This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I think this is pretty much spot on - youtube.com/watch?v=jA_AxTzBBvI&
2
1
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
As much as Sam Harris is an extremely intelligent and reasonable person, I don't buy this argument when he says it any more than when anyone (everyone?) else does.
Political correctness (of the immature ranty version that "no platforms" speakers and riots at US universities) and Islam are the current betes noires of the right, and both have a lot to answer for, both are destructive forces in society. But that doesn't mean that everything that's wrong with the world - including the stupidity of the American people in voting for Trump - can be blamed on them.
And yes, I do mean stupidity. Look at Donald Trump. If you voted for that, you are an idiot. There is no excuse.
Sam Harris is usually impeccably accurate with his language, and speaks with enormous clarity on some of the most difficult and controversial topics. But when it comes to his betes noires, he just sounds like every other commentator, journalist or internet nobody, talking in meaningless terms about "the left" as if "safe spaces" and new gender pronouns are of any interest to the vast majority of people who believe in left wing policies. The people who argue for a large role for the state in providing equality of opportunity (by redistributive policies such as providing universal health and education, etc) and against the notion that markets can in general be relied upon to produce fair outcomes are the same people who have argued for equal rights for women, blacks and gays. These people are "the left" as I understand the term. It's true that since there have been great successes on equality issues over the past few decades, this has left in its wake the mess seen on university campuses (the "SJW" and "identity politics" stuff so hated by Sam Harris and pretty much everyone else). But what is happening is that this objectionable behaviour is being used by clever, influential people on the right as a way to discredit perfectly sensible political ideas e.g. greater regulation of markets, higher taxes and increased public spending on services. It's petty and underhand, and while I'd expect it from Melanie Philips, I expect more from Sam Harris.
Sam Harris has enormous moral blindspots when it comes to US Foreign Policy, Israel and Islam. He comes up with grossly distorted pictures to hold together a world view in which the US and Judeo-Christian cultures are the goodies and Islam is the big global baddie. It's right-wing fantasy-land bullshit. He's (publicly) intent on ignoring how global political reality has got a lot more to do with money and power and a lot less to do with the "battle of ideas" against Islam. Come on, Sam, Saudi Arabia is playing on the same team as the US and Israel - explain that one for us, would you?
The reason Trump won the election isn't to do with Islam and political correctness, these are just things that Sam Harris (and pretty much the whole of the internet) likes to talk about. The reason Trump won is that in order to win the election, the candidate has to appeal to the emotions of the public. "Ban Muslims" "Build a Wall" "Bring back blue collar jobs" are policies that appeal to the emotions, even though they're stupid. Hilary Clinton totally failed to appeal to the emotions of the American people, and had lots of other things wrong with her as a candidate too. That's why Trump won. Political correctness and Islam, made out to be the ultimate threats to our freedom and way of life actually have almost no impact at all. But it's of great utility to those wanting to pursue right-wing policies and to allow power to remain concentrated where it lies now if we, the public, feel under threat from these bogeymen.
As much as Sam Harris is an extremely intelligent and reasonable person, I don't buy this argument when he says it any more than when anyone (everyone?) else does.
Political correctness (of the immature ranty version that "no platforms" speakers and riots at US universities) and Islam are the current betes noires of the right, and both have a lot to answer for, both are destructive forces in society. But that doesn't mean that everything that's wrong with the world - including the stupidity of the American people in voting for Trump - can be blamed on them.
And yes, I do mean stupidity. Look at Donald Trump. If you voted for that, you are an idiot. There is no excuse.
Sam Harris is usually impeccably accurate with his language, and speaks with enormous clarity on some of the most difficult and controversial topics. But when it comes to his betes noires, he just sounds like every other commentator, journalist or internet nobody, talking in meaningless terms about "the left" as if "safe spaces" and new gender pronouns are of any interest to the vast majority of people who believe in left wing policies. The people who argue for a large role for the state in providing equality of opportunity (by redistributive policies such as providing universal health and education, etc) and against the notion that markets can in general be relied upon to produce fair outcomes are the same people who have argued for equal rights for women, blacks and gays. These people are "the left" as I understand the term. It's true that since there have been great successes on equality issues over the past few decades, this has left in its wake the mess seen on university campuses (the "SJW" and "identity politics" stuff so hated by Sam Harris and pretty much everyone else). But what is happening is that this objectionable behaviour is being used by clever, influential people on the right as a way to discredit perfectly sensible political ideas e.g. greater regulation of markets, higher taxes and increased public spending on services. It's petty and underhand, and while I'd expect it from Melanie Philips, I expect more from Sam Harris.
Sam Harris has enormous moral blindspots when it comes to US Foreign Policy, Israel and Islam. He comes up with grossly distorted pictures to hold together a world view in which the US and Judeo-Christian cultures are the goodies and Islam is the big global baddie. It's right-wing fantasy-land bullshit. He's (publicly) intent on ignoring how global political reality has got a lot more to do with money and power and a lot less to do with the "battle of ideas" against Islam. Come on, Sam, Saudi Arabia is playing on the same team as the US and Israel - explain that one for us, would you?
The reason Trump won the election isn't to do with Islam and political correctness, these are just things that Sam Harris (and pretty much the whole of the internet) likes to talk about. The reason Trump won is that in order to win the election, the candidate has to appeal to the emotions of the public. "Ban Muslims" "Build a Wall" "Bring back blue collar jobs" are policies that appeal to the emotions, even though they're stupid. Hilary Clinton totally failed to appeal to the emotions of the American people, and had lots of other things wrong with her as a candidate too. That's why Trump won. Political correctness and Islam, made out to be the ultimate threats to our freedom and way of life actually have almost no impact at all. But it's of great utility to those wanting to pursue right-wing policies and to allow power to remain concentrated where it lies now if we, the public, feel under threat from these bogeymen.
39
3
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
This come from Sam Harris' podcast #51 "The World's Most Powerful Clown". It should be remembered that this was recorded the day after Trump's victory so a lot of it is hyperbolic. Notwithstanding, Sam makes some very interesting points, but I think Jon is right to say he misses some of the important points. Stupidity is indeed something that needs to be considered, just as it is with Brexit (in my opinion).
A personal theory that I have is that both Brexit and Trump have one crucial similarity. There are a lot of people, including myself, who have had enough of the status quo of the corporates running our societies for the corporations. But as Jon points out and many have done so on here about Brexit, there is a lot of stupidity in using these particular votes to make a change for change's sake when the alternative to the status quo could be really bad. (Yes, I know people have made some valid arguments for Brexit, including many on here). But I would suggest a significant proportion in both votes made very ill-informed views. I have a feeling that a lot of people who thought that they were giving the "establishment" a poke in the eye will soon be wondering why their eye is hurting, which is pertinent to both of these results. It is not a change in the establishment, certainly not with Trump and you can guarantee they will do well out of it no matter what.
Another thing that Jon alludes to is the phenomenon of eyeballing journalism. These are news items that catch peoples attention, but in reality have little impact on their lives (don't look at that, look at this!).
However, I think as Sam Harris point's out, many people have had enough of the "liberal left", who are anything but liberal. As Sam says, "Trigger warnings, safe spaces, non-gender pronouns? Is that the great issue of your generation? Is that the trench you are willing to die in?". That is absolutely spot on. There are so many more important issues in the world to solve before we get to these issues. But as Jon says, it probably wasn't a big enough factor to swing the US election.
Check out some more Sam Harris, some of his podcasts are very interesting. Go to his website samharris.org and you can find all his podcasts, articles and there is even a forum, which is very interesting. You might even feel like donating, even though most stuff is free, it must cost him a lot to do.
There are some other commentators who I think are also very good. Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, Joe Rogan along with some more mainstream people like Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart (not the Jon Stewart on here ). Sadly, all of these are Americans, we could do with more people in the UK like this, though I really like Stewart Lee.
This come from Sam Harris' podcast #51 "The World's Most Powerful Clown". It should be remembered that this was recorded the day after Trump's victory so a lot of it is hyperbolic. Notwithstanding, Sam makes some very interesting points, but I think Jon is right to say he misses some of the important points. Stupidity is indeed something that needs to be considered, just as it is with Brexit (in my opinion).
