Jump to content

ndawg

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ndawg

  1. 22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    This is what we’ve been saying, dude.  And see my previous references to Jonathan Haight’s “The Righteous Mind,” which is a pretty good discussion on this topic.

    And the biggest nugget in there, from my perspective, is the discussion of “cognitive inflexibility:"

    Remember how the DT crowd constantly harps on and mocks our reference to "nuance," like when we note that their hot-button issues (e.g., "immigrants bad!  America good!") are actually complex and nuanced?  Pepperidge Farm remembers.

    Cognitive inflexibility is, literally, deadly.  To people.  And to nations.  And here in River City, it's only getting worse, not better.  Remember how I say it only gets worse, and there is not bottom?  Read this piece.  Understand the end-points that the authors/experts consistently point to: violence, bloodshed, to the point of "cleansing."  This is where we are going.  And we are doing so at a full sprint.

    Just to put a slightly different spin on a take that I completely agree with, I wonder if these people have plenty of cognitive flexibility, it's just been subverted. For example, I've noticed that they'll happily adjust from believing that COVID vaccination was dangerous one day, to believing that Trump should get credit for the vaccination the next.

    I think for most of us, cognitive flexibility is used to help us adjust our understanding and mindset when faced with our own errors as well as the constant stream of subtle changes in the world around us. Our brains experience all sorts of pleasant neurotransmitters when we exercise that cognitive flexibility, refine our understanding, and consequently know that we're now better equipped to meet reality that before. On the other hand, people who have no capacity to recognize their own errors and are unable to perceive those subtle changes in the world around them -- like the gradual shift in ideology of a political party -- don't ever experience the minor ecstasy of learning more about themselves and the world around them. Perhaps their supply of cognitive flexibility, starved of its natural relationship with our capacity to learn and grow, seeks something else to cling to... and ultimately transforms into a misshapen reflex that formulates the rationalizations needed to prevent reality from disrupting the flow of neurotransmitter cocktails that we all experience by agreeing to meet reality as grown-ups.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  2. 13 hours ago, Nivek said:

    Genuine Article is AOC in this case.  The republicans hate her for it.  I didn't intend it to be much more than that. 

    On that level, I see the analogy. If the right wingers who irrationally hate AOC had the self awareness of Steve Martin's character, they'd realize their hatred of her is merely a defense mechanism to avoid realizing that they aren't good people.

  3. 2 minutes ago, Nivek said:


    I tend to judge people by their actions. Ted Cruz played the part to a minimum when he came back from Cancun to load one case of water bottles in front of a camera. While lying multiple times about why he left. He is against mask mandates, claims covid was a hoax, and yet rushed to the front of the line to get vaccinated and his kids go to a mask mandated school.

    AOC rushed toward the problem and brought money to a city that cannot even vote for her. Unless you think she is playing a long game which is impressive considering how ADHD our news cycles and attention spans are.

    This. There's a particular brand of gullibility rooted in cynicism that the right wing seems particularly susceptible to. They frequently lay out these really flimsy blanket assumptions like, "all politicians are corrupt, ambitious narcissists, and to think otherwise is to be naive." Sure, nobody is perfect, but some people clearly possess a personality disposition that drives them towards a life of service, and probability guarantees that some of them will have the talent to actually earn success the hard way. To suggest that type of person doesn't exist is mathematically absurd. And this kind of person is that last type of individual that these right wingers ever want to acknowledge, because they haven't themselves ever faced what psychologists call "the facts of life" -- they are small minded fools who look at everyone who is smarter and/or more attractive than them and reassure themselves, "well, at least I'm a better person than they are." Accepting that AOC is genuine and well-intentioned is beyond their capacity, so they vilify her instinctively.

     

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 2
  4. 15 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

    Some people are the worst. Some of those people are Christians. 

    Some people are really good. Some of those people are Christians.

    Everyone’s got to have someone to despise, I get that. The loudly self proclaimed Christians attract a lot of attention and do harm to the nation, world and Christianity itself. Just try not to identify that someone using simplistic narratives and we’ll all be better off.

