|
FizFashizzle posted:Nicole Wallace regularly floated him as a potential dark horse presidential candidate. The C-SPAM Bastapocalypse is still the best mass banning event in SA’s history.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Definition of racism talk: Something I’ve been thinking about a lot recently is the *utility* of racism/bigotry. Ideas like “black people do crimes” or “gay people are pedophiles” generally don’t exist in a vacuum on their own terms but instead seem to be cynically adopted tools used in response to a demand for change/resources/power/etc. CRT panic for example isn’t rising because a bunch of bigots randomly got mad about history textbooks but instead is in response to BLM and increased calls for police reform. As a result these days I’ve come to personally define a racist ideologies as: ”Complex webs of post-hoc rationalizations (read:excuses made up after the fact) designed to justify unjust actions made for unrelated reasons or to handwaive away calls for systemic change.” I feel like this understanding of racism is important because: 1) Understanding these ideas as fundamentally reactionary explains a lot of the behavior of racists including the kind of people they support and why these beliefs will shift the instant they are no longer convenient. Because the ideas were only ever a flimsy excuse to justify something else. 2) Understanding racism through this lens helps you understand it’s relationship to class and capitalism since racist ideas are one of the main ways class divides are enforced. 3) Understanding racism through this lens helps you better deal with racism. For example correcting misconceptions alone won’t end racism because there are larger systems of oppression underneath the surface which the racist ideas are reacting to. We can correct people’s ideas about Muslims all day (and we should) but unless you grapple with imperialism your victories will only last until a new state enemy takes center stage and new racist ideologies are created. *cough*China*caugh* I’m curious if other people have noticed this too or if I’m just being crazy. I see a lot of talk about racism like it’s any other idea you come to through a sincere attempt to understand the world but I just don’t think that’s how it works in practice. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Feb 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:56
|
|
Koos Group posted:A thought-terminating cliche is one specifically intended to stop an argument. No, you've got the mechanism wrong here, and the consequences are significant. Thought-terminating cliches do not have to be "intended" to stop arguments, they don't need to have any intended use to have a thought-stopping effect at all. The point of them is that they reject further consideration of the subject for the speaker. It's thought-terminating, not discussion-terminating. It indicates a problem both for the discussion and internal to the speaker. That people can use them to end discussion conflates their role, which is internal, with the use of other rhetorical devices to sabotage discussion; they rarely have such an effect on others because on their own they don't redirect the subject or the other target participants.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:”Complex webs of post-hoc rationalizations (read:excuses made up after the fact) designed to justify unjust actions made for unrelated reasons or to handwaive away calls for systemic change.” I think to an extent this is some chicken/egg discussion. Like you're talking "post-hoc" but the racism is coming into play before the unjust action is taken. Similarly imperialism makes sense, in part, because you consider those you're colonizing as being lesser or your burden as a white people. The injustice isn't happening unrelated to racism and then rationalized via racism, the injustice is happening very much in concert with racism but also due to the structure of society it ends up materially benefiting at least some of the system oppressors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Also I think it’s best to not focus too much on defining racism in exhaustive detail outside of academic thought experiments since any definition you make can be picked apart by bad faith actors thanks to the natural fuzziness of language. It’s much better imo to focus on the results you want and work from there since at that point it doesn’t matter if the thing you are fighting is *technically* racist or not. “Hey let’s change these sentencing guidelines they seem unfair” “Hey our criminal justice system isn’t racist!” “How is that relevant? Anyways…”
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Also I think it’s best to not focus too much on defining racism in exhaustive detail outside of academic thought experiments since any definition you make can be picked apart by bad faith actors thanks to the natural fuzziness of language. It’s much better imo to focus on the results you want and work from there since at that point it doesn’t matter if the thing you are fighting is *technically* racist or not. I do agree that focusing on the varying definitions(many of which have validity and address different aspects of racism) isn't fruitful, but I very much disagree on the need to call things racist. We should absolutely call racist things racist. Not talking about racism in real terms is how you get a society full of people who don't think they're racist or engaging in racism yet somehow we have an extremely racist society. The book Racism Without Racists is probably applicable here but I haven't read it so maybe somebody who has can comment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:14