A personal theory that I have is that both Brexit and Trump have one crucial similarity. There are a lot of people, including myself, who have had enough of the status quo of the corporates running our societies for the corporations. But as Jon points out and many have done so on here about Brexit, there is a lot of stupidity in using these particular votes to make a change for change's sake when the alternative to the status quo could be really bad. (Yes, I know people have made some valid arguments for Brexit, including many on here). But I would suggest a significant proportion in both votes made very ill-informed views. I have a feeling that a lot of people who thought that they were giving the "establishment" a poke in the eye will soon be wondering why their eye is hurting, which is pertinent to both of these results. It is not a change in the establishment, certainly not with Trump and you can guarantee they will do well out of it no matter what.
Another thing that Jon alludes to is the phenomenon of eyeballing journalism. These are news items that catch peoples attention, but in reality have little impact on their lives (don't look at that, look at this!).
However, I think as Sam Harris point's out, many people have had enough of the "liberal left", who are anything but liberal. As Sam says, "Trigger warnings, safe spaces, non-gender pronouns? Is that the great issue of your generation? Is that the trench you are willing to die in?". That is absolutely spot on. There are so many more important issues in the world to solve before we get to these issues. But as Jon says, it probably wasn't a big enough factor to swing the US election.
Check out some more Sam Harris, some of his podcasts are very interesting. Go to his website samharris.org and you can find all his podcasts, articles and there is even a forum, which is very interesting. You might even feel like donating, even though most stuff is free, it must cost him a lot to do.
There are some other commentators who I think are also very good. Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, Joe Rogan along with some more mainstream people like Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart (not the Jon Stewart on here ). Sadly, all of these are Americans, we could do with more people in the UK like this, though I really like Stewart Lee.
Post edited at 03:48
9
2
In reply to Hugh J:
But not over considered. Yes, there are people of lower intelligence on both sides of the debate, but they still have the vote, and just calling them stupid does not remedy this, quite the opposite in fact.
I wont even bother pointing out the tendency here to call anyone pro-brexit a racist idiot /Daily Mail reader, or the like.
Agreed, and it is one of the reasons that the working class, (note: not the underclass,) are turning away from Labour. As my cousin Dewi, (an ex shop steward,) put it to me when I was last back in South Wales; "Labour? They're only interested in immigrants and lesbians these days." Labour has become dominated by the middle-class-guilt and "issues" brigade, this has alienated a large portion of the working class support it used to bank on for votes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/brexit-working-class-...
> Stupidity is indeed something that needs to be considered, just as it is with Brexit (in my opinion).
But not over considered. Yes, there are people of lower intelligence on both sides of the debate, but they still have the vote, and just calling them stupid does not remedy this, quite the opposite in fact.
I wont even bother pointing out the tendency here to call anyone pro-brexit a racist idiot /Daily Mail reader, or the like.
> However, I think as Sam Harris point's out, many people have had enough of the "liberal left", who are anything but liberal. As Sam says, "Trigger warnings, safe spaces, non-gender pronouns? Is that the great issue of your generation? Is that the trench you are willing to die in?". That is absolutely spot on.
Agreed, and it is one of the reasons that the working class, (note: not the underclass,) are turning away from Labour. As my cousin Dewi, (an ex shop steward,) put it to me when I was last back in South Wales; "Labour? They're only interested in immigrants and lesbians these days." Labour has become dominated by the middle-class-guilt and "issues" brigade, this has alienated a large portion of the working class support it used to bank on for votes.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/15/brexit-working-class-...
Post edited at 04:39
13
8
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
I think it's a load of absolute bollocks. Drain the swamp.. by employing a cabinet of billionaires and Goldman Sachs employees. Free the U.K. from the tyranny of the EU... say non dom billionaire media barons. Cousin Dewi and his chums across the Atlantic are being played.
I think it's a load of absolute bollocks. Drain the swamp.. by employing a cabinet of billionaires and Goldman Sachs employees. Free the U.K. from the tyranny of the EU... say non dom billionaire media barons. Cousin Dewi and his chums across the Atlantic are being played.
7
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I've never heard of Sam Harris and don't know anything about his poliical views beyiond that video.
In a close election there are many factors that if different could swing the result the other way. All the things you say could have made a decisive difference. But so too could reacting against political correctness, my sense is it did but it's hard thing to get any real evidence about,,,
I think you're missing the point about political correctness too. Sure, the right is making political capital out of some of the more ridiculous pish. But there's a real problem too. People feel unable to express themselves freely and uncomfortable about other people's language. It spoils social interaction and alienates many people. That's a real cost. (Maybe an inevitable price of progress, I'm not sure)
I've never heard of Sam Harris and don't know anything about his poliical views beyiond that video.
In a close election there are many factors that if different could swing the result the other way. All the things you say could have made a decisive difference. But so too could reacting against political correctness, my sense is it did but it's hard thing to get any real evidence about,,,
I think you're missing the point about political correctness too. Sure, the right is making political capital out of some of the more ridiculous pish. But there's a real problem too. People feel unable to express themselves freely and uncomfortable about other people's language. It spoils social interaction and alienates many people. That's a real cost. (Maybe an inevitable price of progress, I'm not sure)
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Interesting post on why people believe lies here. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/02/how-...
> including the stupidity of the American people in voting for Trump - can be blamed on them.And yes, I do mean stupidity.
Interesting post on why people believe lies here. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/02/how-...
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Trying talking to lots of Americans.There are lots of reasons why he won including Hilary Clinton being a poor candidate and running a bad campaign.
Trump is often viewed as an outsider , not part of the political establishment, and to a good extent he was/is. Alot of Americans voted for him to just shake things up, as Obama is viewed as a bit of a failure.( I have always been amazed at this).
To say Trump is stupid is irrational,he figured out how to win.
( By the way I am no fan)
Trying talking to lots of Americans.There are lots of reasons why he won including Hilary Clinton being a poor candidate and running a bad campaign.
Trump is often viewed as an outsider , not part of the political establishment, and to a good extent he was/is. Alot of Americans voted for him to just shake things up, as Obama is viewed as a bit of a failure.( I have always been amazed at this).
To say Trump is stupid is irrational,he figured out how to win.
( By the way I am no fan)
2
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Chris Dillow has incredibly refreshing ideas and perspectives on economics & the media.
> Interesting post on why people believe lies here. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2017/02/how-...
Chris Dillow has incredibly refreshing ideas and perspectives on economics & the media.
Post edited at 11:02
In reply to neilh:
I agree with all of this up to the line "he figured out how to win". I think that he was as surprised as anyone at the outcome.
> Trying talking to lots of Americans.There are lots of reasons why he won including Hilary Clinton being a poor candidate and running a bad campaign.Trump is often viewed as an outsider , not part of the political establishment, and to a good extent he was/is. Alot of Americans voted for him to just shake things up, as Obama is viewed as a bit of a failure.( I have always been amazed at this).To say Trump is stupid is irrational,he figured out how to win.( By the way I am no fan)
I agree with all of this up to the line "he figured out how to win". I think that he was as surprised as anyone at the outcome.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034
A statistical analysis of the data obtained for over a thousand individual local government wards confirms how the strength of the local Leave vote was strongly associated with lower educational qualifications.
...
In statistical terms the level of educational qualifications explains about two-thirds of the variation in the results between different wards.
The correlation is strong, whether based on assessing graduate and equivalent qualifications or lower-level ones.
> But not over considered. Yes, there are people of lower intelligence on both sides of the debate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034
A statistical analysis of the data obtained for over a thousand individual local government wards confirms how the strength of the local Leave vote was strongly associated with lower educational qualifications.
...
In statistical terms the level of educational qualifications explains about two-thirds of the variation in the results between different wards.
The correlation is strong, whether based on assessing graduate and equivalent qualifications or lower-level ones.
1
3
In reply to Shani:
He da man!
Mixes some cracking insults in with his insight too. From "The We've-selectively-read-weath-of-nations-and-ignored-moral-sentiments Insititute" to just calling George Osborne a c*nt.
He da man!
Mixes some cracking insults in with his insight too. From "The We've-selectively-read-weath-of-nations-and-ignored-moral-sentiments Insititute" to just calling George Osborne a c*nt.
1
In reply to Shani:
I disagree with the idea that because Trump figured out how to win, he is not stupid. Both things can be true.
> I agree with all of this up to the line "he figured out how to win". I think that he was as surprised as anyone at the outcome.
I disagree with the idea that because Trump figured out how to win, he is not stupid. Both things can be true.