    This is true, but at the same time, it has to be acknowledged that evangelical churches are basically molding generations of people into scientifically illiterate, uncurious dunces who present a real threat to civilized society.

    • Hook 'Em 7
  5. Just now, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

    Where did I say "single" problem? You won't be able to answer that because I never said it. You made that up. It is the major statistical problem though. 

    Now you're demonstrating actual illiteracy, too.

  6. 27 minutes ago, PassiveAggressiveCoach said:

    That's true. It does add help marginally but I don't think the previously infected are the problem. It's the people who haven't been vaccinated. 

     

    It takes a profound degree of statistical illiteracy to reduce managing a pandemic down to a single "problem."

  7. 21 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Awesome post. Thank you for the reply. That was great— and kinda got me fired up. I struggle with a deep rooted cynicism I think which can give me tunnel vision and I appreciate the Dutch uncle of a post here to get help me tilt my head a bit and try and look at it from a different angle.

    Hah, thanks. I'm a few fingers in to some bourbon, and just couldn't resist the impulse to vent. I have such a hard time coping with the fact that our political discourse constantly gets edited down into something that fits within our tiny attention collective span, and as a result we experience a constant barrage of what amounts to essentially mini-marketing campaigns designed to trigger the same tired emotional impulses.

    immadashellandimnotgonnatakeitanymore.gif

  8. 2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    Not at all. I think it's interesting The New Yorker said what a lot of people were thinking, and in such a succinct and brilliant way. I mean if you look at this thread and we can all be honest, I think it looks like the following:

    1) CRT is not just a modality differentiation of learning new material for the sake of learning the new material as some have suggested (e.g. "why are you afraid of just simply teaching the full context of everything, etc.")

    2) The real aim of CRT is change-- change that is disruptive and/or in tension and conflict with the status quo

    3) People denying that CRT is about aforementioned change are either ignorant or lying, which then leads to

    4) It is actually quite smart for conservatives and people of privilege who stand to lose to get out in front of this and nip it in the bud (i.e. create a bogeyman out of it and kill it before it can mature and it's too unwieldy to control). Which is why,

    5) Pro-CRT folks who are trying to characterize people as stupid and overreacting and just ignorant of what CRT are wrong. The faction of conservatives that has made a big deal of CRT and armed their constituents with political tools to neuter it and have mobilized to get the talking points out and poison the term in their communities have actually outmaneuvered the liberals on this political battle.

    6) Denying CRT was always a Trojan Horse to expedite and implement political change was lying. It would have been an amazing political gambit that would have been studied for ages because it's a brilliant tactic-- it would have been studied like a revolution, the way that CRT could quietly destabilize the status quo if folks weren't more forward thinking about the consequences.

    Edit to add: Dahobbs, I don't say any of this as a pro or anti-CRT person these days. I've landed on CRT as a neutral topic and a curiosity-- will it be an anchor topic for years to come? Will it evolve or morph into something else? Is it a fleeting issue that we will look back upon as occupying 15 minutes of political fame? I'll be an interested observer.

    There's something about the discussion of critical race theory that really bothers me, which seems so obvious that I hope I'm not just regurgitating a tired point that's been made before -- but damned if it isn't remarkable how quickly "CRT" has become an acronym. Our shitty political theater has managed to assimilate the entire life's work of a small number of individuals, stripped it of all context, and rebranded it as a new hot-topic-of-the-day. With amazing (and diabolical) efficiency.

    Now, Americans are arguing about what something called "CRT" means, instead of the truth about our country's relationship with racism that is fucking ongoing.

    This weakness in human psychology is ancient. See Lao Tzu, "the way that can be named isn't the unchanging way" -- we fixate on terms themselves without any comprehension of the entire universe of knowledge and ideas that they're referring to.

    You're arguing that conservatives have effectively countered an attempt to advance "CRT" as an agenda, but I'll argue you're not giving them enough credit for their cunning and depravity. Conservatives are more than happy to prop "CRT" as a strawman that justifies any amount of opposition. Wanna teach that the KKK wasn't so bad after all? Sure, it's the logical counter to the radical communist "CRT."

