people either fear or love their country. In Quebec, our governement have made effort to make people despise cigarets in order to improve the people's health situation.

Businesses usually dabble in the minor SE, in order to influence people into buying their products. The largest-scale SE effort I ever saw is the Gun-lobby in the USA, with the NRA. (and before anybody accuse me of being a liberal faggot who hates guns, I am simply stating the facts, not judging them!). I mean, the NRA expend a lot of effort into making sure the people think their ways, so the gun market keeps selling at the best rate possible.

the principle of the Church is, by itself, SE. They thrive of it, they cannot live without it. A religion is, by definition, a SE-machine. They want you to think THEIR way. Because THEIR way is the right one. Usually, the religion will do it to either for populism aims, or to further their agenda. Sometimes, their agenda is to improve the birth rate of a population (Quebec's citizen have been influenced a lot by those, 50 years ago), or to simply keep themselves in power.

 

Comment, ask, answer, and criticize.

3,850 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good topic cikomyr! The big one that gets to me is the whole "liberal vs conservative" pissing contest. I've been meaning to write an article on it but time is short unfortunately.

Here's my problem- it seems that in the minds of the population, all politics have been boiled down to either a liberal or conservative viewpoint. It's absolute lunacy, but for some reason we've accepted that there's only two sides to an issue. On any opinion that is officially "conservative", if you don't share that opinion than apparently you must be liberal (or worse, a granola eating, hippie loving commie, which apparently is just an extreme liberal)

Both sides encompass such a wide range of topics that the words liberal and conservative are utterly, and truly meaningless. You cannot pigeonhole half of your population with the word 'liberal' because they voted for a democrat, or even if they are members of the democratic party. Same goes for conservatives. It's utterly childish to do so, and yet all the major media outlets and pundits keep hocking this partisan crap our way.

That is a prime example of the kind of social engineering I think you are talking about no?

There's no end of absolutely ridiculous books out there that spell out what an evil liberal is or evil conservatives. The end result is that you have a nation in which a large part of the population thinks another large segment of the population is completely out to lunch, completely wrong while their side is right. There's very few serious attempts where one side tries to understand or incorporate the ideas of the other- a complete lack of basic civility towards a viewpoint not your own.

It is this kind of division which may indeed tear the U.S apart or even throw it into another civil war. And when it happens, both sides will jeer and point their fingers at the other, when in reality we will all be to blame for our lack of maturity and civility in dealing with others!

End rant.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Couple of things

First, I agree with Artysim on the good topic, but dont really have the time now to dig deep.

Second, I will also disagree with him. The "liberal" vs "conservative" is not a 50/50. It is actually 20/20 or 30/30 with the rest being just citizens. He is right that it would be stupid to quantify 50% one way or the other, but itis not that stupid to classify 20-30% that way. Because they are.

Third, perhaps it tells your age when you think that "liberal=bad". Today it does (it is starting to change) and that is why they want to be called progressives. However 30-40 years ago "conservative=bad". What changed? Ronald Reagan. When liberals finally get a really good candidate who proclaims it loud and proud, it will change.

Not until. Clinton went out of his way to AVOID saying he was liberal. But then he never had a majority of the voters anyway.
Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is a topic that found an early death, which I found quite sad at the time. I'll try to do a little threadomancy.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
You grew to think Liberals are automaticly a bad thing (well, at least many of you in JU)
End of quote


I am not one of those people. I was a conservative democrat back in the 60’s through 1978 when the last liberal democrat was elected with my vote. After seeing what President James Earl Carter Jr. did to this nation and most of the world with his mismanagement I left the party. My next vote was ABC anybody but Carter. Mr. Reagan took office and he made sense. I am now a conservative republican. I don’t hate liberals because I used to party with them and understand how most of them think. The new liberals are dangerous because they use the scorched earth approach to politics. Destroy the enemy at all costs.

You grew to think that a man's right to have a gun should be inalienable
End of quote


Actually our constitution says this.

You grew to think that a man should have his own success, and that if he wants, he can. (the actual american dream)
End of quote


Yes, this is the American dream. I don’t have a problem with it. Do you?

You grew to think that anything patriotic is a good thing (I mean, I look at your politicians, your adds and others things, and I find it pretty cheesy. Doesn't it bother you to being told again and again to "Love your country"?)
End of quote


I don’t see it as being told to love my country, I see it as a reminder of why I should love my country.

You grew to think that smoking is not a good thing (well, I don't know about USA. But in Qc, smokers are usually frown upon since 10 years)
End of quote


Oui, mais celui est une différence dans l'idéologie entre votre pays et mien agréables.

is intentionnal SE a good thing or not? Should peoples have the right to choose what people should think or add?
End of quote


I am against social engineering in any form. I see it as fascism which goes against the beliefs of my nation.

The Governement in some country have used social engineering (Soviet Union, for example. USA too, recently) to make the people either fear or love their country.
End of quote


Veuillez expliquer ce que voulez dire vous par la technologie sociale parce que je pense que vous confondez le Se avec beaucoup d'autres choses.