1
In reply to Jimbocz:
I agree that both things can be true, but I just don't think he 'figured' out a winning strategy. I think it was happenstance.
He relies on a deluded narrative of positives being the result of his own brilliance, and negative outcomes the result of prejudice against him. A stopped clock is right twice a day etc.... It just so happens he called it right this time.
> I disagree with the idea that because Trump figured out how to win, he is not stupid. Both things can be true.
I agree that both things can be true, but I just don't think he 'figured' out a winning strategy. I think it was happenstance.
He relies on a deluded narrative of positives being the result of his own brilliance, and negative outcomes the result of prejudice against him. A stopped clock is right twice a day etc.... It just so happens he called it right this time.
2
1
In reply to Shani:
And alot of other people just thought he did not stand a chance and they could not see he could win.
Anybody who travels round the States ( away from places like NY, Boston etc- even then he still had swathes of supporters) could see and hear which way the election might go.
As I say, I am no fan.
I have alot of respect for the US democratic system( aside from lobbying), and at least the judges are proving me right so far.In the end I suspect he will be as much a lame duck as Obama.
And alot of other people just thought he did not stand a chance and they could not see he could win.
Anybody who travels round the States ( away from places like NY, Boston etc- even then he still had swathes of supporters) could see and hear which way the election might go.
As I say, I am no fan.
I have alot of respect for the US democratic system( aside from lobbying), and at least the judges are proving me right so far.In the end I suspect he will be as much a lame duck as Obama.
Post edited at 13:13
2
In reply to neilh:
That's no doubt true, but it doesn't mean that voting for Trump isn't stupid. I might say I want change, but what I mean is that I want change for the better. No one actually wants things to be worse, just because they're bored*
It's perfectly rational. The Donald Trump we see isn't some cleverly constructed vote-winning stage character - it's him. It's doubtful whether he's ever read a book. This is the man who tweeted "Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!" It's irrational , given everything he says and does, to conclude that he's anything other than very very stupid. And voting for him is a very very stupid thing to do, regardless of how dissatisfied you might be with the status quo. The fact that he won is just good evidence that his stupidity is matched by that of around 50% of US voters.
*actually they do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28130690 but I don't think this applies to voting habits!
> Trying talking to lots of Americans.There are lots of reasons why he won including Hilary Clinton being a poor candidate and running a bad campaign.Trump is often viewed as an outsider , not part of the political establishment, and to a good extent he was/is. Alot of Americans voted for him to just shake things up, as Obama is viewed as a bit of a failure.
That's no doubt true, but it doesn't mean that voting for Trump isn't stupid. I might say I want change, but what I mean is that I want change for the better. No one actually wants things to be worse, just because they're bored*
> To say Trump is stupid is irrational,he figured out how to win.
It's perfectly rational. The Donald Trump we see isn't some cleverly constructed vote-winning stage character - it's him. It's doubtful whether he's ever read a book. This is the man who tweeted "Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!" It's irrational , given everything he says and does, to conclude that he's anything other than very very stupid. And voting for him is a very very stupid thing to do, regardless of how dissatisfied you might be with the status quo. The fact that he won is just good evidence that his stupidity is matched by that of around 50% of US voters.
*actually they do: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28130690 but I don't think this applies to voting habits!
Post edited at 18:31
1
2
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
I think it has to do with religion. I've been to churches a couple of times in the last year for funerals/weddings etc and I was struck by just how much obvious bollocks the priest/minister gets to talk and everybody just sits there and laps it up. I was playing a game with myself where I got to use legal objections like 'assumes facts not in evidence' whenever the minister came up with some crap fished out of thin air in his sermon and it was hard to keep up.
The religious experience is about conditioning yourself to accept insanely unlikely statements 'on faith' as the truth because it makes you feel good. One of the side effects is that when someone like Trump does effectively the same thing as the minister/priest and spouts crap which you want to hear from a position of authority you are quite willing to treat it as theatre and suspend disbelief.
I think it has to do with religion. I've been to churches a couple of times in the last year for funerals/weddings etc and I was struck by just how much obvious bollocks the priest/minister gets to talk and everybody just sits there and laps it up. I was playing a game with myself where I got to use legal objections like 'assumes facts not in evidence' whenever the minister came up with some crap fished out of thin air in his sermon and it was hard to keep up.
The religious experience is about conditioning yourself to accept insanely unlikely statements 'on faith' as the truth because it makes you feel good. One of the side effects is that when someone like Trump does effectively the same thing as the minister/priest and spouts crap which you want to hear from a position of authority you are quite willing to treat it as theatre and suspend disbelief.
Post edited at 18:59
5
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
My wife's uncle is from a Lanarkshire mining village but he's lived in Vancouver for the last 60 years. He reckons " you can aye tell an American but you can nae tell him much"
He's just been proved right....
My wife's uncle is from a Lanarkshire mining village but he's lived in Vancouver for the last 60 years. He reckons " you can aye tell an American but you can nae tell him much"
He's just been proved right....
Post edited at 19:53
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I wish you would look at the data.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald...
Intelligent, often college educated, mainly Christian white people were the main Trump voters. They were unlikely to be dumb... more likely voting out of self interest and on tribal lines, after the Republican party largely backed him. The demagogary helped him more in becoming the Republican candidate and swung the key states but without those white bright Christian votes, Hillary had a landslide.
I wish you would look at the data.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald...
Intelligent, often college educated, mainly Christian white people were the main Trump voters. They were unlikely to be dumb... more likely voting out of self interest and on tribal lines, after the Republican party largely backed him. The demagogary helped him more in becoming the Republican candidate and swung the key states but without those white bright Christian votes, Hillary had a landslide.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Interesting, thanks. I guess if all the people who normally vote on tribal lines do so as usual, and only those who are both white and easily swayed by emotional appeal are swayed by Trump's idiotic rhetoric, then we get to where we're at. Does this mean that stupidity was not to blame?
I think not - you're using a too narrow a definition of 'stupid'. I think you can be college educated and still be an idiot. If you're one of these college educated, Christian, Republican tribalists who voted Trump in spite of the fact that he's going to drag your country backwards economically (and socially - not that you care), just because to vote for another party results in too great a cognitive dissonance for you to deal with then, sorry, you may have a degree but you're still stupid. And what makes me laugh is that these people will tell you how terrible "identity politics" are.
The facts remain as they are. Donald Trump stands up and blatantly lies to the public and shouts "fake news" at journalists who don't agree with him. His advisers make reference to massacres that didn't happen. It isn't really in anyone's self-interest to have democracy undermined in this way. It's not a sensible direction to pursue. I can't see it any other way: if you voted for him, you're an idiot.
> I wish you would look at the data.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald...
Interesting, thanks. I guess if all the people who normally vote on tribal lines do so as usual, and only those who are both white and easily swayed by emotional appeal are swayed by Trump's idiotic rhetoric, then we get to where we're at. Does this mean that stupidity was not to blame?
I think not - you're using a too narrow a definition of 'stupid'. I think you can be college educated and still be an idiot. If you're one of these college educated, Christian, Republican tribalists who voted Trump in spite of the fact that he's going to drag your country backwards economically (and socially - not that you care), just because to vote for another party results in too great a cognitive dissonance for you to deal with then, sorry, you may have a degree but you're still stupid. And what makes me laugh is that these people will tell you how terrible "identity politics" are.
The facts remain as they are. Donald Trump stands up and blatantly lies to the public and shouts "fake news" at journalists who don't agree with him. His advisers make reference to massacres that didn't happen. It isn't really in anyone's self-interest to have democracy undermined in this way. It's not a sensible direction to pursue. I can't see it any other way: if you voted for him, you're an idiot.
5
1
In reply to Martin W:
Yes, that's what I said, so what are you going to do about it? Should we ban stupid people from voting? Or should we keep insulting them until they get wise and start buying the Guardian?
Your post does nothing to answer the question, however it does exemplify the smug middle-class, pseudo-intellectual snobbery of the remain campaign amazingly well, congrats.
> statistical analysis of the data obtained for over a thousand individual local government wards confirms how the strength of the local Leave vote was strongly associated with lower educational qualifications....In statistical terms the level of educational qualifications explains about two-thirds of the variation in the results between different wards.The correlation is strong, whether based on assessing graduate and equivalent qualifications or lower-level ones.
