Trumpism Is ‘Identity Politics’ for White People
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...d-term-campaign-all-identity-politics/573991/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...d-term-campaign-all-identity-politics/573991/
But the entire closing argument of the Republican Party in the 2018 midterm elections is a naked appeal to identity politics—a politics based in appeals to loathing of, or membership in, a particular group. The GOP’s plan to slash the welfare state in order to make room for more high-income tax cuts is unpopular among the public at large. In order to preserve their congressional majority, Republicans have taken to misleading voters by insisting that they oppose cuts or changes to popular social insurance programs, while stoking fears about Latino immigrants, Muslim terrorists, and black criminality. In truth, without that deception, identity politics is all the Trump-era Republican Party has.
Nice of you to ignore the inconvenient part of my post exposing Mr. Civilized Discourse as a fucking thin skinned snowflake.
I said anyone that buys into his bullshit is a moron, that bullshit includes most of his interviews and his book. I don't know if the studies he has published have the same content.
His book is laughably bad, I've read parts of it. It's great comedy though. Especially the part about the serpents of order and chaos, and how order is male and chaos is female, I couldn't stop laughing.
Edit: I forgot the lobster analogy as well, that was fucking hilarious.
He's in the top 0.5% of scientist by citations on his peer reviewed and published science research, his science is solid. All of his lectures you can watch online for free recorded from the UofT come with citations for the relevant literature.
Crackpot is just an ad hom. Why even bother?
Yeah you took what I said about his academic work and his lectures at the UofT and bait and switched his book which is not what I was talking about.
What you're saying is that actually you've dismissed his entire body of work based on a book he's written. He never made a "lobster analogy" what he's talking about is scientific papers that were published by other scientists that show that anti depressants designed for humans also work on lobsters and that's evidence that the old part of our brains share a common ancestor with lobsters and that hierarchies that exist in both us and lobsters are old, they predate capitalism and all the social constructs the left like to blame inequality on. The fact you think it's hilarious shows that you don't understand it in the slightest.
Ironic that you provide no citation for your claim about citations. There's no such discipline as generic 'scientist', he's a clinical psychologist. Not all fields are equal. Psychology is actually one of the worst in terms of reproducibility of published papers.
Personally I barely rate psychology as a science at all. It certainly isn't physics. By claiming he's a generic 'scientist' you are gilding the lilly.
You also provide no reason to believe his popular and non academic work gains any particular credibility from his work in his field. Anyone can 'cite' something from the literature, it doesn't mean it shows what they say it shows.
I outed your daddy as a hypocrite, I'd say it's pretty relevant when discussing what he advocates. Keep dodging tho.
Our brains share a common ancestor with everything considering we all come from the same source of life. And yes, I do understand that his point is that hierarchies exist in nature. You know what else exists in nature? Animals eating their partner after mating. His whole schtick is giving you an excuse to act like an asshole by saying "oh well, it's natural".
Good thing that we don't follow his mantra or else we'd be shooting autistic people and cripples because they're at the lower tiers of the hierarchy.
What he writes in what is essentially a self help book, and what he publishes as scientific fact are 2 different things. I started this conversation in the context of I was educating myself to the science and that wasn't a "moronic" thing to be doing, given that the science is well cited, it's mainstream science and there's really no published work which demonstrates flaws in it.
And then you brought up his book, changing the subject. I don't really care about his book to be quite honest. Anyone can write anything in a book. What I'm interested in is the actual facts and the science and by all measures he's a great scientist, highly cited when compared any field but specifically within his domain of competence he's right at the top.
Where have I acted like an asshole?
Yes we share a common anscestor with damn near everything but how far back it goes is relevant to the discussion. We parted from lobsters a very long time ago, that's the point of using them as an example. When you look at animals with a closer common ancestor like say chimps, which are used a lot, they have far more complex social behaviour which could be used by left leaning people to suggest that inequality stems from socialization. He's essentially dismantling this generally left leaning notion that inequality stems from social organization. There's no capitalism for lobsters, they have the same basic biology that governs placement in a hierarchy of more or less fit lobsters. It's not a joke as you point out, it's actually a reflection of good science that has studied this.
After all this discussion no one has either retracted the statement that I'm an "asshole" a "moron" because I decided to educate myself with mainstream science from a well respected scientists, instead he wrote a self help books therefore he's a crackpot. I'm sure you understand how silly that all sounds? Especially to someone who has been nothing but polite and civil.
throwing down with cuck again, impressive for a mentally unstable fuckwit like you.You linked the wrong article on purpose, you cuck liar.
