Because we as a society have fucked up priorities and overvalue things that are relatively meaningless?

The doctor who finally cures cancer will be anonymous to the general public compared to an NBA player, an NFL player, or the latest shallow whore who can (somewhat) sing with auto-tune.

I don't argue with your logic about the ratio of players to fans. Rather, I address why there would be so many fans and so much money to be extracted from them. Personally, I just can't get that worked up about other people playing a game, the outcome of which won't affect my life one way or another. I certainly can't identify with that team as though it were an extension of my ego, saying "we won" when I contributed no effort.

Now get off my lawn.

More like, the media discovered long ago that sensationalism sells better than rational thinking because emotions are much easier to manipulate. Being mostly followers who have been conditioned not to think critically, the public and thus the public's representatives simply follow.

Yes. When the news reports about the chemical weapons first started coming out, they kept making a big deal out of this. I kept wondering, "and if those people had been shot instead, would that make you feel better?" Seems I'm not the only one to think of that.

Out-of-control governments are the real terrorists. Al-CIA-da would salivate at doing one one-thousandth the damage a cancerous government can do.

That's hilarious because a non-racist would assume that all races are equally able to learn, read, and speak a national language. The person claiming a national language is "racist" is implying that some races are less able than others to cope with such a change, which is itself a racist belief. It is amazing to me the way this is so often glossed over and not pointed out.

I don't know about all of that, but being able to understand one another because there is a standard is how you maintain a nation long-term, without having it spilt into factions of people who see each other as different from the rest, only to become Balkanized over time.

Another sad truth: political power is gained and expanded by dividing people, not by uniting them. The extreme hypersensitivity encouraged by identity politics and the obsession with group identity has two major effects. One, it encourages emotional, irrational thinking which helps prevent the sort of attention and scrutiny those in power don't want. Two, it produces division and squabbling over matters that by design cannot be resolved, creating much distraction, wasting much energy, and most of all allowing politicians to keep (and expand) power by promising to protect each group from all of the others. It's classic divide-and-conquer.

Inventing "racists" where they do not actually exist is never going to lead to the sort of color-blind society that judges people by the content of their character. "I want to be the white man's brother, not his brother-in-law", Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Really? Because I make these decisions based on the facts of the matter, not the popularity of those involved. I suppose during the early 1500s you'd have sided with Tolosani against Copernicus because the latter was not considered credible (and by some, heretical - our version of a "crackpot") during his time.

I scrutinize the message, not the messenger. I doubt you appreciate just how easy it is to demagogue and character-assassinate, not to mention that both of those are carried out with emotional arguments/manipulation and other propaganda techniques. Reason is much more difficult to twist; facts are even more difficult still.

I'm not trying to be rude, but the mentality you demonstrate (which was instilled in you) is the major reason why society has as many faults as it does today.

I appreciate and admire your intentions here, but the sad fact is: you cannot reason with this kind of narrow-mindedness.

Although, I would be glad to be proven wrong on this one.

Is that how you describe the spying, manipulation, and dehumanization in which they engage? You rate them on how effectively they do so and express your disappointment that their art has not yet been perfected as a science?

Sometimes I suspect that this civilization is lost.

You never read 1984 or you didn't fully comprehend it.

The message is, "you will fall in line, or we WILL find you". The patient and therefore smart move is to set up the surveillence infrastructure first, get people used to the idea, and then become a more oppressive government. The only power governments have over their own citizens is against people who break the law.

If you do that then the marketing won't work! Why, they might even start evaluating their needs rationally...

When you have a culture in which average people believe thinking and reasoning is a terrible burden to be avoided or offloaded at every opportunity, you naturally will observe the kind of dependency and vulnerability you point out here. It leads to people who don't want to be involved in decisions that drastically affect their own lives.

Somehow there arose this myth that you either know nothing at all, or must be a fully trained expert, that no intermediate level of knowledge, no amount of reference could ever be useful.

It amazes me how you or anyone else can see this happen time and time again and still believe that we have two distinct parties.

Jefferson knew what a two-party system would become and specifically warned against it. At some point they both realize they can play the voters in the middle, sort of like "good cop, bad cop". For maximum effect, switch roles once in a while. Then people support a given one for irrational, emotional, tribal, "my team" reasons and stop thinking critically. Take a hard look at the world of US politics and tell me this isn't exactly what's happening. Then make the next tiny leap and understand that someone definitely benefits from this, and it is not accidental.

Heh I actually did this once. The credit card was only a form of payment - I had the money in the bank (otherwise, this would be immensely stupid).

The sales guy was noticably pissed off but he went through with it. He even acted professional and everything. Oh and this was after extensive haggling and (through willingness to go elsewhere) talking him down to some thin margins.

He was a likable guy and I have nothing against him. It was satisfying to see him sweat, all the same.

The major criticism is that creating a corporation is a way to gain personal enrichment without personal liability.