Listen up all you rugby league supporters, after a short hiatus, its back - SL appreciation day.
Is AFL headed for a super league? We should help them...
___
See what you think at the end why we should push down these dissenting voices at the clubs in the NRL - for now. And why we should be optimistic about the future. Though i recommend no actual course of action. Like to hear what people will say. If it doesn't wind up in the troll thread.
__
It will be a brilliant case that proves Eddie wrong because he is right. He is under no illusions. Sometimes you fight to gain, sometimes you fight to preserve, sometimes you fight to not lose something. But protest exists too. In its purest form its superior to all things in our system, all things being equal, but not when a protest turns to provocation or fight. Then the protest becomes compromised, and motivations questioned. When protests are ineffective, people may resort to other measures: but they must question then if their message is worthy of rising above the din of society; and if it is, what else can they do. Constructive actions must be taken, positions examined, and questions asked. A further protest issued should the unacceptable situation still remain. Eventually, the lesser party needs to question if they want to accept that, or accept that their values will always be different to the overlords, and if not shackled somehow, move on. In this sense, both the overlord and the underling need to work things out in good faith. If ultimatums are issued, the benefit must outweigh the cost. Because there is regression of states and standards in all wars.
Note, protest is not superior in almost all cases in pure communism because it will just put you in the ground if the system it struggles against is intact.
In all these things, there is safety in numbers.
Combined, this is why so much emphasis has been placed on the individual. Groups are made up of individuals. As individuals we rebel. In personal finance we rebel against rational financial sense, or are ignorant to the consequences. Or you choose confirmation bias and only see what you want to see. The self serve. People can self serve, but it make sense within reason, and to the overall group if they a part of one.
Individuals self serve, but groups stand to gain.
In communism, which the afl is not by the way, you keep the individual poor and down trodden and the group is only a tool, the state takes all ownership. Its easier to handle the individual so says the theory, but probably doesn't give freedom and rebellion the credit it deserves unlike the latest incarnations, and western society. Its a selfish system based on nationalism and imperialism, extending the subjugation of the serf. I also expect the oligarchs were not really part of the plans but have not affected the overall scheme and have been of use and easy to appease.
In personal finances you can think of it like communism... How much is a person willing to be frugal in line with their goals? On a group-wide scale sport worldwide (many, not all) may be communist in order to be efficiently run, but individually self expression and personal standards of living exist within them. We can get ahead in western markets and that requires expert advise usually where complex markets are concerned; or by spending less than one makes on the balance sheet, while potentially risking any plans one has of increasing their revenue if they remain with the same income sources over time. The power of compound interest should be made to work for us; any effort here needs careful consideration.
Western systems are more natural. Its group theory people lift and tolerate the other units in the group because everyone stands to gain. The stock market is an interesting look at this dynamic...we act selfishly if we can get away with it; but not if the wrath of any group or consequence outweighs the cost of the action. For your blood and friends you make allowances biologically, but when things are abstracted from that - for the unrelated group or the balance sheet - you make calculations.
The system is balanced though and affects our lives in meaningful ways: it supports group gain when everyone stands to benefit. A good community that is able to deliver happiness, self-meaning, and contentedness to a vast amount of people.
Pure communism is flawed, and relies on the subjugation of the serf.
In any system, its integrity is important. With super league they attacked the individual and caused them to rebel, and the clubs let them in.
Fine in my book ultimately because the former admin was complicit in failing to gain for the groups beneath them and maintain living standards. Opinions differ.
Holistically, speaking, that is, because some shared the same values as the administration, and from an ideological point of view they were probably in err. But then again, had everyone become patient, and demonstrated and proved things, they may have seen the sense. But time is of the essence, and a case that impatience is irrational can be made; but for that impatience to be seen as rational, a case for it needs to be made for that as well. Both sides had good cause.
As you can see, it pays to be rational, be scientific, be skeptical, and if you are going to change something, you need to demonstrate it.
That's very western and sensible.
