One of the characters in the book is describing in detail to the series' heroes how a town's residents (the morks) function and how their minders (the Algul staff) rule them. These residents are doing great harm to the universe and Roland, Eddie, Jake, Susannah and Oy (the heroes) are learning about them so they can attack the town and stop them.
Most morks are selfish introverts masquerading as rugged individualists-they want the world to see them as Daniel Boone types-and the Algul staff loves it, believe me. No community is easier to govern than one that rejects the very concept of community.
Now I finally get it and some of you. Fucking mega!
26 comments:
Excellent! It is quote a fiction author day!
"It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener."
Ayn Rand
Very astute, Mr. King. One of the reasons why the right are so easily governed is that they don't believe in the concept of community.
Mark and exe, that doesn't even make a scintilla of sense to anyone with an iota of experience in the real world. In fact, I'd have to say that's the stupidest thing I've read all day!
Ah yes,
Individuals are the collective....
War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is power.
Deep meaning from Stephen King? I only thought people read him as cheap entertainment?
What I got from this line was a concise explanation as to why many of you refuse to accept the core reasons for the problems we have today in this country. When the starting point is a decided antipathy towards the concept of community, it makes it pretty easy to pull massive yards of wool over the eyes of the rugged individualist.
There is nothing wrong with community and we have told you this in multiples. The issue is how much and how intrusive community gets including the cost. Your tolerance of that is much higher than mine and others it seems.
Yeah, I have so much antipathy toward community, that must be why I volunteer during a big chunk of my vacation time. Maybe if you know what is in my best interest better than I do you should redirect me to other pastimes.
Let me steer you to another fallacy lurking in there - govt is NOT community. I can freely choose the communities (physical and virtual) I want to be a part of and serve; when it comes to the federal govt - one size fits all and no opting out.
You can think about that, even come back and discuss it if you like. Or you can do what you usually do and go off on a rant that has no relation to what I just said.
What you got out if it is as fictional as the authors story.
If you guys believe in community so much, why the hysteria when collective helping occurs? Why do you crap your pants over someone giving you information that would serve your best interest?
Good question. Doubt you will get an answer, Angela...
If you guys believe in community so much, why the hysteria when collective helping occurs?
Like what? Oh, you mean opposing expansion of the govt? Is that what you by "community" and "helping"? That sure isn't what community (or helping) means to me. I am a participant in my community and that doesn't involve the govt one way or another. I get very direct feedback if my help is necessary, appreciated or misguided - and I can respond accordingly. Care to show me a govt program (or bureaucrat) that does the same?
Why do you crap your pants over someone giving you information that would serve your best interest?
Angela, what do I know about you? Do you seriously believe for a second that I know what is in your best interests? How? How could I possibly know that when I don't know a damn thing about you?
Now, I could pretend I know even if I really don't - but is that very adult behavior? Or I could just project my preferences on to you with the egotist assumption that whatever I want must be best (for everyone). M seems quite comfortable doing that, but I seem to lack the ego (and narcissism) necessary for such.
Why do you crap your pants over someone giving you information that would serve your best interest?
Again, you show little understanding of these arguments.
How about this: We have no issue with someone giving us information that would server our 'best interest'. NONE.
The problem is with forcing us into compliance with that 'best interest' information. Not only that, who knows my or any group's best interest from a central location detached from the rest of the country. See, the founding fathers recognized this and specifically wanted to keep the feds out of meddling like they had experienced with the King from afar.
Unfortunately, the left seem to have the 'King Complex' and constantly advocate moving in that direction.
Dang, I really need to preview and proof my spelling.
So, in other words Angela, it was a bad question. And you still got the answer. Do you get it? Is it -even in the slightest bit- possible that you don't know what is in MY best interests?
Have you ever done something that turned out to NOT be in your own best interests? I sure have. Why would you let me tell you what to do?
Or better yet, why in the Hell would I listen to you?
dw
"Walt a minute? WE decided? MY best interest? How can YOU say what MY best interest is?!"
Great line from the song Institutionalized by Suicidal Tendencies.
If you guys believe in community so much, why the hysteria when collective helping occurs?