|
|
|
https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2022/02/04/pittsburgh-removed-consideration-2024-republican-national-convention/ Pittsburgh is no longer in the running for the RNC, so that's cool
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
I think an interesting and valuable thing here is to go back to Peggy McIntosh's 1989 article which pioneered the use of 'privilege' terminology in academic race & culture studies (though as she points out it originated much earlier in feminist literature). Copied below is the list she came up with for her white privilege; the full article is through the quote link.McIntosh 1989 posted:
McIntosh was trying specifically to be 'class-blind' to the extent that such a thing is possible, not including on the list things that could be traced more to economic condition than skin color, and i think most of these items absolutely would apply to white people in poverty as well. I also think this part of her analysis is very interesting: quote:I see a pattern running through the matrix of white privilege, a pattern of assumptions which were passed on to me as a white person. There was one main piece of cultural turf; it was my own turf, and I was among those who could control the turf. My skin color was an asset for any move I was educated to want to make. I could think of myself as belonging in major ways, and of making social systems work for me. I could freely disparage, fear, neglect, or be oblivious to anything outside of the dominant cultural forms. Being of the main culture, I could also criticize it fairly freely. In proportion as my racial group was being made confident, comfortable, and oblivious, other groups were likely being made unconfident, uncomfortable, and alienated. Whiteness protected me from many kinds of hostility, distress and violence, which I was being subtly trained to visit in turn upon people of color.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I do agree that focusing on the varying definitions(many of which have validity and address different aspects of racism) isn't fruitful, but I very much disagree on the need to call things racist. For clarity I 100% agree with this. I just think it’s counterproductive to hyper focus on whether or not X thing meets the technical definition of racism in public discourse, particularly when these definitions will be wielded by the Ben Shapiros of the world to argue that “helping black people is reverse racism actually”. These kinds of bad faith attacks are much easier to push back against when you have a clear outcome/policy goal in mind beyond the abstract notion of “fighting racism”
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Since I haven't seen it posted yet, my city's lovely police department is back in national news for a murder. Here's the local news about it: https://twitter.com/StarTribune/status/1489606921313128450 Honestly, the headline sums it up well. I don't know if a no knock warrent is the core issue or not, but it's clearly hosed up how MPD handled it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
I can't wait for the lovely responses from conservatives. "If he didn't have something to hide, he wouldn't have been sleeping with his gun on him!", is probably what will be said by some dumbass American who probably at some point previously bragged about keeping a gun nearby in their home for "self defense".
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I can't wait for the lovely responses from conservatives. The venn diagram of people that will say exactly that and people that claim to keep a loaded shotgun next to their bed will almost certainly be a single, perfect circle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:"If he didn't have something to hide, he wouldn't have been sleeping with his gun on him!", is probably what will be said by some dumbass American who probably at some point previously bragged about keeping a gun nearby in their home for "self defense". "We need a truck full of AR-15's in case we need to overthrow the law, but you're never allowed to question or threaten law enforcement. Now watch as I shove this Desert Eagle directly into my balls"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
re: Avanetti I know this is the 2nd of three financial crimes he'll probably be convicted of. In cases like these, does the sentencing judge tend to tack on a consecutive penalty or is it just some impotent concurrent sentence? It seems like usually in the course of a few felonies during one event, convicts seem to get concurrent with the worst charge being functionally the only charge. (This is my extremely uneducated take as someone with brainworms). In this case, does each judge just tag in and add a little more on the top?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:05
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:The venn diagram of people that will say exactly that and people that claim to keep a loaded shotgun next to their bed will almost certainly be a single, perfect circle. Yeah, most definitely. Orthanc6 posted:"We need a truck full of AR-15's in case we need to overthrow the law, but you're never allowed to question or threaten law enforcement. Now watch as I shove this Desert Eagle directly into my balls" What's also frustrating is that, at least from watching the video, it seems to me like he is attempting to probably put the gun on the ottoman while in a state of just having been woken up, and they start to shoot him literally as soon as they see the gun. Reading more online, it does seem like the coroner already ruled it Death by Homicide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:09
