I guess it's a matter of intention. The politician is trying to control you while the author is trying to either entertain or reveal something to you via metaphor. The goal of the political metaphor is to manipulate the same way the old bad metaphors did. They are not for shining light on the truth but for controlling perspective. Metaphors with the goal of leading you with out regard for reality is no better then the lie. They serve the same purpose, to manipulate with disregard for the truth.

so, novels are bad. we can't be emotionally manipulated or learn anything through allegory.

poems -unless they're written to be absolutely historically and scientifically correct- are bad too.

whatever planet you come from must be bland as fuck.

Stories used to manipulate are no better then lies used to the same effect.

>Anyway, you retain the Great Man approach her too.

Please dont lay words in my motuh? I accept it as one of many tools. I say that a nail needs a hammer. But different things need different tools.

​

>You think the story of London’s world-changing sewage system is most effectively told through the lens of a guy digging the hole?

No. I never proposed that. Depending on what you goal is and what you want to tell your lens should vary. So if you want to tell people about innovation and how to deal with limited space/resources then its most effective to tell a problem/solution orientated story. For example it will begin with the Problem, how they perceive that problem, what resources they had, what was tried and what worked. The process of all those decisions is what matters. It really does not matter that one big guy that politically supported it despite public opinion. Such Drama only distracts from the problem solving aspect that the story want to effectivly tell.

On the other hand if you want to educate people about holding on to good ideas, then it is a good way to tell the story like that. Because then the goal changes. The actually process of finding the right solution matters less, because the goal is not one of an engineer but one of an activist.

he defines the difference (contextually) between a lie and a story:

>...stories give meaning to our world whereas lies ignore the world altogether. This is an important insight for contemporary politics, in which stories and narratives play a central role in shaping our political identity, but where they are also highly susceptible to a complete disregard for truth, reality, and history.

I understand what you are saying. The constant need to spin bad things in a way that makes them look good is a weird thing some people engage in, I would suppose either because of emotional related reasons or maybe for the need to seem original in the eyes of the public.

I'm aware, one of the few volunteer experiences I have was in helping those with Alzheimer's and Dementia. I did things for the organization on their tech side so they could do what they needed to do, did that for a few months - eventually I finished up the few projects they had and went back to college at the time. Was sad learning how it affects people, seeing those who work side by side with those who have the affliction and their stories.

I was mostly getting that the "simplified present" is used as if it is a tender mercy to think of it that way, it is only for our own benefit would we describe the horror of losing your mind this way. I'm a little shocked that whoever wrote this is in a harsh state of denial - or wants to put spin on the affliction cause it is horrendous. I could hardly think of something worse.

It would be more reasonable if it was blissful ignorance, but dementia often means a continuous state of total confusion and fear in relation to both outside factors that you no longer comprehend, and your fading personality. It is like a slow, degenerating process of losing personhood. Absolutely terrifying way to go out.

Yes, smart people LOL out loud at you, not with you.

Can you explain this more for me, I am interested

BTW, if you want to see an alternative point of view to what I just said in another post I recommend reading Saul Alinksky's Rules for Radicals. He gets quoted by the right so much... not so much anymore actually but for a while they were always referencing the book as the bible for all left wing people so I gave it a read. To my surprise I didn't like it much. It was a fun read and Alinsky did some amazing things but it was all about how it's important to present people with someone to hate and make politics personal. E.g., if some company is polluting the drinking water then Alinsky says to demonize the CEO of the company and what a creep he is rather than emphasizing all the bad consequences of not having clean water. Maybe that's why I would never make a good politician, I like to think that down deep most human can be reached by rational arguments. Which is also why I thought Trump would never be elected so I should probably admit defeat but I'm stubborn... kind of irrational that way... no one is completely consistent... ;-)

Full blown dementia and short term memory loss are not the same thing!

I know that many people won't agree but I think the Enlightenment was a pretty cool movement and that one of the values of the Enlightenment is that reason matters more than myths. The thing about a myth is that if it is an effective enough story it can justify whatever you want. There are probably comics somewhere in the middle east that portray the 9/11 hijackers as noble heroes who sacrificed their lives for Islam (which is how they saw themselves).

So, much as it is out of fashion in a lot of ways these days I think reason and facts in the long term trump (no pun intended) myths and stories and people who argue for social justice, environmentalism, universal healthcare have reason on our side. Even from a purely selfish standpoint these things make sense, especially from the long term point of view of future generations and (although their behavior often isn't consistent with it) everyone, especially those on the right, love their children and want a good life for them.

Just a few examples of facts you virtually never hear in the Main Stream Meida: 1) A gun in the home is far, far more likely to be used to injure or kill a friend or family member (either due to accident or rage) than it is to defend the family from an intruder. 2) People talk about government healthcare in fiscal terms saying the US "can't afford it" but universal healthcare is both more cost effective and gives much better outcomes. When you look at how much the US spends on healthcare as a percentage of GDP we are either at or very close to the top of all nations. While our outcomes are down at the level of 3rd world nations (there are standardized metrics that healthcare professionals use to rate everything from individual hospitals to the healthcare system of a nation) 3) Alternative energy is already as or more cost effective than fossil fuels if you take away things like the tax subsidies the US government still gives to companies like Exxon for looking for new sources of oil. Paying Exxon to look for oil is like paying me to look for attractive, single intelligent women. I'll take the money but I'm already looking as hard as I can.

Agreed. When you have to watch people you love slowly disappear into the permanent fog of memory loss, you find yourself with a sudden urge to punch the author of this article, because they clearly have the empathy of a brick and no knowledge of the thing they're trying to describe. Watching my FIL forget who his only son was is one of the most heartbreaking occurrences of my entire 52 years. There was no joy, no beauty, just pain and anger and fear. And I'm gonna stop now because the more I dwell on this the more I want to track down that author and beat the stupid out of them.

There's no substance to this article.

The argument is improbable ("becoming paraplegic takes away mobility, physical expression, even self identity, but something beautiful can remain - the ability to be still") and the article doesn't do any work to make a case for it.

The title is just asserted as the conclusion.

More likely a sad depressing life, locked in an assisted living home which becomes your prison.

You know somebody is a pretentious dork when they try to force beauty into dementia.

[removed]

🤣 simplified present where you can’t remember how to get home. great thesis!

I'm not really sure that that would have been true in that time period. It's not like people were buying iPhones and gadgets, and it's not like laborers were buying gold jewelry, and carriages, and books, etc... They would have pretty much just been buying food and shelter, which were still necessary for slaves.

"simplified present" are they trying to glorify being blissfully ignorance? Because that's not a good thing.

No, they're in their own world as they can't put together one present moment to the next and are mostly living in fragments of the past.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Be careful with the word true. It’s an exaggeration term

Be careful with the word tactic. The word is a form of philosophical poetry