Yes, that's what I said, so what are you going to do about it? Should we ban stupid people from voting? Or should we keep insulting them until they get wise and start buying the Guardian?
Your post does nothing to answer the question, however it does exemplify the smug middle-class, pseudo-intellectual snobbery of the remain campaign amazingly well, congrats.
5
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
This video is just saying what the likes of big ger, postmanpat and bootrock are saying on this forum only in a much softer voice. The left are to blame, not because their arguments are wrong or any less valid than ours, but because they call us stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc.
Us and them, no debate.
This video is just saying what the likes of big ger, postmanpat and bootrock are saying on this forum only in a much softer voice. The left are to blame, not because their arguments are wrong or any less valid than ours, but because they call us stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc.
Us and them, no debate.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It's a sage warning to the civilised world.
Well you can sit there in your nice chair and think yourself smugly superior to all the idiots and low lifes who stupidly voted differently to you. How did that work with the Brexit referendum for you?
> It isn't really in anyone's self-interest to have democracy undermined in this way. It's not a sensible direction to pursue.
It's a sage warning to the civilised world.
> I can't see it any other way: if you voted for him, you're an idiot.
Well you can sit there in your nice chair and think yourself smugly superior to all the idiots and low lifes who stupidly voted differently to you. How did that work with the Brexit referendum for you?
4
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Good question (but relating to Trump as that's what this thread is about, not Brexit). And I haven't got any answers, sorry. It's fair to say that the left isn't coming up with ideas that appeal to those voting (idiotically) for Trump. But does that make their choice any less stupid? Not in my view. If you couldn't stomach voting for Hilary, don't vote, or vote for a third party. But for god's sake, Donald Trump? You can't cast your vote that way and then get all defensive when someone calls you an idiot.
And don't bother ranting at me about insulting (stupid) people. Trump voters, I guarantee, are not listening to me. Hilary Clinton was tactically inept to insult Trump voters. But I can say whatever I like thanks, and I don't have to worry about the death of American democracy nor the car-crashing of the free world.
> Yes, that's what I said, so what are you going to do about it? Should we ban stupid people from voting? Or should we keep insulting them...
Good question (but relating to Trump as that's what this thread is about, not Brexit). And I haven't got any answers, sorry. It's fair to say that the left isn't coming up with ideas that appeal to those voting (idiotically) for Trump. But does that make their choice any less stupid? Not in my view. If you couldn't stomach voting for Hilary, don't vote, or vote for a third party. But for god's sake, Donald Trump? You can't cast your vote that way and then get all defensive when someone calls you an idiot.
And don't bother ranting at me about insulting (stupid) people. Trump voters, I guarantee, are not listening to me. Hilary Clinton was tactically inept to insult Trump voters. But I can say whatever I like thanks, and I don't have to worry about the death of American democracy nor the car-crashing of the free world.
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
No it isn't. Perhaps you think a toddler having a tantrum is issuing a "sage warning" to his parents?
> It's a sage warning to the civilised world.
No it isn't. Perhaps you think a toddler having a tantrum is issuing a "sage warning" to his parents?
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I agree with you and have used the same rhetoric. It's not going to help now. We need to avoid the word stupid. Brexit happened, Trump is now the president of America, I think both these events are wrong and regressive and, here's the rub, MANY millions of very clever people voted for both of them.
Where we're missing out is in debate of the issues of equality, distribution of wealth, environmental protection etc. These debates are non existent in political dialogue now, right when we really need them.
I agree with you and have used the same rhetoric. It's not going to help now. We need to avoid the word stupid. Brexit happened, Trump is now the president of America, I think both these events are wrong and regressive and, here's the rub, MANY millions of very clever people voted for both of them.
Where we're missing out is in debate of the issues of equality, distribution of wealth, environmental protection etc. These debates are non existent in political dialogue now, right when we really need them.
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Decent and honest of you Jon mate.
Obvs not, but if the left could find a way of actually informing them, (instead of calling them dickheads,) then they would be more stupid to vote Lord Dampnut if they hold that information.
A book which opened my eyes as to why the USA voted in the chimp twice;Joe Bageant argues that class is very much alive in the US: an "American hologram" in which every citizen props up an iniquitous structure in order to protect a redundant dream of wealth and self-actualisation. The class war is fought cold - with words, reproaches, snubs and deliberate mishearings - between mostly urban liberals and largely rural conservatives, who snipe at each other from class-segregated homes, bars and schools.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/sep/06/5
> Good question (but relating to Trump as that's what this thread is about, not Brexit). And I haven't got any answers, sorry.
Decent and honest of you Jon mate.
> It's fair to say that the left isn't coming up with ideas that appeal to those voting (idiotically) for Trump. But does that make their choice any less stupid? Not in my view.
Obvs not, but if the left could find a way of actually informing them, (instead of calling them dickheads,) then they would be more stupid to vote Lord Dampnut if they hold that information.
A book which opened my eyes as to why the USA voted in the chimp twice;Joe Bageant argues that class is very much alive in the US: an "American hologram" in which every citizen props up an iniquitous structure in order to protect a redundant dream of wealth and self-actualisation. The class war is fought cold - with words, reproaches, snubs and deliberate mishearings - between mostly urban liberals and largely rural conservatives, who snipe at each other from class-segregated homes, bars and schools.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/sep/06/5
Post edited at 21:37
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
You obviously get the context in which political correctness operates, but the people who think it's the root cause of everything wrong with world don't appear to. Personally, I have benefited hugely from the positive change in social attitudes that means discriminating against me in practical ways is illegal, and in social ways is taboo. So I find it difficult to untangle what is the evil, repressive political correctness so loathed by so much of society and what is welcome social progress. I'm far from convinced that those on the other side of the argument are any better at untangling this either - in fact, it seems to me that they see the part they don't like, but ignore the context of the huge improvements in society that have arrived, as I see it, as part of the same package. It's also unrealistic to pretend that there aren't people who simply don't welcome the social progress, and *all* they're getting is a restriction on what they can and can't say without being ostracised, as well as having to put up with changes in society that they never wanted to see. These people tend to be quite angry (and a bit thick).
I think it's worth noting that as well as people who had nothing to gain from the progress towards equal rights, there are also many people (with specific reference to the Breitbart Wankers) who gained an awful lot from that progress who still make careers out ranting about political correctness, and shitting on people from other, smaller minorities. Not an impressive position.
Fact is, some people don't gain from equal rights for minorities. We've got to be honest, there are new restrictions, legal and social, on what you can and can't do. I agree with arguments that those restrictions should be absolutely minimal, so long as the equal rights of everyone are preserved, and that where the restrictions are excessive (e.g. "no platforming" speakers etc) these should be torn down. But that's rarely the argument that's made against political correctness - more usually it's just noise about "snowflakes" and "freedom of speech" (which is of course a qualified right and not an absolute one, and the qualifications take some working out). The argument that needs to be put forward to combat unnecessary, counter-productive restrictions is a bit more complicated and requires a bit more effort.
> I think you're missing the point about political correctness too. Sure, the right is making political capital out of some of the more ridiculous pish. But there's a real problem too. People feel unable to express themselves freely and uncomfortable about other people's language. It spoils social interaction and alienates many people. That's a real cost. (Maybe an inevitable price of progress, I'm not sure)
You obviously get the context in which political correctness operates, but the people who think it's the root cause of everything wrong with world don't appear to. Personally, I have benefited hugely from the positive change in social attitudes that means discriminating against me in practical ways is illegal, and in social ways is taboo. So I find it difficult to untangle what is the evil, repressive political correctness so loathed by so much of society and what is welcome social progress. I'm far from convinced that those on the other side of the argument are any better at untangling this either - in fact, it seems to me that they see the part they don't like, but ignore the context of the huge improvements in society that have arrived, as I see it, as part of the same package. It's also unrealistic to pretend that there aren't people who simply don't welcome the social progress, and *all* they're getting is a restriction on what they can and can't say without being ostracised, as well as having to put up with changes in society that they never wanted to see. These people tend to be quite angry (and a bit thick).
I think it's worth noting that as well as people who had nothing to gain from the progress towards equal rights, there are also many people (with specific reference to the Breitbart Wankers) who gained an awful lot from that progress who still make careers out ranting about political correctness, and shitting on people from other, smaller minorities. Not an impressive position.