Here is the wiki for "nationalism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
Are saying he would tells lies to a fish or tells lies to be able to fish? ~
I've come back to these forums after a very long time off, mostly for GPU/Game/Hardware discussions but I like to talk politics as well. I've not been in the P&N forums for such a long time.
It's something I see common among the left, I think they tend to be more emotionally driven which is why you get these odd kinda disconnected from reality moments. But that has been aggravated to a large degree by the Trump win and the fact that it was (at least for them) completely out of the blue.
They're going to have to learn the age of political correctness and that level of dishonesty is over, the landscape has violently shifted and we need to return to civilized and honest political discourse. You can no longer call someone a nazi or a white nationalist and that have any impact, the overuse of this and the fact the right no longer care at all about the smears renders this ineffective. You still see it all over the media though "far right" this and that.
It's so tiresome, just want to move past it.
There's plenty of legit complaints about both sides. My evolution in thinking was mostly driven by Jordan Peterson who is a psychology professor out of the UofT and exploded in popularity recently. It's interesting learning about the big 5 personality aspect scale and how it correlates with political belief, and his theories about the correct place for the left and right in society and how they need a dialogue. I'm personally way more libertarian minded more strongly than anything else but I'm a reactionary right winger, politically I express as right wing simply to push back on the left who I think have gone too far in the bigger picture. Right now the overton window is quite far left and that's a seriously bad thing. Having socialists like Bernie running for president is super dangerous.
The left has controlled the narrative and political discourse for too long and that tactic worked amazingly well for them for a time, everyone and their dog was afraid to speak up politically for being afraid of ostracization or losing their jobs, politicians certainly wouldn't. Then Trump came along and recognized that actually ~50% of the population are mostly being quiet due to this and have no one who has the balls to represent them. He blew political correctness out of the water on his own, with the cunning use of twitter and just never giving the left an inch at all. That's why he won incidentally, because while not everyone on the right thinks Trump is right on everything, they do recognize that this politically correct environment that the left created is choking political discussion and that has to go, almost above everyone else.
There's no evidence the left has learned from this the media still rattles off "far right" when talking about anything that's no explicitly left wing. A lot of the activists are still trying to shame people by telling them they're garbage human beings and how outraged they are about that. If nothing changes he'll win his second round in the white house that's almost a guarantee.
This is just hyperbole. He gave stats for things like number of rapes that sadly happen to people passing over the border. He didn't invent fake news this was an invention of the left in the run up to the election, which was used against the right and then was spun back around and used against the left. The news all over the place is still extremely left wing, you still see people referred to as alt right constantly as basically a slur.
I did answer your question in my prior response, I didn't see your question before I posted as the page hadn't refreshed.
I love how when you guys are not able to counter logical points that disagree with your evangelical leftist views so you have to assume the poster isn't real to protect your bubble. How can there be that many people with opinions different than yours? They can't be real!
You are misusing the word corroborated. I can't come up with any interpretation where this response makes sense.
Corroborating evidence is additional evidence to enhance the support of a claim that already has some evidence.
Either the OP just made an unsupported statement (if you think the accusations in the list are not already accepted as true), or (if you aren't contesting the accusations in the list) they made a statement supported by several pieces of evidence, so the corroboration is already present. Either way it's not corroboration that's lacking.
Plus how could you present 'more uncorroborated evidence'? If you present more evidence, that _is_ the corroboration.
Plus the OP was being sarcastic anyway.
Anyway, I'm sticking with my interpretation that nationalism is more about allegiance to a group of people than to the institutions of a country. On that score Trump's record on supporting the US as a country isn't relevant. His pandering to the groups 'white people' and 'rich people' are more to the point.
So, you concede that his book is a bunch of bullshit? Or not?
Nobody denies the American right to nationalism, placing America first but the problem is that in the very same country that word has clear racial connotationsI love how when you guys are not able to counter logical points that disagree with your evangelical leftist views so you have to assume the poster isn't real to protect your bubble. How can there be that many people with opinions different than yours? They can't be real!
Nobody denies the American right to nationalism, placing America first but the problem is that in the very same country that word has clear racial connotations
I'd love to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but he's expressed racial preferences previously (Norwegian vs a certain other race). Nationalism has an idealistic view of citizenship, and with his historical comments its is very likely he views it as exclusively white.