Communist systems are inherently therefore full of corruption and rebellion and internal strife. People's needs not met. The method of control is not rational discourse... Its things like fear, manipulation and subjugation.
In communism when the system's integrity is compromised the state uses the system against you: it simply says those people over there are not happy and if you want to protect your way of life (poor, chained) then those guys or that individual is a terrorist. The system has a kink, and the people its still subjugating are used as tools of the government to wipe them out. In order to facilitate control: liberties are restricted, free thought reigned in, economies highly regulated, personal freedoms and movement limited. Sometimes they even let you starve. It all helps maintain system integrity.
This is why the prisons are so full and Chechnya was hard to crack - the system is not actually effective at all and does not live up to its propaganda. There are always cracks in communist regimes, and they come across as insecure, intolerant, bristling, overly nationalistic, isolated, and often unstable.
Rebellion is a way of life in communism. But the payoff for those in the state, be they warmongers or crazy, is more than otherwise. So communism is something that serves individuals too, just the minority elite, oligarchs, and may be headed by a cult-figure-head who's managed to orchestrate a bid to retain his grip on power - however, they do not operate on the same restricted liberties as the serf. Any other group among all that is merely a powerless tool of the state, existing on whim, not reason. However, they reason various factions often like to leapfrog one another is because the closer to the bottom you are, the more it positively sucks. Its unstable and chaotic, a swirl while the "king" and his pseudo lords, the oligarchs, sit back and watch with glee. While they fight and bicker, they can't be bothering and scheming against you.
Its an extension of imperial monarchy's. The early proponents of this different world view, dug their heels into the ground after European and american revolutions and said no! There must be a better way to be number one!.....feudalism was only a temporary and not permanent thing..or not....and there must be a way to lift up the struggling masses socially and get rid of all this class distinction stuff!
It didn't end up like that - the only people who wanted to seize power in such systems were unlike any western ruler you've ever come across, and it was not helped by an anomaly of a ruler in Russia who advanced that cause further than the world would have liked, providing a new flavor.....the system and the country it was in were not perfect for this vast experiment, it became that the masses can gain once the STATE is strong, then the masses gain....not before....unfortunately that pipe dream is a dark reality. The masses are better off being weak, because there is no trust in this system, and no stability. SO.....IF you have enemies at the gate, you'll need a strong state otherwise you won't even exist.
___________________________
Is it any wonder the free-thought and revolutionary movement didn't make it too far east? Napoleon was in the west, while national instability had always been a part of the great eastern steppes. While it was emerging in europe and fudalism was on the wane, they were watching it in Imperial Russia and saying to themselves "Shit - that kind of crap better not come this way....dont get any ideas."
______________________
They never got the message that a few thinkers in the west had already come across and rejected this thinking. Its a quirk of history that russia for instance, then its power-base smack bang in the middle geographically, with an empire comprising over 100 ethnicities (eventually, for an idea) was at the gate to Europe, and struggled with this world view. Call it hyjacked, call it just dumb to start with.
______________
Its a big call to change the central body-club-player dynamic drastically.
Western systems serve the group. Its a completely different thing, that promotes individuals and the service they do for the whole. Also in western systems, science is a natural offshoot of the free thought and stability. You've got more time to "science" naturally when you're not ducking bullets or rebelling. This is why communism stoops to advance.
This is why in the stability the NRL eventually righted itself and news ltd should be commended. That needs to be appreciated
So no sports body is either but it helps to talk in terms of those 2 arcs.
The current system works it probably just needs more time. Or maybe there needs to be more tolerance between the groups.
Can the new system be shown to work, and what proof do these people have? Be scientific, not ignorant or self serving.
This is coming from the reasonable assumption that the system works, and the realization that protest is a great method, so too rational discourse, but rebellion and power grabs better pay off. If its rebelling to make a better system for the group, that's most likely an error.
And I'm making the assumption that we have rebelled enough throughout history that previous rebellions have generated a result that serves all groups the best, in line with their ambitions.
Ive done this with the flu so allow for errors, but definitely not the last few paragraphs prior
RL supporters should appreciate super league? and the SL-AFL? Slaffle?