Fact is, some people don't gain from equal rights for minorities. We've got to be honest, there are new restrictions, legal and social, on what you can and can't do. I agree with arguments that those restrictions should be absolutely minimal, so long as the equal rights of everyone are preserved, and that where the restrictions are excessive (e.g. "no platforming" speakers etc) these should be torn down. But that's rarely the argument that's made against political correctness - more usually it's just noise about "snowflakes" and "freedom of speech" (which is of course a qualified right and not an absolute one, and the qualifications take some working out). The argument that needs to be put forward to combat unnecessary, counter-productive restrictions is a bit more complicated and requires a bit more effort.
Post edited at 21:54
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
I don't think most of 'the left' are actually calling anybody dickheads; they're just being accused of that (by those that won't engage in debate) as a way to negate their politics.
>then they would be more stupid to vote Lord Dampnut
Who's he?
>if they hold that information.A book which opened my eyes as to why the USA voted in the chimp twice;Joe Bageant argues that class is very much alive in the US: an "American hologram" in which every citizen props up an iniquitous structure in order to protect a redundant dream of wealth and self-actualisation. The class war is fought cold - with words, reproaches, snubs and deliberate mishearings - between mostly urban liberals and largely rural conservatives, who snipe at each other from class-segregated homes, bars and schools.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/sep/06/5
Is this not just 'political dialogue' there's no debate on any issue here - just characterising a pair of enemies. Not a good way of making any progress.
> Decent and honest of you Jon mate.Obvs not, but if the left could find a way of actually informing them, (instead of calling them dickheads,)
I don't think most of 'the left' are actually calling anybody dickheads; they're just being accused of that (by those that won't engage in debate) as a way to negate their politics.
>then they would be more stupid to vote Lord Dampnut
Who's he?
>if they hold that information.A book which opened my eyes as to why the USA voted in the chimp twice;Joe Bageant argues that class is very much alive in the US: an "American hologram" in which every citizen props up an iniquitous structure in order to protect a redundant dream of wealth and self-actualisation. The class war is fought cold - with words, reproaches, snubs and deliberate mishearings - between mostly urban liberals and largely rural conservatives, who snipe at each other from class-segregated homes, bars and schools.https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/sep/06/5
Is this not just 'political dialogue' there's no debate on any issue here - just characterising a pair of enemies. Not a good way of making any progress.
1
In reply to pasbury:
Have you not read this thread? We are discussing calling people who vote Trump/Brexit "idiots' and the like.
Anagram, 2 words 6, 5.
Have you read the book it refers to, or just that snippet from a review?
> I don't think most of 'the left' are actually calling anybody dickheads; they're just being accused of that (by those that won't engage in debate) as a way to negate their politics.
Have you not read this thread? We are discussing calling people who vote Trump/Brexit "idiots' and the like.
> then they would be more stupid to vote Lord Dampnut Who's he?
Anagram, 2 words 6, 5.
> Is this not just 'political dialogue' there's no debate on any issue here - just characterising a pair of enemies. Not a good way of making any progress.
Have you read the book it refers to, or just that snippet from a review?
Post edited at 21:59
2
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
One person's ridiculous pish is another person's real shit that they have to deal with every day
> missing the point about political correctness too. Sure, the right is making political capital out of some of the more ridiculous pish.
One person's ridiculous pish is another person's real shit that they have to deal with every day
2
2
In reply to pasbury:
You're right, but it isn't my job to avoid the word stupid, when that's exactly what I mean. I'm posting on the internet for my own amusement, I'm not contributing to a political campaign - if I was, this is not how I would go about it! If people on UKC feel insulted and more entrenched in their position due to what I post then they're not going to vote the way I want them to, but I'm not responsible for that.
The fun of the internet is that you can say what you think, how you want to say it, within fairly lenient boundaries - ok, you're not allowed to post abuse, but actually most of that is ignored anyway because it's mostly harmless. Note to those whinging about your freedom of speech being eroded - it isn't. We're having a frank and free debate here, it's a good thing.
> I agree with you and have used the same rhetoric. It's not going to help now. We need to avoid the word stupid. Brexit happened, Trump is now the president of America, I think both these events are wrong and regressive and, here's the rub, MANY millions of very clever people voted for both of them.Where we're missing out is in debate of the issues of equality, distribution of wealth, environmental protection etc. These debates are non existent in political dialogue now, right when we really need them.
You're right, but it isn't my job to avoid the word stupid, when that's exactly what I mean. I'm posting on the internet for my own amusement, I'm not contributing to a political campaign - if I was, this is not how I would go about it! If people on UKC feel insulted and more entrenched in their position due to what I post then they're not going to vote the way I want them to, but I'm not responsible for that.
The fun of the internet is that you can say what you think, how you want to say it, within fairly lenient boundaries - ok, you're not allowed to post abuse, but actually most of that is ignored anyway because it's mostly harmless. Note to those whinging about your freedom of speech being eroded - it isn't. We're having a frank and free debate here, it's a good thing.
2
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Yes, that is why I wrote what I wrote
Thank you; got it
I haven't read the book, and can't right now. I assumed that your quote from it was meant to be a supporting statement to your argument and that it could be replied to without having to spend a week reading up on what you 'really meant'; thus negating anything I say.
> Have you not read this thread? We are discussing calling people who vote Trump/Brexit "idiots' and the like.
Yes, that is why I wrote what I wrote
> Anagram, 2 words 6, 5.
Thank you; got it
> Have you read the book it refers to, or just that snippet from a review?
I haven't read the book, and can't right now. I assumed that your quote from it was meant to be a supporting statement to your argument and that it could be replied to without having to spend a week reading up on what you 'really meant'; thus negating anything I say.
In reply to pasbury:
It was a snippet to give a taste of the books inclination, and not a wholly conceived argument in itself, more is available about the book on that Guardian link.
> I haven't read the book, and can't right now. I assumed that your quote from it was meant to be a supporting statement to your argument and that it could be replied to without having to spend a week reading up on what you 'really meant'; thus negating anything I say.
It was a snippet to give a taste of the books inclination, and not a wholly conceived argument in itself, more is available about the book on that Guardian link.
In reply to pasbury:
I am, obviously. But you're right, I think there is a lot less of this in real public debate than is made out in this whole "it's the left's fault for being so snooty" position taken by so many people (on both sides) just now.
Yes, but it's something of an open goal. To be fair to this viewpoint, Hilary did actually say "basket of deplorables", and there isn't much of any use coming out of the left in terms of actual arguments just now so that silence is filled up with the noise of the populist right. There is no functioning left of centre opposition in the UK, and the Democrats just lost an election to Donald f*cking Trump. I'm struggling to cling on to any optimism here, I can't see a way out.
> I don't think most of 'the left' are actually calling anybody dickheads;
I am, obviously. But you're right, I think there is a lot less of this in real public debate than is made out in this whole "it's the left's fault for being so snooty" position taken by so many people (on both sides) just now.
> they're just being accused of that (by those that won't engage in debate) as a way to negate their politics
Yes, but it's something of an open goal. To be fair to this viewpoint, Hilary did actually say "basket of deplorables", and there isn't much of any use coming out of the left in terms of actual arguments just now so that silence is filled up with the noise of the populist right. There is no functioning left of centre opposition in the UK, and the Democrats just lost an election to Donald f*cking Trump. I'm struggling to cling on to any optimism here, I can't see a way out.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
My feelings entirely; however.... what is the point of posting at all... are you intending to change someone's views? How can we challenge those we disagree with?
> You're right, but it isn't my job to avoid the word stupid, when that's exactly what I mean. I'm posting on the internet for my own amusement, I'm not contributing to a political campaign - if I was, this is not how I would go about it! If people on UKC feel insulted and more entrenched in their position due to what I post then they're not going to vote the way I want them to, but I'm not responsible for that.
My feelings entirely; however.... what is the point of posting at all... are you intending to change someone's views? How can we challenge those we disagree with?
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
One three word phrase!!!
Trump has trashed anyone and everyone at some point.
As to a way out - the truth! Even if you die saying it.
> To be fair to this viewpoint, Hilary did actually say "basket of deplorables",
One three word phrase!!!
Trump has trashed anyone and everyone at some point.
As to a way out - the truth! Even if you die saying it.