If he had used previous opportunities to openly condemn white nationalists and establish a clear line of demarcation, would've felt totally different about it
I've come back to these forums after a very long time off, mostly for GPU/Game/Hardware discussions but I like to talk politics as well. I've not been in the P&N forums for such a long time.
It's something I see common among the left, I think they tend to be more emotionally driven which is why you get these odd kinda disconnected from reality moments. But that has been aggravated to a large degree by the Trump win and the fact that it was (at least for them) completely out of the blue.
They're going to have to learn the age of political correctness and that level of dishonesty is over, the landscape has violently shifted and we need to return to civilized and honest political discourse. You can no longer call someone a nazi or a white nationalist and that have any impact, the overuse of this and the fact the right no longer care at all about the smears renders this ineffective. You still see it all over the media though "far right" this and that.
It's so tiresome, just want to move past it.
Lol. Someone order a new sock?
This analogy is truly something.Not only is nationalism to some degree normal but it's also rational even if you goal is to help other people, just like it's rational for the parent to put on their oxygen mask and secure themselves before they attempt to help their kids.
Putting your nation above the globe is perfectly normal. Everyone has a hierarchy of values, most people put themselves at the top, and then their immediate family next, and then their friends, and then their neighbors, then their town/city, then their state and then their country and then finally globally.
You'll go to the funeral of a family member, and some of your friends depending on how close they are, and maybe a neighbor at a stretch, but not a random person in your town, certainly not a random person in your state, country or the globe. There's a reason for that hierarchy. and that's because in order to be able to help other people further down the hierarchy you need to protect your own interest first and that's expressed by emotional attachment to people. What are you told when doing the plane emergency routine? Put your own oxygen mask on first BEFORE you do that of your kids, because you can't help them if you pass out. America and most other modern western countries spend vast amounts of money on foreign aid, on lending military to keep the peace and provide aid during disasters, they export science and technology. They're only capable of doing that if they put the nation first so the nation prospers, if the nation prospers it's in a better position to help the rest of the planet. Here's another example, Bill gates is tackling the 5 most deadly diseases, he would not have been able to do that had he not put him and his business first.
If you put someone below in the hierarchy artificially to the top then what happens is you sacrifice things closer to home, as things closer to home start to suffer your ability and resources to help other more distant people are crippled. It's the same with any kind of socialist campaign that seeks to prop up other people up at the personal expense of the successful. Taking resources from the successful people/businesses/countries cripples their ability to continue to generate resources. Not only is nationalism to some degree normal but it's also rational even if you goal is to help other people, just like it's rational for the parent to put on their oxygen mask and secure themselves before they attempt to help their kids.
So, you concede that his book is a bunch of bullshit? Or not?
I'll concede that I don't have any major knowledge of his work apart from what I've seen in his interviews or the excerpts I read from his book. But what I have seen from him is nonsense, and when you couple that with his obvious hypocrisy it paints a rather grim picture of him as a person. He might be a grifter taking advantage of idiots and the easily influenced. People do that unfortunately, look at Ann Coulter.
As for the bolded, no one on the "left" (god knows what you think the left is) is saying that there are no natural inequalities, some people are smarter, some people are taller etc., that's beside the point.
The argument is that there are inequalities that are created because of social organization which, I'm sorry to inform you, is an undeniable fact. If you can't come up with an example of such inequalities then I legitimately feel sorry for you. Saying that lobsters have inequalities without having capitalism and then using that as proof that there can be no inequalities born out of systems like capitalism (or any other system for that matter, let's not just stick to capitalism) isn't just naive, it is outright retarded.
This analogy is truly something.
Also, nationalism isn't rational. It's indoctrinated nonsense.
I'm sure that you know full well that this isn't the kind of nationalism the President was talking about.
There's a much deeper nuance to this than just "putting your nation above the globe." Who's nation? Who within that nation? Who's family, yours or mine?
The self-serving false argument you're providing here, that there is only one America with only one agenda that is best for the nation, is exactly what is being criticized here.
I've not read his book although I do know most of the rules from hearing him give talks on them, one of which I attended in London. I also know the science behind most of them because I've watched his entire lecture series out of the UofT from 2017, 2016 and most of 2015 as well (including reading a sample of the sources he's citing wherever it happens to interest me).