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:re: Avanetti Basically it's technically up to the judge whether sentences run concurrent or consecutive, but in practice under statutes and sentencing guidelines the default is concurrent, with some specific statutory exceptions.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Basically it's technically up to the judge whether sentences run concurrent or consecutive, but in practice under statutes and sentencing guidelines the default is concurrent, with some specific statutory exceptions. Thank you. And drat, it sucks that's he's indigent so Stormy won't get anything- and it doesn't even affect how long he's in prison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Latest edition of pigs being fed, hogs being slaughtered https://twitter.com/zekejmiller/status/1489744450263867396?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I can't wait for the lovely responses from conservatives. https://twitter.com/mnguncaucus/status/1489679057578954754
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Latest edition of pigs being fed, hogs being slaughtered
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:People form beliefs that are often in direct contradiction to reality, not just lacking in evidence. I wouldn't say it's necessarily "the root", however, racism/prejudice/etc are pretty complex. There's also fears, insecurities, jealousy, etc that all come into play. It's complex, but you totally could explain it if given the time? Or do you mean you don't really know? Jaxyon posted:That's not true, it explains quite a lot. It explains how you can be participating in a white supremacist society without any clear conscious choice to do so. Racism and white supremacy are the default behavior. That's one of the biggest ways in which it sustains itself without people waking up every morning and deciding "I'm going to poo poo on black people". I meant those analogies don't explain how any of this actually works. They're simply ways to rephrase "white supremacy is the default" without elaborating any further on what that actually means. They're the sort thing you write to fill out space in a book that's light on actual content. Jaxyon posted:So you've just described unconscious bias, without using the term. No, I've described why people use specific choices of words to describe specific things. The choice of "shrill" and "bossy" for women is due to the specific imagery these words bring up, not necessarily because women are viewed as lesser or worse. Jaxyon posted:Invalidating scientific studies and then going on to invalidate entire academic fields sounds like confirmation bias more than anything. I don't think you have a lot of leg to stand on here so I'm going to basically not respond until you've approached this in some sort of substantial way. I'm not invalidating the studies, I just question the vague theories that the results of these studies are argued to support. This sort of skepticism and disagreement over theories that explain results is considered normal in scientific fields. Jaxyon posted:Yes if you're saying that oppressed people are not literally puppeted by their oppressors, true, they have some degree of agency. But what we're talking about is a pervasive culture of limitations, denied opportunity, lack of support, and outright animosity at every turn. I mean that merely saying people are in an oppressed group does not give a full picture of the situation, it reduces the difference between roles to a mere quantitative difference in the amount of oppression. We had people earlier telling petercat that if his dad was black he would have had it worse, a quantitative difference, but in reality his entire life would have been different due to being born into a different situation where different things were expected of him. He would have had different experiences and learned different things. Why do people from oppressed groups, even people with disabilities, claim to have pride in their position? The standard explanation is that this is a rejection of the shame society expects them to feel, but I think it goes beyond that into appreciation for the different life they have gotten to live, being glad that they are who they are despite all the downsides. The other side of the coin is that the oppressors, or non-oppressed or whatever, are also not in full control of their lives: they too are slotted into roles they don't choose and may be happy or sad about this at different turns. Usually this sort of reasoning is trotted out to explain various problems as "facts of life" but there is a radical conclusion also, which is that this sorting into roles is an inherently unsatisfying way to organize society and that we need to figure out how to change things into something better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Why loving bother? They'll just submit the same loving map with a district moved an inch or two to the east. Then it'll be election time and whoopsie there's no time to make a new map, guess we've gotta use this one!!! If the borders are illegal, "oops we ran out of time" does not make them legal. It just keeps the most recent legal map, which was the 2020 one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Since I haven't seen it posted yet, my city's lovely police department is back in national news for a murder. Here's the local news about it: From watching the video, what happened was Amir was sleeping wrapped in a blanked on his sectional couch in the living room (just in front of the main door). When the cops busted in shouting, Amir began leaning