    There has been absolutely zero concerted effort by the political left to advance something called "CRT." The political left has been trying for decades to teach our racial past (and present!) more honestly -- a good thing, for anyone who isn't a racist shitbag -- which can now be recast by the right as advancing "CRT."

    This is nothing more than appropriating terminology from a narrow field of academic study to reframe the public debate.

    • Hook 'Em 8
    • Like 1
  9. 5 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

    The answer is pretty simple: "Trolling the libs is fun!"

    Honestly, sometimes I can even see the appeal. But at least be good at it. All of this lazy "gotcha" crap is just so boring.

    All the conservatives who were any good at trolling the libs have too much pride to remain associated with this band of unimaginative nihilists. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, we're not just down to the bottom of the barrel, we're no longer even in the same universe as barrels.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. 2 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    You make a good first point, but I would argue that the conversation (at least as I understand the OP) is staked not around the trend line or trajectory, but rather relative to the 206 other sovereign countries in the known world.

    I also think it is odd and would be interested in hearing your follow-up, on why you chose Henry Ford as an example for the American Dream, in a conversation we are having in 2021. The rags to riches stories are plentiful of just this year, and many are rich in diversity (e.g: Girl Billionaire, Bumble IPO) indicating it being easier for more traditionally marginalized Americans (URG/URM) to achieve the dream.

    If your last point is that capitalism, or maybe more accurately American Capitalism, has subtext and is tied-in with mental illness (narcissism and sociopathy), I would challenge you on thinking about your views and why you feel like your definition of success is a definitive one. What makes you, or anyone outside of each individual, an authority on how to define success (versus an ersatz feeling). 

    That is what made America great. It's a land of individuals, for individualism. We think, therefore we are. Each and every one of us. At least in my opinion.

    Why it's not great anymore to me is because technology has advanced to the point where the weight of individualism cannot be held anymore; there is no shared ethic or politic. We all want and believe and strive for different things and technology has given every person agency to influence and entrench, for better or worse. And with 5G/increased speeds, it will only get worse.

    I think you're reading in to my perspective a bit more than I intended to convey.

    I chose Henry Ford because I think he is a classic exemplar of the American "rags-to-riches" story. He's part of our established pantheon of heroic businesspeople and, while the real person was very flawed (as Sydney mentioned), he really did make incredibly significant discoveries in mass production that made a huge impact on human civilization.

    Capitalism is what it is. It's one aspect of a much larger system that is our society as a whole. I think there's a positive role for capitalism in a healthy society, but ours is not as healthy as it once was. We're still better at it than a lot of third world countries, but much of our present success is more coasting off of inertia built by previous generations than it is fueled by any present day exceptionalism. Getting back on track will involve rooting out the "takers" and elevating more of the "makers," and a lot of the successful POC entrepreneurs are indeed leading the way. I did not offer "making it" as a shorthand for American capitalism, for what it is worth... it's more of an "ersatz" (as you say) mimicry of entrepeneurship that doesn't have the self awareness to realize it ain't the real thing. I swear, if I see one more Youtube video compelling me to "smash the subscribe button" ... but I digress.

    By the way, individualism is not necessarily an asset under capitalism. It certainly can be in some circumstances -- again, Ford was a great example, he reshaped the entire course of human civilization by systematically laying out an ingenious production system. But he was just one genius, and while Highland Park was way ahead of its time, his approaches are nowadays very antiquated. Over the last few decades, the most successful auto manufacturer won by building a workforce that, top to bottom, consists of a community of problem solvers who view the purpose of their jobs (and the organization) as one that benefits society. That's a very different definition of "success" than most American companies, but one that serves them well. After all, the government never made them do it, but they did it anyways, because it got the best results. Eventually, the pendulum would swing around again, and today, a certain Elon Musk is threatening to become the new Ford.

    So, I don't agree with your implication that my definition of success is rigid or universal. In fact, I think I can turn it around, and suggest you think about why your definition of "American" is a definitive one:

    Quote

    That is what made America great. It's a land of individuals, for individualism. We think, therefore we are. Each and every one of us. At least in my opinion.