The "hysteria" isn't an objection to "collective helping", as can be seen by anyone who takes a look at charities. The "hysteria" is an objection to conscription, and to the perception that liberals apparently consider conscription and volunteering to be at least equal, and often seem to prefer conscription over volunteers.
Even when that preference isn't there, liberals seem to conflate the two, as can be seen by "Jesus would've probably been a liberal Democrat." It shows a perception of "giving" and "having something taken from you" as being the same.
You know, there was a time when helping out your country wasn't considered "conscription." Yet another example of how the right today has become like the left of the 60s idealistically speaking...add this one in on top of the professional protesters in the Tea Party.
I might not like paying taxes but I recognize that I enjoy the benefits of things like a public library or a toilet that have need of funding through taxes. Part of me almost wishes we could live in your fantasy world of government for a year to see how it would work out for you. I suspect...poorly.
>I might not like paying taxes but I recognize that I enjoy the benefits of things like a public library or a toilet that have need of funding through taxes.
And there we see the classic leftist strawman courtesy of Mark - if you don't like how your taxes are spent and want them reduced, you are against things like roads, parks, and libraries. It's just all or nothing folks, and Mark isn't being dishonest by framing it as such. Move along.
Well, where in the Constitution does it say that there should be a national park system? If you aren't against that, why? How about a national bank? Also not in the Constitution. So, do you get to decide what's "appropriate" and what's note? If so, how does that make YOU any different than the people you scream about who are "conscripting" you?"
Enough with the straw man excuse. It's really grown tiresome as it is clearly an excuse to avoid genuine critiques of your ideology.
Well, where in the Constitution...
What in the fuck are you babbling about now?
Is this another voice in your head, or is it that you recognize you can't win the argument you are in so you try to shift it something else?
It's really grown tiresome as it is clearly an excuse to avoid genuine critiques of your ideology.
That is fucking rich. I didn't think you could lift that much irony. Any criticism of your cherished ideology is too much for you.
You know, there was a time when helping out your country wasn't considered "conscription."
There still are. Do you not understand the meaning of the word? It's not difficult to volunteer to help out your country. For that matter, it's not difficult to volunteer to help the poor, or help the undereducated, or help whatever group has your panties in a bunch today.
But that's not what the Democrats want, is it? They want to be able to say that because 50.1% of us voted for it, the other 49.9% have to help whether they wanted to or not. Kind of like telling Code Pink they're drafted and they're going into a combat corps, suck it up assholes.
And of course, the 50.1% who insisted on it for everyone suddenly want waivers from having it apply to them.
So calling that "helping" anyone is nothing short of a bald faced fucking lie. That's demanding that others help in your name, while you go skate off somewhere.
And yes, that includes you personally, Mark. I notice you haven't said a single word against the teacher's union demanding a waiver for the ObamaCare they insisted everyone else pay for.
>Well, where in the Constitution does it say that there should be a national park system?
Er Mark, you made a sweeping statement about public libraries and toilets. You didn't say anything about the constitution, or federal vs state level. As you are no doubt well aware, (ha, just kidding) the Constitution enumerates powers of the federal government, not state governments. If you mean to say that the national park system as administered by the federal government isn't constitutional, I could be convinced by that - i confess I haven't given it much thought to it either way - I find leviathans like Soc Sec to be a bit more pressing.
Say Angela - after you've read my response, I would like to know if you agree or where you think I am wrong. Just curious, thanks.
Enough with the straw man excuse
Maybe stop defining your arguments with them and they will stop.
Yeah, guys, quit pickin' on the dumb kid!
You know, there was a time when helping out your country wasn't considered "conscription."
You perfectly illustrate my point.
1. 100 people volunteer their time and money for something they believe needs doing.
2. 51 of the 100 vote to have all 100 contribute to something the 51 believe needs doing, thus conscripting the other 49 who believed it was unnecessary or undesirable.
3. 51 of the 100 vote to have all 100 contribute to something the 51 believe needs doing, thus conscripting the other 49 who believed it was unnecessary or undesirable. And then 15 of the 51 who insisted that everyone had to contribute demand waivers from contributing, thus having 49 (57.6%) of a total 85 contributors being forced to support something they did not want.
Apparently you fail to see any distinction between those 3 examples... unless of course they side you support is part of the 49, then you see it clearly indeed.
Post a Comment