The point is that a book is NOT science published in a respected journal which is peer reviewed and then cited. When I first mentioned Peterson I said I studied the science from his professional career as a university professor teaching actual psychology courses and what I was told is that I was a moron. And then the follow up was "well he wrote a book I disagree with". It'd be pointless for me to argue about the subjectivity of a book, it has good reviews, it has bad reviews, it has sold a lot but fundamentally that's why we have the scientific process of publication in journals and peer review, to weed out bad science, and his science is solid, no one anywhere to my knowledge has attacked any of it much less all/most of it, quite the opposite he's among the top most cited scientists. Remember that he's also been a practicing clinical psychologist and has seen thousands of patients so the idea that he wouldn't have something useful to say in a self help book is sort of outrageous really.
I don't mean to be rude but it's obvious you don't know his work because I've watched something like 200+ hours of it. The topics he discusses are deep and complex and have a lot of nuance to them and so to say as a lay person that someone who is an expert in his field is talking "nonsense" is so out of touch with reality I honestly don't know where to begin.
What I will concede is that if you do listen to some of the stuff that he talks about, a lot of it can seem very strange at first, that's exactly the impression I had of him when I first listened to him on his original Joe Rogan podcast appearance. He introduced a bunch of new ideas to me from a different way of thinking which was a shock. And I had to actually dig down into what he was saying, which is what led me to educate myself in psychology by watching the lectures to begin with.
The idea that he's a grifter is just so out of touch with reality, I honestly cannot believe anyone can say that. He's had a long a respected career as a scientist doing primary research, a clinical physiologist with thousands of clients, and an educator in the university system. But yea he's a grifter...my god.
I never said that social systems cannot lead to inequality, you're putting words in my mouth.
When you look at animals with a closer common ancestor like say chimps, which are used a lot, they have far more complex social behaviour which could be used by left leaning people to suggest that inequality stems from socialization. He's essentially dismantling this generally left leaning notion that inequality stems from social organization. There's no capitalism for lobsters, they have the same basic biology that governs placement in a hierarchy of more or less fit lobsters.
What I said is Peterson is addressing the claim made by people on the left (let me clarify, socialists and communists who assert that inequality is a function of capitalism) saying that inequality (in a hierarchy) occurs naturally due to inequality of biology. Again if you watched his lectures he goes into this in depth about the science behind creative output in people. Price's law, follows a Perato distribution, almost everyone has zero creative productive output, the median average is zero. A few hyper productive people produce almost all of the creative output and they receive almost all of the reward, the 1% for example is normal the data on that is crystal clear, and the work done by others to track inequality through different political systems shows that it exists in all of them. So what he's saying is that the idea that capitalism is at fault for inequality is wrong. There was inequality 300 million years before capitalism was even thought of. He's always maintained that ever social system has elements of oppression which are trade offs for the benefits that brings.
There's a much deeper nuance to this than just "putting your nation above the globe."
The word itself came into widespread usage, first and foremost in the United States, from the early 1940s.[5] This was the period when US global power was at its peak: the country was the greatest economic power the world had ever known, with the greatest military machine in human history.[6] As George Kennan's Policy Planning Staff put it in February 1948: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. […] Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity".[7] America's allies and foes in Eurasia were suffering the dreadful effects of World War II at this time.
In their position of unprecedented power, US planners formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which, in economic terms, meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively upon the United States.[8]
His book is garbage, I'm not debating this point with you. I'm telling you how it is. You wanna veer off and talk about his work, that's fine. I admitted I don't know enough about it to argue.
I want to address this first as it's goes to the honesty of the discussion here. I'm not "[veering] off", what I originally talked about was his science you can check the prior posts in the thread to verify this. It was you who brought up the book after that and changed the subject, until then I had been discussing his lectures which is his academic work out of the UofT and educating myself in psychology.
When I mention his academic work specifically and you bring up his book you're the one veering off subject here, I need to establish if that was a honest mistake or if you don't care and just want to manipulate the narrative here, because if you just want to re-frame this as me veering off then there's no point in me engaging in this any further.
To reiterate I don't care about his book, his book isn't published and peer reviewed science, but he has a whole body of work which is and that's the point of science, to have some objective standard by which to judge work. If you're published in respectable journals it means you've passed peer review process and you can't just throw around "crackpot" or other such nonsense about the work, you have to engage with it intellectually.
Anyway I'm happy to reply to the rest if you're willing to acknowledge that actually I've not veered off anything otherwise it's pointless on my part, I hope you see that.