up, as anyone would do if you're woken up like that. The cops immediately kill him. The cops are saying he had a gun, but are they trying to claim he was holding it or pointing it at them? The clip just looks like the poor guy woke up startled in a delirium, and since he was wrapped in a blanked the cops couldn't see his limbs, so they murdered him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Okay, I promised some material on anti-racism. These are just a few quick excerpts from a larger set of workshop material. I don't at all claim to be an expert or terribly well-read on this stuff. I can also share some personal experiences if/when it's relevant, mostly about issues on the reservation. If you want to dive deeper into this there have been several good book recommendations. quote:Key Understandings about Race and Racism: quote:Color Blindness quote:Audre Lord said, "Revolution is not a one-time event." Antiracism is a lifelong practice. It requires your lifelong commitment to antioppression. There is no feel-good reward at the end other than the knowledge that you are doing this because it's the rightr thing to do. You will not be congratulated for it. You won't get any ally cookies for it. You won't be celebrated for it. You will have to wean yourself off the addiction to instant gratification and instead develop a consciousness for doing what is right even if nobody ever thanks you for it. Besides, there is no greater reward than being in integrity with your values and living your life in such a way that it makes the world a better place now and for the future. -Layla Saad, Me and White Supremacy. This might be my favorite of the bits I grabbed: quote:Racial inequity is when two or more racial groups are not standing on approximately equal footing. Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produces and normalizes racial inequities. Racist policies produce or sustain racial inequity between racial groups. A racist is someone who supports a racist policy through their actions or inactions or by expressing a racist idea. Antiracists support antiracist policies through their actions and expressions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 01:58
|
|
|
No-knock raids are so loving ridiculous. Especially for a homicide investigation, what do you think the subject of the warrant is going to do with those 5 minutes if you announce yourself before coming in, flush a handgun down the toilet? E: from the article quote:Paul Applebaum, a private defense attorney, said no-knock warrants are often used in drug and violent crime cases, but that with the expansion of surveillance technology police should be able to apprehend a suspect without such a show of force. seriously. That's even still cool movie poo poo, you can still feel like a cool spy action hero staking out the apartment lobby and getting the perp so you can search his vacant apartment at your leisure, you don't have to try to be Robocop! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Feb 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:13
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It's complex, but you totally could explain it if given the time? Or do you mean you don't really know? I'm not the All Racism Knower, I could talk about it for paragraph on paragraph and not cover everything, also I'm white so I can't cover the black experience at all. I'd suggest you read something like Between the World and Me or How to be an Antiracist if you'd like an understanding of racism from the black experience. Here's some stuff you can read: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-psychology-of-racism-5070459 https://osf.io/w2h73/ quote:I meant those analogies don't explain how any of this actually works. They're simply ways to rephrase "white supremacy is the default" without elaborating any further on what that actually means. They're the sort thing you write to fill out space in a book that's light on actual content. Every single part of American life is built around white supremacy: Politics, legal system, education, economics, housing, art and culture, etc. In a lot of those, it was specifically set up to be that way. In others, it's become that way and hasn't been fixed because the people who benefit it don't want change. There's huge amounts of information and details to be discussed on all of these things. What do you want to specifically go into. I'm not going to cover the entire history of American racial injustice in a subsection of a post reply on a current events thread. What aspect do you want to learn about? quote:No, I've described why people use specific choices of words to describe specific things. The choice of "shrill" and "bossy" for women is due to the specific imagery these words bring up, not necessarily because women are viewed as lesser or worse. Do you think they consciously make the decision to use this words about women? Do you think using words that specifically demean women for demanding they be taken seriously(both those words do that) is somehow not viewing them as being lesser? What do you think sexism looks like? quote:I'm not invalidating the studies, I just question the vague theories that the results of these studies are argued to support. This sort of skepticism and disagreement over theories that explain results is considered normal in scientific fields. You have issues with both the studies and then you expanded onto questioning entire fields of social science. You said: quote:I have no qualifications and I don't think you need any to question things and try to understand the world. I think sociology and psychology want to be scientific but what they're