Post edited at 22:36
1
1
1
2
In reply to pasbury:
You're absolutely right, it's not fair. But I think it's got something to do with the class stuff Ger is talking about. Being rude about privileged, urban, liberals is fair game when you're representing the underclass, the forgotten people, etc. A privileged, urban liberal calling the forgotten man a prick, is, however beyond the pale?
> One three word phrase!!!Trump has trashed anyone and everyone at some point.As to a way out - the truth! Even if you die saying it.
You're absolutely right, it's not fair. But I think it's got something to do with the class stuff Ger is talking about. Being rude about privileged, urban, liberals is fair game when you're representing the underclass, the forgotten people, etc. A privileged, urban liberal calling the forgotten man a prick, is, however beyond the pale?
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I don't get it at all. I have friends - good friends, who I like and respect very much (in most respects), and always enjoy having a few beers with - who are Christian fundamentalists. The bloke I go sailing with most - he's a friend too - is a Brexiteer, and thinks Trump and Theresa are great. Both are equally baffling.
I don't get it at all. I have friends - good friends, who I like and respect very much (in most respects), and always enjoy having a few beers with - who are Christian fundamentalists. The bloke I go sailing with most - he's a friend too - is a Brexiteer, and thinks Trump and Theresa are great. Both are equally baffling.
Post edited at 22:50
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yeah but they're not representing the 'underclass' are they - just using them as vote machines. Mobilising votes is what gets these bastards into power. They don't do it by appealing to argument, moral compass or reason ; just fear and latent prejudice.
This can only be fought with facts, moral strength and principle, not counter argument.
> You're absolutely right, it's not fair. But I think it's got something to do with the class stuff Ger is talking about. Being rude about privileged, urban, liberals is fair game when you're representing the underclass, the forgotten people, etc. A privileged, urban liberal calling the forgotten man a prick, is, however beyond the pale?
Yeah but they're not representing the 'underclass' are they - just using them as vote machines. Mobilising votes is what gets these bastards into power. They don't do it by appealing to argument, moral compass or reason ; just fear and latent prejudice.
This can only be fought with facts, moral strength and principle, not counter argument.
1
2
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
In case anybody hasn't already mentioned this, I know why Trump got in: abortion. There are massive numbers of Christians, some liberal in all other issues, who regard abortion as an evil they can't get past. Trump managed to convince them that he gives a damn about it, chose Pence as his running mate and that was the issue that clinched it.
The impressive, under reported, post inauguration March for Life was evidence of this.
In case anybody hasn't already mentioned this, I know why Trump got in: abortion. There are massive numbers of Christians, some liberal in all other issues, who regard abortion as an evil they can't get past. Trump managed to convince them that he gives a damn about it, chose Pence as his running mate and that was the issue that clinched it.
The impressive, under reported, post inauguration March for Life was evidence of this.
4
In reply to pasbury:
I just enjoy the debate. Sometimes I'm trying to get people to see things differently to some degree - the Sam Harris (etc) view seems to have gained an awful lot of ground; I don't buy it, I'm suspicious of the motives, and I don't hear a lot of opposition to it, so I wanted to have a go. Perhaps there was some hope that people who might otherwise have been swept along with it might be more circumspect having heard a bit of disagreement. But mainly I just like taking part in the debate as it clarifies my own view on things and I get exposed to more info. Some great links have been posted on this thread - I tend to only scan them more often than not, but it's better than nowt.
Dunno really. If I was genuinely into trying to convince people of my views, I'd be making videos on youtube the way these guys (Dennis Prager and his "university" haha.) do.
https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity
I think they're pretty effective at arguing their case, and do so with clarity in a really easy to digest format. But my god, the content is absolute shite. Interesting stuff if you're into anti-scientific, fallacious right-wing claptrap...know your enemy!
> My feelings entirely; however.... what is the point of posting at all... are you intending to change someone's views?
I just enjoy the debate. Sometimes I'm trying to get people to see things differently to some degree - the Sam Harris (etc) view seems to have gained an awful lot of ground; I don't buy it, I'm suspicious of the motives, and I don't hear a lot of opposition to it, so I wanted to have a go. Perhaps there was some hope that people who might otherwise have been swept along with it might be more circumspect having heard a bit of disagreement. But mainly I just like taking part in the debate as it clarifies my own view on things and I get exposed to more info. Some great links have been posted on this thread - I tend to only scan them more often than not, but it's better than nowt.
> How can we challenge those we disagree with?
Dunno really. If I was genuinely into trying to convince people of my views, I'd be making videos on youtube the way these guys (Dennis Prager and his "university" haha.) do.
https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity
I think they're pretty effective at arguing their case, and do so with clarity in a really easy to digest format. But my god, the content is absolute shite. Interesting stuff if you're into anti-scientific, fallacious right-wing claptrap...know your enemy!
1
1
In reply to neilh:
Didn't he pay people to figure out how to win?
> To say Trump is stupid is irrational,he figured out how to win.
Didn't he pay people to figure out how to win?
In reply to Pete Pozman:
At the risk of being boring I disagree;
She lost it the moment James Comey announced he was investigating her emails on the 26th of October. The timing was perfect, Guiliani had given notice beforehand (inside knowledge?). The announcement was against Justice Dept Policy but he did it anyway.
Everyone thought ; hey perhaps Trumps not been bullshitting when he's going on about the email server.
She lost her momentum. on the 6th November Comey wrote "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July" - that there was no case to answer.
The damage was done.
On January 12, 2017, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General announced a formal investigation into whether the FBI followed proper procedures in its investigation of Clinton or whether "improper considerations" were made by FBI personnel.
> In case anybody hasn't already mentioned this, I know why Trump got in: abortion.
At the risk of being boring I disagree;
She lost it the moment James Comey announced he was investigating her emails on the 26th of October. The timing was perfect, Guiliani had given notice beforehand (inside knowledge?). The announcement was against Justice Dept Policy but he did it anyway.
Everyone thought ; hey perhaps Trumps not been bullshitting when he's going on about the email server.
She lost her momentum. on the 6th November Comey wrote "Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July" - that there was no case to answer.
The damage was done.
On January 12, 2017, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General announced a formal investigation into whether the FBI followed proper procedures in its investigation of Clinton or whether "improper considerations" were made by FBI personnel.
Post edited at 23:34
2
1
In reply to pasbury:
sometimes, sure. maybe other times it is just ridiculous pish? happy to discuss examples
> One person's ridiculous pish is another person's real shit that they have to deal with every day
sometimes, sure. maybe other times it is just ridiculous pish? happy to discuss examples
1
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Is that under reported like all the recent terrorist attacks and the size of his inauguration crowd.
I remember reading about the pro-life march and seeing it on BBC news.
Is that under reported like all the recent terrorist attacks and the size of his inauguration crowd.
I remember reading about the pro-life march and seeing it on BBC news.
1
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Ok what 'ridiculous pish' are you talking about then - I took it to mean that there were excessive examples of political correctness that have so alienated some that they change political allegiance.
Ok what 'ridiculous pish' are you talking about then - I took it to mean that there were excessive examples of political correctness that have so alienated some that they change political allegiance.
2
In reply to pasbury:
You're exactly the problem with the left that he's pointing out. You can't see the problem with calling everyone racists/stupid/sexist...
You're exactly the problem with the left that he's pointing out. You can't see the problem with calling everyone racists/stupid/sexist...
3
In reply to pasbury:
If you read my post properly you'll see that I contrast the 'ridiculous pish' that the right play on (safe spaces etc.) with what I see as real issues around political correctness in general. eg issues around people being less comfortable expressing themseleves. In my experience people can and do feel uncomfortable when they're not sure what's an acceptable way to express reasonable views. Or when they worry that they can't express reasonable views at all without fear of being called aracist. I also note that this may be the price of progress (ie I'm aknowledging the good side of PCness too).
If you read my post properly you'll see that I contrast the 'ridiculous pish' that the right play on (safe spaces etc.) with what I see as real issues around political correctness in general. eg issues around people being less comfortable expressing themseleves. In my experience people can and do feel uncomfortable when they're not sure what's an acceptable way to express reasonable views. Or when they worry that they can't express reasonable views at all without fear of being called aracist. I also note that this may be the price of progress (ie I'm aknowledging the good side of PCness too).
3
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
I've been arguing exactly the opposite on this thread! I haven't done it ( though I did call bootrock an asshole and I stand by that statement), I don't think many of us on here have done it and in the bigger world I don't think many have done it there either, yet the left are accused of calling the right stupid!!! No, it 's just a way of neutralising debate.
