Cosmopolitan bias

[Amused]

Cosmopolitan bias? Is that supposed to be an insult? Let's looks at the words opposite to cosmopolitan:
Antonyms to cosmopolitan:
guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

The man speaking for the president literally told a reporter that having a cosmopolitan point of view was biased and less than ideal. That's right, the current administration wants you (needs you) to be:

guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

How in the fsck is any thinking person still supporting this absurdity?

 

[Commodus]

It's really part of that ongoing Republican anti-intellectualist theme. Education and experience are bad, because they supposedly make you an elitist who loses touch with the average person; gut instinct and emotion are what matter. The kids who made fun of you for being a "brainer" in school are now in charge of the country.

You'd expect this kind of response from a Trump administration mouthpiece in particular, but still, this is really just the culmination of a Republican strategy that has persisted for years, if not decades.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Cosmopolitan bias? Is that supposed to be an insult? Let's looks at the words opposite to cosmopolitan:
Antonyms to cosmopolitan:
guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

The man speaking for the president literally told a reporter that having a cosmopolitan point of view was biased and less than ideal. That's right, the current administration wants you (needs you) to be:

guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

How in the fsck is any thinking person still supporting this absurdity?

Not that it matters to his voters/supporters, but the bloated orange one has touted his love of the poorly educated for a while now

 

[IronWing]

I thought this thread would be about the dearth of males on the cover of Cosmo.

 

[IronWing]

^^ Even his sons be like, "WTF dad?"

 

[senseamp]

Stephen Miller is from Santa Monica. About as cosmopolitan as it gets. He started out his political career bashing fellow high school students as unpatriotic for not supporting Iraq war. He has been unapologetically wrong about pretty much everything ever since, which is a recipe for great success in Republican circles.

 

[Moonbeam]

Stephen Miller is from Santa Monica. About as cosmopolitan as it gets. He started out his political career bashing fellow high school students as unpatriotic for not supporting Iraq war. He has been unapologetically wrong about pretty much everything ever since, which is a recipe for great success in Republican circles.

Thanks for that information.

 

[Moonbeam]

guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

Lets have a look from a different perspective. Say you were enlightened and didn't hate yourself:

guileless: Yes of course. You would nave no need for ego or self defenses. You would be in the present in love with being here now.

Ignorant: Of course. You would see the now without thought, associations or memory. All that would exist are beauty and love.

Innocent: Of course, all sin would have disappeared in the pure knowledge of the beauty of the world and its perfection,. There could be only innocence like the day we were born but with no possibility that duality could ever return.

naïve: Certainly, you would be empty of belief in the notion that thought is knowledge. You would have the real knowledge of being.

Unsophisticated: Every action would be the result not of social calculation, but spontaneous naturalness.

Untutored: All that you ever knew would have been abandoned along with ego. You would know you know nothing.

Unworldly: No, you would know the world that you left behind better than all others, you would just not be of it.

Wide-eyed: Yes oh yes, everywhere you looked you would see only the Beloved, the astounding infinity of perfection. and out of your being would radiate infinite light.

 

[Commodus]

guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

Lets have a look from a different perspective. Say you were enlightened and didn't hate yourself:

guileless: Yes of course. You would nave no need for ego or self defenses. You would be in the present in love with being here now.

Ignorant: Of course. You would see the now without thought, associations or memory. All that would exist are beauty and love.

Innocent: Of course, all sin would have disappeared in the pure knowledge of the beauty of the world and its perfection,. There could be only innocence like the day we were born but with no possibility that duality could ever return.

naïve: Certainly, you would be empty of belief in the notion that thought is knowledge. You would have the real knowledge of being.

Unsophisticated: Every action would be the result not of social calculation, but spontaneous naturalness.

Untutored: All that you ever knew would have been abandoned along with ego. You would know you know nothing.

Unworldly: No, you would know the world that you left behind better than all others, you would just not be of it.

Wide-eyed: Yes oh yes, everywhere you looked you would see only the Beloved, the astounding infinity of perfection. and out of your being would radiate infinite light.

Is this actually meant to say something?

The anti-intellectualism perpetuated by Miller and much of the modern Republican party is wrong. Full stop.

 

[shortylickens]

I thought this thread would be about the dearth of males on the cover of Cosmo.

Sometimes they have a meaty girl with short hair.

