Colbert's funny as hell and as likeable as they come. But despite his reputation, he's not exactly an "outside the box" thinker.
He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.
replies(2):
He's a deeply religious catholic, is patriotic and apparently believes in the rule of law.
He attributes the "greatest threat to security" to not voting and not watching political money. I would politely disagree. Our "greatest threat to security" is that our people take their opinions from the mouths of celebrities and politicians, and not through careful consideration of the facts.
How can you blame our people for taking their opinion from celebrities, entertainers, and politicians when they are more informative than the avenues that are supposed to inform us?
What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"? And since when is the rule of law a bad thing? You do know what that term means, don't you?
Speaking for myself only, if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, I'd think Snowden should come home and face trial, too. Of course, I also think that if the US were truly governed by the rule of law, his acquittal would be as foregone a conclusion as a conviction currently is.
The authority of law does not necessarily reflect the ethical thing to do, as I am sure you know.
It's a really sad statement on the current state of things; but there's a degree of personal responsibility in not taking this narrative unilaterally, we have these amazing tools of message boards and other channels with which to chat with people firsthand around the world, and while I can't say it's any substitute for proper reporting, it is certainly "another tool" for constructing a more accurate picture of things.
No they don't, they take their opinions from their parents and friends at an early age, then spend the rest of their lives choosing to listen to celebrities and politicians who confirm those beliefs.
This essentially reduces the problem down however, saying that the twisted narratives of media are resultant of a system where early education teaches you to simply accept that message. (I speak in what would be hyperbole in most cases for the situation you suggest, where the parents and friends advocate taking narratives "as faith"), and at that point it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.
The parents and friends lived in a system that perpetuated their narratives, so they communicate this to their children, to create a new generation of etc.
So where do you break the cycle? I'm not going to be sticking my nose into someone else's parenting, as much as I think it might do them good. Maybe I should, but I haven't been convinced yet. At this point the best approach I've come up with is just trying to _talk_ to more people. Prompt them to think; and be communicative.
If I am a pacifist, then that places limits on me. If I am a vegetarian, then that places limits on me. If I am a teetotaler the that places limits on me. If I don't believe in using murder to settle parking disputes then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in dumping untreated waste water into the city's water supply then that places limits on me. If I don't believe in tripping people just to see them fall, then that places limits on me.
I am well inside the box on a huge number of things. I hope you are too.
The relevant law here is the Espionage Act of 1917, which has no provision for intent, no need to show that there was specific harm, and no balancing of public good with the amount of harm caused.
Quoting Wikipedia on "Rule of Law": Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law.
There are some unbiased and quality sources of reporting, even on television. E.g. PBS's Newshour does a good job.
More importantly, there is a lot of useful material outside of television land. For instance, Foreign Affairs does a good job covering both sides of defense issues. HIR, Brown Journal of World Affairs, and similar publications are also high-quality.
I think the real problem is that we want our news to be entertaining (or at least not work-like), but truly understanding any given issue in the news requires consuming large quantities of evidence prepared and presented from various perspectives. And that's not always as fun as watching (or making fun of) Fox/CNN/NBC/etc. In fact, sometimes it's pretty boring.
Blind adherence to someone else's rules is certainly much more restrictive; it makes the box a lot stronger and less holey.
Rules against sex with minors. Rules against animal cruelty. Rules against trespassing. Rules against insider trading. Rules against littering. Rules against CFC emissions. There's also cultural views in parts of the US against eating bugs, against cross-dressing, and against promoting atheism, which are sometimes met with social scorn even though neither illegal nor unethical. Miss Manners had a long running column on what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable etiquette, and wearing last year's fashions, or white after Labor Day, can be a grave faux pas for some situations, with possible negative social and career implications.
The original question was "What does his Catholicism have to do with his abilities to think vis-à-vis the confines of the notional "box"?"
The response was that "Of course [religion] has an influence on how "out-of-the-box" you can be."
My counter is that every law, moral, or ethical standard keeps people in a box. That's not always a bad thing. The original question asks specifically why his Catholicism necessarily prevents him from being an out-of-the-box thinker. Must one be outside of every box before one can be labeled thus? Which boxes are okay to be in and still be an out-of-the-box thinker?
Based on watching his show, I do not think Colbert blindly adheres to the Catholic religion. He is quite aware of the internal logic of how the faith reaches certain conclusions in the current cultural context. I therefore don't think your final comment is relevant.
I'm sure there's a little bit more to it - but perhaps not much more. His take on the Bible is literal enough that he believes in the existence of hell.
More specifically, please characterize what makes something "blind adherence" vs. "adherence" in general. When can I say that someone blindly adheres to vegetarianism? When can I say that someone blindly adheres to a support of representational democracy?
Going back to the topic, how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
It doesn't, at least not necessarily. That is to say, they may (and often probably do) correlate, but as we all know, correlation != causation.
What you're seeing here is just another flavor of blind adherence — namely to the dogma of atheism which dictates that people of faith are by definition delusional.
Based on the conversation so far, I interpret it to mean "someone who believes something other than what I believe, and for reasons I don't agree with."
Perhaps the best solution might be to invert things, but I have been unable to find a list of out-of-the-box thinkers. Mostly I find people claiming to be so, without providing any external evidence.