> You're exactly the problem with the left that he's pointing out. You can't see the problem with calling everyone racists/stupid/sexist...
I've been arguing exactly the opposite on this thread! I haven't done it ( though I did call bootrock an asshole and I stand by that statement), I don't think many of us on here have done it and in the bigger world I don't think many have done it there either, yet the left are accused of calling the right stupid!!! No, it 's just a way of neutralising debate.
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well being rude about a "privileged, urban liberal" is fair game, when that "privileged, urban liberal" has been disparaging a group of less able people as "idiots", don't you think?
> Being rude about privileged, urban, liberals is fair game when you're representing the underclass, the forgotten people, etc. A privileged, urban liberal calling the forgotten man a prick, is, however beyond the pale?
Well being rude about a "privileged, urban liberal" is fair game, when that "privileged, urban liberal" has been disparaging a group of less able people as "idiots", don't you think?
3
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well if you are not stupid, your total lack of self-awareness is certainly stunning.
Except that it is exactly how you would go about a political campaign, because you know no other tone of voice. You and your fellow leftists are a one-trick ponies, driven entirely by your entirely unjustified delusion of the monopoly possession of the moral and intellectual high ground.
Hard to imagine anyone more entrenched in their own position than you. Dogmatic, intolerant, bigoted, possessed by the fantasy that you are in possession of "the truth" and have the licence to dispense it to your inferiors the great unwashed, from on high.
Also entrenched in the habit of sneering, patronising abuse of opponents, or even of those who refuse, even passively, to assent to your dogmas and shibboleths, refuse to to denounce your bogeymen or sanctify your holy figures. Which would be the vast majority of people in fact.
You can say it, but would be even more foolish than usual to imagine that it is without consequences, deeply harmful consequences for the side that you support. Consequences that ensure that whatever the latest source of outrage and indignation you and your like come out with will be immediately dismissed by most people, even, on the very rare occasions, that it has some merit, because it comes from you and your like - widely loathed and derided. Your position is tainted by association with you and dismissed as a consequence, even before the factoids and dogma is examined and rejected.
Actually the most serious point of worry for the left is not that they are opposed in passionate terms, but that no-one bothers to do so anymore. These sorts of threads and their very many equivalents elsewhere more than ever resemble leftist echo-chambers, not because nobody dares to oppose leftist orthodoxy but because nobody expects anything but the circus freak show of hypocrisy, selective indignation and cognitive dissonance.
There is no need to oppose because it is viewed as ridiculous, self-evidently so, and because the left is suffering endless defeats and shows no sign of learning from them or from its many, many mistakes. Rather it endlessly reinforces failure and repeats failing strategies and tones ever more emphatically.
It is the silence that you should watch, not the loud cries of opposition, that have largely ceased. The dog that didn't bark in fact. Because there is no longer any reason for it to do so.
> it isn't my job to avoid the word stupid, when that's exactly what I mean.
Well if you are not stupid, your total lack of self-awareness is certainly stunning.
> I'm posting on the internet for my own amusement, I'm not contributing to a political campaign - if I was, this is not how I would go about it!
Except that it is exactly how you would go about a political campaign, because you know no other tone of voice. You and your fellow leftists are a one-trick ponies, driven entirely by your entirely unjustified delusion of the monopoly possession of the moral and intellectual high ground.
> If people on UKC feel insulted and more entrenched in their position
Hard to imagine anyone more entrenched in their own position than you. Dogmatic, intolerant, bigoted, possessed by the fantasy that you are in possession of "the truth" and have the licence to dispense it to your inferiors the great unwashed, from on high.
Also entrenched in the habit of sneering, patronising abuse of opponents, or even of those who refuse, even passively, to assent to your dogmas and shibboleths, refuse to to denounce your bogeymen or sanctify your holy figures. Which would be the vast majority of people in fact.
> The fun of the internet is that you can say what you think, how you want to say it
You can say it, but would be even more foolish than usual to imagine that it is without consequences, deeply harmful consequences for the side that you support. Consequences that ensure that whatever the latest source of outrage and indignation you and your like come out with will be immediately dismissed by most people, even, on the very rare occasions, that it has some merit, because it comes from you and your like - widely loathed and derided. Your position is tainted by association with you and dismissed as a consequence, even before the factoids and dogma is examined and rejected.
Actually the most serious point of worry for the left is not that they are opposed in passionate terms, but that no-one bothers to do so anymore. These sorts of threads and their very many equivalents elsewhere more than ever resemble leftist echo-chambers, not because nobody dares to oppose leftist orthodoxy but because nobody expects anything but the circus freak show of hypocrisy, selective indignation and cognitive dissonance.
There is no need to oppose because it is viewed as ridiculous, self-evidently so, and because the left is suffering endless defeats and shows no sign of learning from them or from its many, many mistakes. Rather it endlessly reinforces failure and repeats failing strategies and tones ever more emphatically.
It is the silence that you should watch, not the loud cries of opposition, that have largely ceased. The dog that didn't bark in fact. Because there is no longer any reason for it to do so.
7
2
In reply to Simon4:
You are an angry chap, aren't you? Much angrier than most of us lefties seem to be. You need to watch your blood pressure.
It may be that we lefties are all completely wrong and everything is going to turn out OK after all. Great. Let's see what that could look like: we make an orderly Brexit, it doesn't devastate our economy too much, - what we lose in sales and services in Europe we more than make up for with pigs to China. Europe's economy bounces back more strongly, and without our constant whingeing is able to be even more united against threats from the East; and is better able to deal with the refugee problem that is inevitable at the interface between a prosperous and stable Europe and countries to the south and east that are anything but. Sounds plausible? Hmm.
And let's not forget - the Brexit vote was lost by a limp and half hearted remain campaign against a Brexit campaign that was fought with such blatant lies that they were disowned even as they appeared on advertising hoardings - £350 million a week for the NHS, hordes of refugees from Afghanistan, Turkey joining the EU next year... Who was it who said if you going to tell lies, make them big ones?
And as for across the Atlantic: it may be that Trump isn't just an inadequate plutocrat who only gets excited at the thought of other people thinking him richer than they are (how he must hate Bill Gates!) It may be that he is not being manoeuvred by some seriously neo-Nazi racists, anti-semites and war mongers, for whom the rule of law and the checks and balances of the Constitution are just another 'old way of doing things' that can be ignored with impunity. No, maybe they will calm down, and understand that government is a complex series of interlocking problems that involve balancing many, many interests, many, many points of view, to arrive at some sort of consensus - however imperfect - that most people can accept while still fighting their corners. It means that progress can seem glacial; but it is progress. Sounds plausible?
You are an angry chap, aren't you? Much angrier than most of us lefties seem to be. You need to watch your blood pressure.
It may be that we lefties are all completely wrong and everything is going to turn out OK after all. Great. Let's see what that could look like: we make an orderly Brexit, it doesn't devastate our economy too much, - what we lose in sales and services in Europe we more than make up for with pigs to China. Europe's economy bounces back more strongly, and without our constant whingeing is able to be even more united against threats from the East; and is better able to deal with the refugee problem that is inevitable at the interface between a prosperous and stable Europe and countries to the south and east that are anything but. Sounds plausible? Hmm.
And let's not forget - the Brexit vote was lost by a limp and half hearted remain campaign against a Brexit campaign that was fought with such blatant lies that they were disowned even as they appeared on advertising hoardings - £350 million a week for the NHS, hordes of refugees from Afghanistan, Turkey joining the EU next year... Who was it who said if you going to tell lies, make them big ones?
And as for across the Atlantic: it may be that Trump isn't just an inadequate plutocrat who only gets excited at the thought of other people thinking him richer than they are (how he must hate Bill Gates!) It may be that he is not being manoeuvred by some seriously neo-Nazi racists, anti-semites and war mongers, for whom the rule of law and the checks and balances of the Constitution are just another 'old way of doing things' that can be ignored with impunity. No, maybe they will calm down, and understand that government is a complex series of interlocking problems that involve balancing many, many interests, many, many points of view, to arrive at some sort of consensus - however imperfect - that most people can accept while still fighting their corners. It means that progress can seem glacial; but it is progress. Sounds plausible?
2
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I get what you are saying but then your definition of stupidity encompasses nearly everyone (which would be fair enough and I'd share a pint to cry into on that).