 

[senseamp]

Not just anti-intellectualism, but contempt for increasingly urban young people. Folksy wisdom of rural people who have been brainwashed and wrong about pretty much everything for the last 40 years is considered the guiding truth. Education and enlightenment is seen as a threat.

 

[fskimospy]

Cosmopolitan bias? Is that supposed to be an insult? Let's looks at the words opposite to cosmopolitan:
Antonyms to cosmopolitan:
guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

The man speaking for the president literally told a reporter that having a cosmopolitan point of view was biased and less than ideal. That's right, the current administration wants you (needs you) to be:

guileless, ignorant, innocent, naive, unsophisticated, untutored, unworldly, wide-eyed.

How in the fsck is any thinking person still supporting this absurdity?

And he was wearing a pocket square while doing it.

Seriously, a guy with a pocket square was denigrating other people for being fancy elitist cosmopolitans.

 

[K1052]

Steven Miller looks like a young Gargamel with a brand of politics more at home in the major dictatorships of the last century.

 

[Ajay]

Stephen Miller... So Much Winning

 

[nickqt]

"Cosmopolitan" = non-nationalistic; foreign; not subject to Leader's authority, taste, purity standards, or Leader's permission about what is and isn't acceptable.

"Cosmopolitan" influences people, ideas, and the culture. Really bad for nationalists, jingoists, and authoritarians.

So of course right-wing authoritarians are going to attack the notion of cosmopolitan anything.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

 

[Moonbeam]

..

 

[Jaskalas]

The man speaking for the president literally told a reporter that having a cosmopolitan point of view was biased and less than ideal.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cosmopolitan

noun
5. a person who is free from local, provincial, or national bias or attachment; citizen of the world; cosmopolite. ​

So... in other words... What part of MAGA, and America First, didn't you understand?

 

[Moonbeam]

Is this actually meant to say something?

The anti-intellectualism perpetuated by Miller and much of the modern Republican party is wrong. Full stop.

What it is saying is that you are stuck with one side of an argument that is the mirror image of the other. Neither you or the other side is right. There is a third perspective where duality is collapsed that resolves both sides of the issue by collapsing the duality both are predicated on. The question of sophisticated or naïve is not real. Neither are desirable places to be. Their is a third form of that isn't based on thoughts, opinions, or ideas. It is called being real. You are simply confused because you do not know what that is. The truth is unknown because it is hidden by the ego. Ego is attachment to theories, like your anti-Intellectualism thingi. Intellectualism and anti-intellectualism are diseases that have no real existence for people who are real. These are just the facts. They are not meant as threats to your ego. Your ego is the threat and it doesn't like being told the facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

"Cosmopolitan" = non-nationalistic; foreign; not subject to Leader's authority, taste, purity standards, or Leader's permission about what is and isn't acceptable.

"Cosmopolitan" influences people, ideas, and the culture. Really bad for nationalists, jingoists, and authoritarians.

So of course right-wing authoritarians are going to attack the notion of cosmopolitan anything.

"Cosmopolitan" is the latest right wing twist on "elitist". It's particularly amusing when Miller uses it in defense of what are elitist immigration policy proposals.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...f-stephen-millers-cosmopolitan-epithet-215454

 

[Jaskalas]

"Cosmopolitan" is the latest right wing twist on "elitist". It's particularly amusing when Miller uses it in defense of what are elitist immigration policy proposals.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...f-stephen-millers-cosmopolitan-epithet-215454

Pretty sure Capitalist elites wants open borders for the free flow of cheap labor and goods.
Far removed from Trump's anti immigration policy.

So... what were you saying?

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty sure Capitalist elites wants open borders for the free flow of cheap labor and goods.
Far removed from Trump's anti immigration policy.

So... what were you saying?

So what? Trump's proposed immigration policy is obviously elitist, a complete turnaround from our traditional way of doing things where immigrants slot in at the bottom.

Only Trumpsters are foolish enough to think it's great news for Americans trying to work their way up.