    What made America "great" in WWII was Americans working together for a common cause. I think that's when we're at our best, when we're contributing our individuality towards common goals that benefit everybody.

    I'm rambling now, so I'll cut myself off.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  11. 4 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

    I don't know man, on this very thread we are talking about a guy who comes from humble origins in lower middle class Oklahoma who, through some combination of good luck and wits and ambition and skill, he was able to become a multi-millionaire.

    He isn't a celebrity CEO or some special, unique mind. He's just a guy (or gal). That is the dream.

    As poker players say, all I need is a Chip and a Chair. That to me is the beauty. It's like the Maltese Falcon, a symbol for the dream.

    The presence of individual "rags-to-riches" stories does not tell us anything about whether it is getting easier or more difficult for Americans to increase their lot in life.

    I get it. You're bought in to a nice feeling. It's easy to love the stories of Americans like Henry Ford (though, the actual Henry Ford was a fascist). The trouble is that feel good stories don't inform us about the actual conditions in the country. At best they're a harmless fantasy to indulge in, at their worse they lead us to draw all sorts of dubious conclusions, such as the belief that America is still great because at least one person we know "made it."

    And the entire notion of "making it" -- when looking at society as a whole, in aggregate -- has perverse undertones of narcissism and sociopathy. Plenty of people who build wealth are wonderful people who used their imagination, ingenuity, and empathy to envision ways of creating value for others. But the shared collective fantasy of "making it" is more about the outcome than the journey. It's not success, it's a counterfeit of actual success. It's as different from what folks like Henry Ford accomplished as selling fantasy knives on QVC is different from building, say, an automobile manufacturing empire.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  12. 2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    We can start with the post 9/11 examples this century. 

    But again, to focus on the topic at hand, what specific short term restrictions of gun rights do you see as necessary, and what would be the specific plan and timing for removing those restrictions.  What safeguards do you propose to ensure that the restriction of Constitutional rights does not fall victim to longer term political inertia.  I am all ears on this one if someone can articulate the what's and how's of it.   

    Oh I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the notion that we need to take away gun freedoms. In fact, when I first read your reply, my initial reaction was nodding in agreement with your assertion that freedoms, once taken, don't tend to come back. But I stopped and asked myself, "is that actually true, or is it just something we all accept as true without questioning it?" I scanned my memory bank for the first example I could think of where a major freedom was taken away, and alcohol prohibition was the first one that came up. I was fairly certain you had concrete examples in mind, and was genuinely curious about what they were. I wasn't trying to lay some kind of stupid rhetorical trap or anything.

    To answer your question, though, I think that the premise of people having a absolute right to arm themselves is already out of the question, and has been for a long time, but nobody sees it that way, because the problem has been framed for them. Americans today don't have the freedom to bear arms if those arms include a bazooka. So, today, it's fairly undeniable that Americans only have the freedom to bear arms within reason, just like we also only have freedom of speech within reason. Ultimately, this is therefore a discussion about where to draw a line. Now, because the debate has been allowed to be framed by the right, determining where to draw that line is called "gun control" when it's anywhere other than where the gun lobbies want it to be, and it's called "our inalienable second Amendment rights" when it's drawn to their satisfaction.

    So, my proposal isn't "safeguards," it's for us to stop framing the problem in clumsy, binary terms.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  13. 2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

    Yeah, problem with that is that once the govern restricts freedoms they rarely ever return.  

    What examples do you have in mind? The first one that comes to my head is alcohol prohibition, which did return.

  14. 4 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

    I said that when the supply of labor is increased it lowers the cost of that labor, specifically on the lower paying end of the spectrum. You said that assertion was a “wide source of disagreement”. So not disproved or proven. Great, so we get to have a source off where nobody is convinced.

    You also said “illegal immigrants and citizens generally are not competeting for the same jobs.” 

    So would you say that there is some competition for between illegal immigrants and citizens for the same jobs?

    Remove illegal immigrants from the workforce, and, outside the service sector, you'd end up with a lot more jobs moved overseas or to Mexico. And they'd probably take the front line managers and workers who are US citizens with them.

×
×
  • Create New...