Is AFL headed for a super league? We should help them...
___
See what you think at the end why we should push down these dissenting voices at the clubs in the NRL - for now. And why we should be optimistic about the future. Though i recommend no actual course of action. Like to hear what people will say. If it doesn't wind up in the troll thread.
__
It will be a brilliant case that proves Eddie wrong because he is right. He is under no illusions. Sometimes you fight to gain, sometimes you fight to preserve, sometimes you fight to not lose something. But protest exists too. In its purest form its superior to all things in our system, all things being equal, but not when a protest turns to provocation or fight. Then the protest becomes compromised, and motivations questioned. When protests are ineffective, people may resort to other measures: but they must question then if their message is worthy of rising above the din of society; and if it is, what else can they do. Constructive actions must be taken, positions examined, and questions asked. A further protest issued should the unacceptable situation still remain. Eventually, the lesser party needs to question if they want to accept that, or accept that their values will always be different to the overlords, and if not shackled somehow, move on. In this sense, both the overlord and the underling need to work things out in good faith. If ultimatums are issued, the benefit must outweigh the cost. Because there is regression of states and standards in all wars.
Note, protest is not superior in almost all cases in pure communism because it will just put you in the ground if the system it struggles against is intact.
In all these things, there is safety in numbers.
Combined, this is why so much emphasis has been placed on the individual. Groups are made up of individuals. As individuals we rebel. In personal finance we rebel against rational financial sense, or are ignorant to the consequences. Or you choose confirmation bias and only see what you want to see. The self serve. People can self serve, but it make sense within reason, and to the overall group if they a part of one.
Individuals self serve, but groups stand to gain.
In communism, which the afl is not by the way, you keep the individual poor and down trodden and the group is only a tool, the state takes all ownership. Its easier to handle the individual so says the theory, but probably doesn't give freedom and rebellion the credit it deserves unlike the latest incarnations, and western society. Its a selfish system based on nationalism and imperialism, extending the subjugation of the serf. I also expect the oligarchs were not really part of the plans but have not affected the overall scheme and have been of use and easy to appease.
In personal finances you can think of it like communism... How much is a person willing to be frugal in line with their goals? On a group-wide scale sport worldwide (many, not all) may be communist in order to be efficiently run, but individually self expression and personal standards of living exist within them. We can get ahead in western markets and that requires expert advise usually where complex markets are concerned; or by spending less than one makes on the balance sheet, while potentially risking any plans one has of increasing their revenue if they remain with the same income sources over time. The power of compound interest should be made to work for us; any effort here needs careful consideration.
Western systems are more natural. Its group theory people lift and tolerate the other units in the group because everyone stands to gain. The stock market is an interesting look at this dynamic...we act selfishly if we can get away with it; but not if the wrath of any group or consequence outweighs the cost of the action. For your blood and friends you make allowances biologically, but when things are abstracted from that - for the unrelated group or the balance sheet - you make calculations.
The system is balanced though and affects our lives in meaningful ways: it supports group gain when everyone stands to benefit. A good community that is able to deliver happiness, self-meaning, and contentedness to a vast amount of people.
Pure communism is flawed, and relies on the subjugation of the serf.
In any system, its integrity is important. With super league they attacked the individual and caused them to rebel, and the clubs let them in.
Fine in my book ultimately because the former admin was complicit in failing to gain for the groups beneath them and maintain living standards. Opinions differ.
Holistically, speaking, that is, because some shared the same values as the administration, and from an ideological point of view they were probably in err. But then again, had everyone become patient, and demonstrated and proved things, they may have seen the sense. But time is of the essence, and a case that impatience is irrational can be made; but for that impatience to be seen as rational, a case for it needs to be made for that as well. Both sides had good cause.
As you can see, it pays to be rational, be scientific, be skeptical, and if you are going to change something, you need to demonstrate it.
That's very western and sensible.