studying is something that can't be seen inside of people's heads. They gather statistical correlations between whatever they can manage to measure but they have no unifying theory for what's actually going on. You're asking tons of questions but not offering any critiques of substance. Like maybe you think the sample is wrong. Do you have thoughts on the power calculation as well? Or do you just not like what the study says and are picking at it from a laymans perspective? If you have specific issues with specific studies, post them here and go into your detailed issues with them. Otherwise I don't see the point of continuing this part of the conversation because I suspect neither of us qualified to actually question the research, we're just going to google things that confirm our biases. quote:I mean that merely saying people are in an oppressed group does not give a full picture of the situation, it reduces the difference between roles to a mere quantitative difference in the amount of oppression. We had people earlier telling petercat that if his dad was black he would have had it worse, a quantitative difference, but in reality his entire life would have been different due to being born into a different situation where different things were expected of him. He would have had different experiences and learned different things. What is "being born into a different situation where different things were expected of him his entire life" besides being born into a culture of white supremacy as a black man? You know what a culture of white supremacy is, you just seem to be dancing around calling it that. quote:Why do people from oppressed groups, even people with disabilities, claim to have pride in their position? The standard explanation is that this is a rejection of the shame society expects them to feel, but I think it goes beyond that into appreciation for the different life they have gotten to live, being glad that they are who they are despite all the downsides. Because they're human beings with pride, personality and ego. They're valuable people who are being treated unfairly. Of course they have pride in who they are. But there's also a lot of people in those groups who have had who they are crushed and made smaller by oppression. People who had dreams, aspirations, and promise but who had all of that crushed by a society that will give someone with the right skin tone a million chances but not give them a single second chance. quote:The other side of the coin is that the oppressors, or non-oppressed or whatever, are also not in full control of their lives: they too are slotted into roles they don't choose and may be happy or sad about this at different turns. Usually this sort of reasoning is trotted out to explain various problems as "facts of life" but there is a radical conclusion also, which is that this sorting into roles is an inherently unsatisfying way to organize society and that we need to figure out how to change things into something better. Yes, white supremacy hurts white people. Even though they benefit in many ways from white supremacist culture, they're also confined and damaged by it. That's something that you start to realize as you do more antiracism works, just as misogyny/patriarchy hurts men, counterintuitively. A quote on that from the recently deceased great one: bell hooks posted:The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, you've got the mechanism wrong here, and the consequences are significant. Thought-terminating cliches do not have to be "intended" to stop arguments, they don't need to have any intended use to have a thought-stopping effect at all. The point of them is that they reject further consideration of the subject for the speaker. It's thought-terminating, not discussion-terminating. It indicates a problem both for the discussion and internal to the speaker. That people can use them to end discussion conflates their role, which is internal, with the use of other rhetorical devices to sabotage discussion; they rarely have such an effect on others because on their own they don't redirect the subject or the other target participants. That's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure it's part of the general understanding of the phrase "thought-terminating cliche," though. The sources I've seen have the cliche's effect on the discourse - that of quelling dissent - as a primary feature. Not to say that doesn't overlap often with the internal effect on the speaker themself, who can use it as a private mental excuse to stop thinking just as it's used as a public rhetorical cudgel to stop thinking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:"We need a truck full of AR-15's in case we need to overthrow the law, but you're never allowed to question or threaten law enforcement. Now watch as I shove this Desert Eagle directly into my balls" Because it was never law enforcement they were actually worried about. It was always code. Koos Group posted:That's an interesting perspective. I'm not sure it's part of the general understanding of the phrase "thought-terminating cliche," though. The sources I've seen have the cliche's effect on the discourse - that of quelling dissent - as a primary feature. Not to say that doesn't overlap often with the internal effect on the speaker themself, who can use it as a private mental excuse to stop thinking just as it's used as a public rhetorical cudgel to stop thinking. The point is that people are programmed with this poo poo from as early as possible, and the behaviour made casual and chronic, even actively evolving to combat anti-racist discourse. Hence you see it both from conservatives as part of their complex systems of deflection, and liberals believing they've already solved the problem and unwilling to examine their assumptions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I've never learned anything from a debate they just seem like spectacles. Democrats can't actually acknowledge that those candidates are charisma-free. They actually thought people would like Buttigieg.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
Obama was the last presidential candidate with charisma. Everybody else in the last few elections have had neutral or negative charisma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Obama was the last presidential candidate with charisma. Trump was charismatic. It's how he was elected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:These two grafs from that FT Miami story were quite the wild ride: In other Florida news:  These are stupid for, well a lot of reasons, but I'll highlight two: 1. There's essentially zero chance the imprint will be legible on beach sand. Also nobody would notice anyway. 2. Thirty nine loving dollars! You can pop in to literally any gas station and/or convenience store in FL and get a pair of sandals for like five bucks or less. No they're not good quality but judging by their appearance, neither are these. $39 is in the territory of brands like Reef or Sperry, which are likely to last you 10 years or more. Yes, I'm aware it's all a grift.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Since I haven't seen it posted yet, my city's lovely police department is back in national news for a murder. Here's the local news about it: Love how our cops are basically legal death squads.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Trump was charismatic. It's how he was elected. No, he was elected by riding a wave of conservative populism, white resentment and fear, and wall-to-wall media coverage. He's a charisma black hole. However his opponent was even more of a charisma sink than him. Maybe I'm wrong though? I guess "being the rich villain from every 80's movie" is sort of a type of charisma?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, he was elected by riding a wave of conservative populism, white resentment and fear, and wall-to-wall media coverage. He's a charisma black hole. He’s not charismatic to you, but he’s hella charismatic to a certain type of person. They don’t manufacture consent anymore, they manufacture consentS. The way you feel about Trump is how they feel about Obama’s charisma.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The point is that people are programmed with this poo poo from as early as possible, and the behaviour made casual and chronic, even actively evolving to combat anti-racist discourse. Hence you see it both from conservatives as part of their complex systems of deflection, and liberals believing they've already solved the problem and unwilling to examine their assumptions. That doesn't appear to be the subject I'm discussing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, he was elected by riding a wave of conservative populism, white resentment and fear, and wall-to-wall media coverage. He's a charisma black hole. This is an absolutely baffling take, I don't think I've ever seen anyone accuse trump of being uncharismatic before. His entire advantage going into the primaries was that he's a consummate showman, a genuinely entertaining figure going out there and saying poo poo the hogs want to hear. Especially contrasted with the soulless empty suits he ran against in the primaries and the contemptuous, off-putting freak opposing him in the general he came across like PT Barnum. Why did the media cover him wall-to-wall? Why did none of the other stiffs trying to stoke white resentment and ride a populist wave got anything like the kind of response trump did? Why did he manage to keep holding sold out rallies even after winning? Because he's fundamentally fun to watch
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Bizarre fascination with a train wreck somehow gathering crowds isn't the same thing as being drawn in by charisma. Trump is not a charismatic person. Maybe he was in his younger days (though definitely not in my lifetime) but by 2016 the only people who could stand to hear and listen to him were Republicans, and that is only because he said the right things without dogwhistles. Obama meanwhile honestly could say anything he wanted (and in retrospect there was so much empty words) and people listened. Not just people who agreed with what he said. He was a relative political nobody who got where he got purely because of his charisma. Can't say the same thing about Trump. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Feb 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 04:58
|
|
Koos Group posted:That doesn't appear to be the subject I'm discussing. You may want to review the source of the concept of the thought-terminating cliche. The whole point is it's internalized. The user doesn't intend it- which does not make its deployment less an expression of bad faith.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You may want to review the source of the concept of the thought-terminating cliche. The whole point is it's internalized. The user doesn't intend it- which does not make its deployment less an expression of bad faith. I agree that it’s an internalized phenomenon, but you can’t infer the directionality of faith from observing this. Of course, if you think bad faith is lurking around the corner of every statement, you’re going to find what you seek.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2022 05:04
|
|