Please explain what you mean by social engineering because I think you are confusing SE with many other things.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oui, mais celui est une différence dans l'idéologie entre votre pays et mien agréables.
End of quote


If you can't write with a minimum of proper french, don't try it

Yes, this is the American dream. I don’t have a problem with it. Do you?
End of quote


did I said I have a problem with it?

I don’t see it as being told to love my country, I see it as a reminder of why I should love my country.
End of quote


"God Bless America" is a reason to love your country?

Actually our constitution says this.
End of quote


You know very well that whatever is written on law is not automatically accepted by the citizens subjected to said law. (Or, in that case, Constitutionnal Amendments). My point being is that your people have grown to defend with nail and teeth THAT peticular amendment, over many others.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
did I said I have a problem with it?
End of quote


That was not my question. Answer the question.

My point being is that your people have grown to defend with nail and teeth THAT peticular amendment, over many others.
End of quote


Stick with French your syntax sucks, which is why I switched to French. You don’t like your language mangled what makes you think I like to see mine mangled?

We were born with the constitution and its amendments it is part of the social compact we all agree to follow and be protected by as a birthright. So yes, we defend them.

"God Bless America" is a reason to love your country?
End of quote


If you were an American you would understand. God Bless America is an expression of our love not a reason to love our country.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you were an American you would understand. God Bless America is an expression of our love not a reason to love our country.
End of quote


which was my original argument. You were born into america, and you grew up with a lot (LOT) of "Love your country" message

Stick with French your syntax sucks, which is why I switched to French. You don’t like your language mangled what makes you think I like to see mine mangled?
End of quote


Well, since you actually understood what I said, I'd say it's good ennough. I can't say the same about your french, which just didn't made any sense.

That was not my question. Answer the question.
End of quote


Your question is if I have a problem with it. Well, I sure didn't said I have a problem with it. Trying to smoke out a bloody anti-american communist, Paladin?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, since you actually understood what I said, I'd say it's good ennough. I can't say the same about your french, which just didn't made any sense.
End of quote


Sorry, I learned it in some wierd country, oh yeah France. Just like when I learned spanish in Spain, and Russian in the Soviet Union, German in Germany. maybe it is because I have not needed to write it in 22 years that my grammer is off.

Your question is if I have a problem with it. Well, I sure didn't said I have a problem with it. Trying to smoke out a bloody anti-american communist, Paladin?
End of quote


Nope, killed enough of those 20 years ago.

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
One could argue that the creation of the Bill of Rights was to prevent or slow the social engineering you describe. While different groups of Americans have their favorite amendment, you can rest assured most Americans hold their constitutional rights sacred. One could go so far as to say that American Christianity has incorporated the Constitution as a God-give right and obligation.

Freedom of Speech makes it hard to silence those who would oppose the government message. The right to bear arms makes it harder (at least prior to industrialized combat) for the government to threaten objectors into compliance, as our Civil War proves. Freedom of Assembly allows dissenters to organize, due process ensures dissenters aren't kept in jail for 30 years waiting to be tried. It is a really brilliant document, in that respect.

Therein lies the beauty of the US constitution. Americans maybe disagree with and even ignore some laws, but everyone, even Mobsters, rely and defend the rights granted by the Constitution.

I would go further, and argue that the reason why the US has yet to be usurped by an authoritarian ruler, like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, or Napoleon, is because of these protections. The Bill of Rights makes it particularly difficult for the government to enact massive social change without jumping great hurdles.

Finally, I think that certain Canadians in Quebec have been socially engineered into thinking having two official languages for one nation is a good thing. Quebec is akin to a living Tower of Babel! And they're proud of it! If that's not social engineering, I don't know what is...
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
One could go so far as to say that American Christianity has incorporated the Constitution as a God-give right and obligation.
End of quote


I think you have it backwards my friend, the constitution was based on the Torah and the Bible, not the other way around.

I would go further, and argue that the reason why the US has yet to be usurped by an authoritarian ruler, like Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet, or Napoleon, is because of these protections. The Bill of Rights makes it particularly difficult for the government to enact massive social change without jumping great hurdles.
End of quote


When I was in the military I learned the reason the Soviet Union had not invaded was because of our bill of rights. Because every citizen was allowed free access to firearms it meant they would have to defeat the civilian government and then wipe out our military, then the state militia, then the local law enforcement and after that they had to deal with every gun nut still breathing.

The only thing we had that they needed was our rich farm land. In order to get possession of it they would have to destroy it, so attacking America was taken off the table in the 1970’s. Look at the trouble they had holding Czechoslovakia, Hungry and Poland. Less than one in ten had a rifle in Czechoslovakia during the 58 uprising and the Soviet Union had to use tanks and thousands of troops to stop them. Imagine having to deal with an uprising of people that were not cowed and had guns. Freedom is its own protection. Once tasted it is as addictive as narcotics people will die to remain free. How many people are willing to die to remain a slave to socialism or communism or fascism? Dictators will kill to stay in power but few are willing to die to keep it going.