Communist systems are inherently therefore full of corruption and rebellion and internal strife. People's needs not met. The method of control is not rational discourse... Its things like fear, manipulation and subjugation.
In communism when the system's integrity is compromised the state uses the system against you: it simply says those people over there are not happy and if you want to protect your way of life (poor, chained) then those guys or that individual is a terrorist. The system has a kink, and the people its still subjugating are used as tools of the government to wipe them out. In order to facilitate control: liberties are restricted, free thought reigned in, economies highly regulated, personal freedoms and movement limited. Sometimes they even let you starve. It all helps maintain system integrity.
This is why the prisons are so full and Chechnya was hard to crack - the system is not actually effective at all and does not live up to its propaganda. There are always cracks in communist regimes, and they come across as insecure, intolerant, bristling, overly nationalistic, isolated, and often unstable.
Rebellion is a way of life in communism. But the payoff for those in the state, be they warmongers or crazy, is more than otherwise. So communism is something that serves individuals too, just the minority elite, oligarchs, and may be headed by a cult-figure-head who's managed to orchestrate a bid to retain his grip on power - however, they do not operate on the same restricted liberties as the serf. Any other group among all that is merely a powerless tool of the state, existing on whim, not reason. However, they reason various factions often like to leapfrog one another is because the closer to the bottom you are, the more it positively sucks. Its unstable and chaotic, a swirl while the "king" and his pseudo lords, the oligarchs, sit back and watch with glee. While they fight and bicker, they can't be bothering and scheming against you.
Its an extension of imperial monarchy's. The early proponents of this different world view, dug their heels into the ground after European and american revolutions and said no! There must be a better way to be number one!.....feudalism was only a temporary and not permanent thing..or not....and there must be a way to lift up the struggling masses socially and get rid of all this class distinction stuff!
It didn't end up like that - the only people who wanted to seize power in such systems were unlike any western ruler you've ever come across, and it was not helped by an anomaly of a ruler in Russia who advanced that cause further than the world would have liked, providing a new flavor.....the system and the country it was in were not perfect for this vast experiment, it became that the masses can gain once the STATE is strong, then the masses gain....not before....unfortunately that pipe dream is a dark reality. The masses are better off being weak, because there is no trust in this system, and no stability. SO.....IF you have enemies at the gate, you'll need a strong state otherwise you won't even exist.
___________________________
Is it any wonder the free-thought and revolutionary movement didn't make it too far east? Napoleon was in the west, while national instability had always been a part of the great eastern steppes. While it was emerging in europe and fudalism was on the wane, they were watching it in Imperial Russia and saying to themselves "Shit - that kind of crap better not come this way....dont get any ideas."
______________________
They never got the message that a few thinkers in the west had already come across and rejected this thinking. Its a quirk of history that russia for instance, then its power-base smack bang in the middle geographically, with an empire comprising over 100 ethnicities (eventually, for an idea) was at the gate to Europe, and struggled with this world view. Call it hyjacked, call it just dumb to start with.
______________
Its a big call to change the central body-club-player dynamic drastically.
Western systems serve the group. Its a completely different thing, that promotes individuals and the service they do for the whole. Also in western systems, science is a natural offshoot of the free thought and stability. You've got more time to "science" naturally when you're not ducking bullets or rebelling. This is why communism stoops to advance.
This is why in the stability the NRL eventually righted itself and news ltd should be commended. That needs to be appreciated
So no sports body is either but it helps to talk in terms of those 2 arcs.
The current system works it probably just needs more time. Or maybe there needs to be more tolerance between the groups.
Can the new system be shown to work, and what proof do these people have? Be scientific, not ignorant or self serving.
This is coming from the reasonable assumption that the system works, and the realization that protest is a great method, so too rational discourse, but rebellion and power grabs better pay off. If its rebelling to make a better system for the group, that's most likely an error.
And I'm making the assumption that we have rebelled enough throughout history that previous rebellions have generated a result that serves all groups the best, in line with their ambitions.
Ive done this with the flu so allow for errors, but definitely not the last few paragraphs prior
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire