Evildela: I think you just won the internet.

erinja:GB is certainly an entertainer before he is a journalist but he makes a lot of inflammatory comments which frighten me. Even if he were solely an entertainer it would frighten me, but since people are watching his program for its informational content, not as a comedy entertainment program, I find it deeply disturbing. It's only a matter of time before someone picks up a gun and decides to put GB's ideas into action (GB's halfhearted statement "don't go pick up a gun and do this stuff, now" notwithstanding.)

I agree! I was being dry. What he says is no act - it's a call to arms (at least figuratively) for those who give his ill-informed hyperbole some credence.

Incidentally, I'm always fascinated by the variety of views expressed on Lernu! I tend to think of Esperantists as relatively left-wing, tolerant people, but I guess you just can't generalise about any group!

Hauxkins: you just can't generalise about any group!

That is a generalisation

Hauxkins:I agree! I was being dry. What he says is no act - it's a call to arms (at least figuratively) for those who give his ill-informed hyperbole some credence.

I did figure you were being dry though I thought it would be a good idea to be a little clearer for the benefit of our foreign readers. Even for native English speakers, dry doesn't always work (many Americans don't pick up on it).

Incidentally, I'm always fascinated by the variety of views expressed on Lernu! I tend to think of Esperantists as relatively left-wing, tolerant people, but I guess you just can't generalise about any group!

Yes, definitely. Although I have encountered similar views outside of lernu; when I was living in Boston, there was a one ultra-conservative Esperantist who was also very outspoken about his politics (and had a habit of correcting beginners' grammar, which was awfully rude, and which did not ingratiate himself to anyone, as you can imagine). Last I heard of him, he had moved to New Hampshire and run for political office (and lost, as far as I know).

I'm just going to say that Glenn Beck infuriates me on a galactic scale, but I am trying my hardest to be objective in my comment, because I believe in being as objective as possible when talking to others, particularly in places as public as the internet.

I just wish I could ask him what he thinks is "dangerous" about Esperanto? Forget the fact that he got pretty much every fact wrong about what he said; people get details wrong all the time. His central idea is what bothers me. Learning a language is "dangerous"? I think he's under the impression that Esperantists are a political activist group that advocated for everyone to be forced to speak Esperanto worldwide, or maybe some milder version of that conviction. But he still seems to be espousing this idea that people should shy away from certain concepts that are "dangerous". Where is the liberty in that concept?

I know I shouldn't attack him on a personal or political level, but on a bad day I just want to swear at him constantly and on a good day I want to lock him in a library and force him to read his way out, like a "Saw" film.

roint:
I know I shouldn't attack him on a personal or political level, but on a bad day I just want to swear at him constantly and on a good day I want to lock him in a library and force him to read his way out, like a "Saw" film.

The most tedious and horrifying Saw movie yet!

@ Evildela: bahahaha! Did you find it or make it? That's brilliant!

Also, on this idea, last time I checked, Hitler didn't think messing with the idea of breathing or drinking food was bad. I guess that's too dangerous for us democracy-propogating westerners too!

qwertz:

ceigered:

Well, there can be an "overall/shared truth". But, by nature, it is the truth that people share. If they disagree with each other, then it isn't shared, is it? .

So, for example, if someone decided that "oranges taste nice", and it was a very common opinion, e.g. 100% of the population agreed, then that makes it a "shared reality" for that population.

I really dislike if something is marked as "common" and I don't see much of value if something is marked as "common". What should enforce me that this and that is common? That me should stop discussing? In my opinion everybody should be allowed to put the fruit/veggies at the needle s/he prefer and not which is "most common".

Well, I should reexplain:
A shared reality, or a "shared perception", (replace "perception" with "belief", "truth", "ideal", "cultural factor") is essentially the "average", or the lump sum of what people believe. If we look at society, or a culture, as being an entire being in itself, then we can say that what the most common beliefs and ideals are among a group of people are what make up the beliefs of that organism we call "society".

So, let's say that you and me qwertz are part of a secret ancient culture called the "Slu-ites", and we both believe that "Slu" is a nice sounding word for esperanto. Now let's say Erinja is also part of our culture, and Erinja's opinion is "well, slu isn't necessary", and we don't decide to argue against that point - then, we can say that our "culture" as a whole believes that "Slu is a nice and beautiful word in Esperanto, but it is not necessary". That's the "shared realities" I'm talking about.

So it's not about a group enforcing that opinion (although it can happen, but that's if the group have homogenous beliefs and are against those who don't agree with them), but it's rather about the overall picture of the beliefs of society. Everyone's realities are different - I see the world much different to you as you noted. But the world itself, not the world through our viewpoints, is a mixture of all these different individual beliefs. At least, that's what we as humans interact with in society, a "constructed reality". Otherwise if we followed a "true reality" to the letter in normal life, we would not be intelligent, we'd just be drones. Similarly, if we all believe the same thing, then we're drones again, but instead this time instead of being slaves to the cold, heartless world, we'd be slaves to our own creation, society.

And so on so forth. That's what is going through my mind anyway, so now that I can think of words to explain it we can hopefully figure out what we are both talking about haha .

I do not know if you know this or not, so please bare with me if I'm wrong, but I think a problem may be that I was using "reality" in the sense of "an idea of truth, a belief, that one believes to be real". (Ist das wahr auch in Deustch?)

Evildela:Whilst searching through secret Nazi achieves I found the following picture:

Top Secret

Also (check files)
Someone has similar sentiments

I love the "?rdfrom=" tag in the address .

qwertz:

Miland:

qwertz:These East-Germans are really annoying..

Let me guess what they might say in the former DDR: "These West Germans are really annoying ..

Who said what? The DDR regime's puppets?..

I am talking about people in the former DDR, i.e. today's East Germans, who might say "These West Germans are really annoying.."

qwertz:In my opinion there should be limits for free speech.

Who gets to decide what the limits are? I don't think you would want me deciding your limits anymore than I would want you deciding mine.

Thats why we have the First Amendment.