 

[Commodus]

What it is saying is that you are stuck with one side of an argument that is the mirror image of the other. Neither you or the other side is right. There is a third perspective where duality is collapsed that resolves both sides of the issue by collapsing the duality both are predicated on. The question of sophisticated or naïve is not real. Neither are desirable places to be. Their is a third form of that isn't based on thoughts, opinions, or ideas. It is called being real. You are simply confused because you do not know what that is. The truth is unknown because it is hidden by the ego. Ego is attachment to theories, like your anti-Intellectualism thingi. Intellectualism and anti-intellectualism are diseases that have no real existence for people who are real. These are just the facts. They are not meant as threats to your ego. Your ego is the threat and it doesn't like being told the facts.

No.

Stop trying to equivocate. Education and experience are vital in politics, and in life in general. Trump's administration is a textbook example of this: even if you agree with his policies for some reason, there have been countless blunders and oversights that never happened in previous administrations with knowledgeable politicians.

It's important to make sure that education and experience apply to a real-world context, but you most definitely need them. Think of it like you would science: just because you don't believe in science doesn't change that it's the only way to understand how evolution, or climate change, or gravity works.

I get it. You've studied Buddhism (probably in college) and think you've discovered an eternal philosophical truth, and that if if only I would cast my ego aside I'd see existence for how it really is. Well, sorry, but that's not how life works. I'm not saying what I am because I'm too proud to admit that the other side might be right about something; I'm saying what I am because knowledge is better than pure conviction. Look at it this way... would you rather be driven in a car by a 12-year-old who really, really believes they can drive, or a 32-year-old with a driver's license and years of experience?

 

[Moonbeam]

Commodus: No.

M: Hehe OK.

C: Stop trying to equivocate.

M: How do you see me trying to deceive you or not mean what I say? I am only telling you what is not that you have to believe it.

C: Education and experience are vital in politics, and in life in general.

M: I remember the first time I really understood what experience is. I was listening in on a conversation between people much younger than I and I suddenly realized they didn't know what they were talking about. Their words were empty of grounded awareness. I mentioned a third way of seeing and that you haven't seen that way. You don't know that real learning is unlearning everything you believe.

C: Trump's administration is a textbook example of this: even if you agree with his policies for some reason, there have been countless blunders and oversights that never happened in previous administrations with knowledgeable politicians.

M: Yes, he's quite the fool and has surrounded Himself with the like. But believe me when I tell you they think they have lots of knowledge and experience of the real and meaningful kind.

C: It's important to make sure that education and experience apply to a real-world context, but you most definitely need them. Think of it like you would science: just because you don't believe in science doesn't change that it's the only way to understand how evolution, or climate change, or gravity works.

M: Unlearning does not change what is true. Science requires non attachment so that one can view data objectively.

C: I get it.

M: You don't get it when you make up your response as follows:

You've studied Buddhism (probably in college) and think you've discovered an eternal philosophical truth, and that if if only I would cast my ego aside I'd see existence for how it really is.

I discovered Zen Buddhism by accident because I was desperately in need of answers to the crushing blackness of existential despair. I had to read what I found because my life had ended. I found people laughing about what I knew, that life has no meaning at all. That gave me the key that I needed to end my suffering I realized in a flash that everything that I believed had to be true for life to be good didn't have to be true at all. All of my cherished sacred cows died but their death didn't actually ever really touch me. Being joy is when one is. So the Buddha just figured out what I did long before I did and some of that reached me thought Zen. There is one truth and it covers us all.

C: Well, sorry, but that's not how life works. I'm not saying what I am because I'm too proud to admit that the other side might be right about something; I'm saying what I am because knowledge is better than pure conviction.

M: You are saying it because you think the other side being wrong makes you right and it doesn't at all. You simply believe in the opposite. You are stuck with the duality out of which you see the world. There is a third way of seeing. You say, for example, that knowledge is better than conviction and you say it not out of knowledge but out of conviction. I am offering you knowledge but you have to be able to carry it away. How deep is your need?

Notice how important it is to you that you make your point real and clear, that you testify to it's truth. Don't expect me to deny what I can see with my own experience that your ego is involved. Think how important it is to you that reason and knowledge win. For me the motive is quite different I think because I'm speaking to you from the victor's box. I defeated the nothing. For a brief moment I woke up and my suffering disappeared.

As the Zen master said. Everybody is enlightened. It would be nice to know it. If you know that you won't need to know anything else.

Look at it this way... would you rather be driven in a car by a 12-year-old who really, really believes they can drive, or a 32-year-old with a driver's license and years of experience?[/QUOTE]

 

[shortylickens]

32 year olds just have lots of time to reinforce bad habits.