People can argue what they like about sub-causes but Trump rode the popularist bandwagon to nomination then the Republicans circled nearly all their wagons. The stupidity then becomes trust in your political and church leadership saying he isn't the monster portrayed (that leadership may have a lot to answer for but are desperate for the opportunity to socially deliberalise the US). Republicans hold House and Senate and on average they are a good bit right of the Tories (and way more socially conservative), so its not just a Trump thing. The centre across the globe, but especially in the US, failed to hold the ravages of unfettered globalisation by proportionate regulation. Don't forget Clinton removed key banking protections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation.
I get what you are saying but then your definition of stupidity encompasses nearly everyone (which would be fair enough and I'd share a pint to cry into on that).
People can argue what they like about sub-causes but Trump rode the popularist bandwagon to nomination then the Republicans circled nearly all their wagons. The stupidity then becomes trust in your political and church leadership saying he isn't the monster portrayed (that leadership may have a lot to answer for but are desperate for the opportunity to socially deliberalise the US). Republicans hold House and Senate and on average they are a good bit right of the Tories (and way more socially conservative), so its not just a Trump thing. The centre across the globe, but especially in the US, failed to hold the ravages of unfettered globalisation by proportionate regulation. Don't forget Clinton removed key banking protections. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation.
1
In reply to Simon4:
Odd with all that certainty of yours (you hypocritically critisise in others) that what you label as left, but in fact is part of the political centre, has had such success in the western world. It is obvious things have changed with US, Polish and Hungarian elections but lets see what pans out... demagogues needed war in the past to hide their incompetance and this isnt the 1930s (Yet).
You do deserve a genuine thank you though, for not force-fitting a causal relationship with the Guardian for once.
Odd with all that certainty of yours (you hypocritically critisise in others) that what you label as left, but in fact is part of the political centre, has had such success in the western world. It is obvious things have changed with US, Polish and Hungarian elections but lets see what pans out... demagogues needed war in the past to hide their incompetance and this isnt the 1930s (Yet).
You do deserve a genuine thank you though, for not force-fitting a causal relationship with the Guardian for once.
Post edited at 10:47
2
2
In reply to Simon4:
While your views on the left generally may be accurate, I think you are missing that the right is being just as absurd and with Trump in power (or of those who support him) even more so.
Both left and right variously have an "entirely unjustified delusion of the monopoly possession of the moral and intellectual high ground". This only becomes a problem when either side over-extends its remit. The left has certainly been doing so in a great many people's opinion. But with Trump in power and Farage dealing us a Brexit, for all the left's flaws, the right has managed, somehow, when it appeared to have justification to lead in a balanced way, to utterly over-extend itself to levels we've really not seen in recent history. It's no time for those on the right to be smug.
While your views on the left generally may be accurate, I think you are missing that the right is being just as absurd and with Trump in power (or of those who support him) even more so.
Both left and right variously have an "entirely unjustified delusion of the monopoly possession of the moral and intellectual high ground". This only becomes a problem when either side over-extends its remit. The left has certainly been doing so in a great many people's opinion. But with Trump in power and Farage dealing us a Brexit, for all the left's flaws, the right has managed, somehow, when it appeared to have justification to lead in a balanced way, to utterly over-extend itself to levels we've really not seen in recent history. It's no time for those on the right to be smug.
1
1
In reply to Simon4:
You replied to my post, so I thought I'd respond, wearily.
The only thing you know about me is what I post on here. Whatever you imagine about me, is in your head and is of no interest.
I'm flattered that you think of me as so influential, but this too is in your head. No one cares what I write on here (except you?), it doesn't matter.
It doesn't really, does it? Someone posts something by Sam Harris (who can't really be categorised as right or left wing) and people with different views discuss it. Some people agree with it, some don't. Basically, as usual, I don't really think you've got a point, at all. Sorry.
More generally, about your generalisations about the tone of "the left" - the certainty of the high ground etc, that's just the case of anyone who's making an argument. Here's an example of how "the right" argue their position:
youtube.com/watch?v=eW3Vo-XvFoI&
It's precisely what you accuse the left of. Of course it is, it's arguing a position, and if you can't stomach that, then why don't you just f*ck off and do something else?
You replied to my post, so I thought I'd respond, wearily.
> Except that it is exactly how you would go about a political campaign, because...
The only thing you know about me is what I post on here. Whatever you imagine about me, is in your head and is of no interest.
> You can say it, but would be even more foolish than usual to imagine that it is without consequences...
I'm flattered that you think of me as so influential, but this too is in your head. No one cares what I write on here (except you?), it doesn't matter.
> These sorts of threads and their very many equivalents elsewhere more than ever resemble leftist echo-chambers
It doesn't really, does it? Someone posts something by Sam Harris (who can't really be categorised as right or left wing) and people with different views discuss it. Some people agree with it, some don't. Basically, as usual, I don't really think you've got a point, at all. Sorry.
More generally, about your generalisations about the tone of "the left" - the certainty of the high ground etc, that's just the case of anyone who's making an argument. Here's an example of how "the right" argue their position:
youtube.com/watch?v=eW3Vo-XvFoI&
It's precisely what you accuse the left of. Of course it is, it's arguing a position, and if you can't stomach that, then why don't you just f*ck off and do something else?
Post edited at 20:46
4
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Now, now, now, Jon, play fair. I didn't say "they started it" did I?
I did point out that they did/do do it though
> "they started it!"How are you going to show that? When did it start?
Now, now, now, Jon, play fair. I didn't say "they started it" did I?
I did point out that they did/do do it though
Post edited at 21:19
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Sorry, I thought that's what you saying:
But anyway, I don't think I was clear. I'm not really making a judgement about who should or shouldn't be calling their opposition thick. Anyone can do so if they want, but it's usually politically somewhat ill-advised. As I say, what seems to be a popular position, that Hilary (or "the left") were/are being unacceptably nasty when they call Trump supporters a punnet of pricks, or a box of bigots, or whatever, while Trump can somehow be excused for his abysmal style of his campaign - or the general case that conservatives don't use insults against liberals - just doesn't make much sense to me.
As an explanation, I was just suggesting that it has to do with who's standing in the position of power/privilege, or the perception of it, having just read that review you posted about the class system in the US.
> Now, now, now, Jon, play fair. I didn't say "they started it" did I?I did point out that they did/do do it though
Sorry, I thought that's what you saying:
> Well being rude about a "privileged, urban liberal" is fair game, when that "privileged, urban liberal" has been disparaging a group of less able people as "idiots", don't you think?
But anyway, I don't think I was clear. I'm not really making a judgement about who should or shouldn't be calling their opposition thick. Anyone can do so if they want, but it's usually politically somewhat ill-advised. As I say, what seems to be a popular position, that Hilary (or "the left") were/are being unacceptably nasty when they call Trump supporters a punnet of pricks, or a box of bigots, or whatever, while Trump can somehow be excused for his abysmal style of his campaign - or the general case that conservatives don't use insults against liberals - just doesn't make much sense to me.
As an explanation, I was just suggesting that it has to do with who's standing in the position of power/privilege, or the perception of it, having just read that review you posted about the class system in the US.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I was say that you had been.
Agreed.
fair comment, fancy a pint sometime?
> Sorry, I thought that's what you saying:
I was say that you had been.
> But anyway, I don't think I was clear. I'm not really making a judgement about who should or shouldn't be calling their opposition thick. Anyone can do so if they want, but it's usually politically somewhat ill-advised.
Agreed.
> As an explanation, I was just suggesting that it has to do with who's standing in the position of power/privilege, or the perception of it, having just read that review you posted about the class system in the US.
fair comment, fancy a pint sometime?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Ah right, I missed that! Yeah...
Course - it'd be fun.
> I was say that you had been.
Ah right, I missed that! Yeah...
> fancy a pint sometime?
Course - it'd be fun.
In reply to Simon4:
>These sorts of threads and their very many equivalents elsewhere more than ever resemble leftist echo-chambers
To be fair. I'm pretty left wing and the link I posted in the OP makes a lot of the points your making but in much less angry way. This thread is discussing them.
>These sorts of threads and their very many equivalents elsewhere more than ever resemble leftist echo-chambers
To be fair. I'm pretty left wing and the link I posted in the OP makes a lot of the points your making but in much less angry way. This thread is discussing them.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...