Interview 1501 - James Corbett on How To Kill A Sacred Cow

12/11/201911 Comments

James Corbett appears on the "How To Kill A Sacred Cow" podcast for a wide-ranging discussion on public discourse in the age of the internet.

Filed in: Interviews

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. kwall says:

    What if the common man of decades or centuries ago had the ability afforded today to voice opinion instantly throughout the world? What tier of humanity was represented by the superior elocution of our forebears? Are brilliant minds less likely to engage or be allowed to engage in today’s political arena?

    • Duck says:

      The common man of the past was concerned with grubbing up mangleworzels or potatoes for his winter fodder…. he was both dumber and less educated then modern people and at the same time modern people are ABLE TO ACT in ways far dumber then he could because we are so rich that our poor choices don’t kill us off right away….
      as the vid linked says better then I do -after about 2:30 he talks about how our easy rich lives make us immune to the effects of our actions.

  2. Libertydan says:

    Consider a Government with very limited powers and guaranteed not to violate Individual Rights. Yes, I think the creators of the United States Constitution were onto something, yet it did not last. In order for such a system to exist, the people (in general) must take individual responsibility for their Rights, and not give away essential Liberties for Safety (or convenience).
    Perhaps it is a case of not appreciating the freedoms we once had until after we realize that they are gone, and most people don’t even know they are gone until they challenge the (now corrupt) system.
    The best way to fix the Federal Government after it has gone bad, is by calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention. As I see it, a Convention of States (COS) should have been made 105 years ago in response to the signing of the Federal Reserve Act, but then, the Bankers didn’t waste any time taking us to War (and thus taking away our Rights).
    Local Governments are many times more effective and efficient than the Federal Government at serving the people, which is why the Federal Government should be limited to doing only those things that are agreed to be in the best interest of all the States. I happen to think that most State Legislatures can agree that private Bankers should not control the money supply and that the Federal Government needs to be cut down to size.

    • wylie1 says:

      1. Constitutional Convention
      If the weasels didn’t and aren’t following the Constitution, how is changing it going to make them follow it?
      Also, I don’t trust radio show host Mark Levin, a big promoter of such, nor any of those who would end up at such a Convention of States to “fix” the Constitution rather than setting us up for worse. Investigate thoroughly the proposed changes and what some other folks have to say about them.
      How about first just go back to the Constitution as written for a good while and see how that is.
      2. Soros is now buying State and Local government courts via getting Marxist prosecutors and judges elected. Further, I’ve personally seen State and Local govts bought by Corporations in league with Federal Govt agencies.
      3. Who needs Govt at all?
      Only those who want to get something they could not get otherwise.

    • Duck says:

      A Convention to rewrite the constitution would allow those who have been hindered (even if only a little) by it to remove the only idea that liits their power… the very religious IDEA of the constitution is what made the USA a better place then the USSR which also had a wonderfully writian constitution that NO ONE cared about…. be glad that the framers are considered godlike by sufficient numbers of people that their creation, made for often very selfish and immediate reasons, protects so many human rights by enumerating them for the masses….in a generation we may be back to the cut and thrust of the late roman republic.
      The USA (and the west in general) is far too immoral to create and live under anything as good as the constitution. Be glad of the afterglow

  3. Libertydan says:

    I also believe that Individual Responsibility is the answer relative to censoring the Internet. People that push their responsibilities onto others, or the Government, are the problem.
    I don’t use Facebook or Amazon, and don’t sign-in to Youtube. Youtube was once a source of uncensored info. As this is no longer the case, I use other sources more and more often.

  4. wylie1 says:

    Internet censoring. If all the NUMEROUS opponents of their stuff being censored via googliar/youtrite/facebrute/Twaddler cannot gather together to form, market, and support a dandy alternative or 2; one open and one censoring out all the Marxist insanity, then they aren’t much different than Marxist whiners wanting someone else to do their job.

    Never saw the appeal of those “Social malMedia data thief” websites. If variety is the spice of life… I’ll just do what I’ve always done. Visit the websites having worthwhile info and support those.

  5. jackbc says:

    James, do you recall the old National Geographic TV specials that
    took us into the Primate Studies Labs of American universities?
    Didn’t we marvel at the “intelligence” of chimps as they knuckled
    their choice of snack or plaything? They hooted with big toothy
    grins when a slice of banana or a little plastic toy dropped from
    a chute. We shared their joy. I recall these vivid impressions when
    I watch people scrolling through the choices of emoticons or emojis
    as they attempt to communicate with digital friends. But I don’t
    share their joy.

    A coincidence to share. An hour before listening to your podcast
    on the decline of communications skills, the latest edition of
    QUEEN’S ALUMNI REVIEW was delivered.(My daughter’s school,not mine)
    This is “The Language Issue,” and I did read the lead article on
    “The New Rules of Language”, written by an “Internet Linguist”.
    Her article declares books to be dead, and old conventions such
    as a concern for grammar and spelling, to be a form that has run
    its course. That was all just a “notion” anyway. Arrogant as a tax
    collector, she expects HER skill set to migrate to the printed page
    and to language instruction, just to satisfy “people whose linguistic
    norms are oriented to the Internet”. In future, she demands, all
    books printed must include pictographs and emojis inserted in the
    lines of (outmoded) text, because … ? I suppose that in the near
    future when all Canadian universities have hired a “Chair’ in “Internet
    Linguistics,” lobbying will begin to have the editors at our University
    Presses yield to “The democratization of language”.

    I am privileged to live in “the world’s most progressive society”.
    Orwell would not be jealous.


  6. felix says:

    I will stick to one corner of this discussion. Yes, sound bites prevail and people start reacting badly if you develop some thoughts even in 4 or 5 sentences. One person on Facebook said he was interested in a comment of mine but that he couldn’t read it because I had jammed everything into one paragraph -it was not longer than the comment I am leaving here. I remember reading a single sentence of Dickens’that went on for two pages. The sound bite people also prefer you to leave a space between your paragraphs and to this custom I sometimes adhere. In my comments like this one my computer used not allow divisions and everything, title and all, was jammed into one crammed piece of prose – maybe because they preferred sound bites. Fortunately this has changed. Now I can publish the title of a poem and put the poem underneath it. I was on a blog for discussions of music and composers. One member wrote to me that he was glad when people like me and my Canadian composer friend left the blog as we made him feel stupid, instead of trying to learn something from us and asking questions You were not allowed to know anything technical about music. This brings me to a difference between me and James. I find that 9O% of pop and rock music consists of sound bites whereas great (significant) music develops its thoughts. As James Joyce, an author Corbett adnires, does.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top