Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[dholliday]

"A yes or no will do"

Debate in the age of Twitter. The Trumpist's wet dream.

Well, there we go...another one from the textbook.

I could care less about those questions.

If you could care less, that means you care quite a bit. So why don't you answer them? Those questions are the main reason I'm in this thread, but instead of answering them you all twist & avoid, then call out my responses to your twists & avoidances by claiming I'm the one doing the twisting and avoiding.

It's all very kafka...you're twisting yourself round so much you confuse the meaning of phrases: you probably meant to write I couldn't care less. But if you don't care about why I'm in this thread, why do you bother replying so much?

You do care, but only to prove your groupthink credentials. It's dopamine, I get it. But try to rise above it. It's liberating.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Well, there we go...another one from the textbook.

Feel free to highlight which part of what I said was inaccurate?

The whole "yes or no, nothing more" (or in the case of Twitter, 140 and latterly 280 character limits) thing eliminates nuance and detail, which are frequently required in any serious discussion, and they have without a doubt been godsends to both Trump and his supporters.

 

[dholliday]

The whole "yes or no, nothing more" (or in the case of Twitter, 140 and latterly 280 character limits) thing eliminates nuance and detail, which are frequently required in any serious discussion.

Hey, that's my line! In most other contexts.

It's telling that you can't answer those questions with a yes or no.

Next.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Hey, that's my line! In most other contexts.

It's telling that you can't answer those questions with a yes or no.

Next.

You didn't ask me those questions. So it's not telling at all really.

"Next"

 

[dholliday]

You didn't ask me those questions. So it's not telling at all really.

"Next"

I'm asking all in this thread. If you can't respond, then don't respond. That would limit replies to my posts which I think would benefit everyone.

 

[SteveSC]

If you could care less, that means you care quite a bit. So why don't you answer them? Those questions are the main reason I'm in this thread, but instead of answering them you all twist & avoid, then call out my responses to your twists & avoidances by claiming I'm the one doing the twisting and avoiding.

It's all very kafka...you're twisting yourself round so much you confuse the meaning of phrases: you probably meant to write I couldn't care less. But if you don't care about why I'm in this thread, why do you bother replying so much?

You do care, but only to prove your groupthink credentials. It's dopamine, I get it. But try to rise above it. It's liberating.

What are you on about?

You asked someone else those questions to which they gave you their answer. So you want any leftiy or liberal to answer it then seen as the person whom you directed it to didn't satisfy you? And your not attempting to troll people?

Oh look you correct peoples grammar also YAY for you.

I really don't care about your questions about Trump. Really i don't. If you read the 1310 pages you didn't take part in you might see where people stand and how they feel instead off coming in to get a rise out of people.

You are like the guy in the wrong lane on a roundabout. No matter how wrong you are you are right.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I'm asking all in this thread. If you can't respond, then don't respond. That would limit replies to my posts which I think would benefit everyone.

Well the second question is irrelevant to me, since I don't use that phrase anyway?

As for the first - if we forcibly wrangle it into a yes or no question (which isn't how it was asked), then I guess the answer is "yes", but it's kind of an inane question.

Sort of like asking "Was Ted Bundy nice to his mother, yes or no?"

 

[SteveSC]

I'm asking all in this thread. If you can't respond, then don't respond. That would limit replies to my posts which I think would benefit everyone.

That's the fecking thing you didn't direct those to all. You bloody well directed them to @Ruairi77 to which he gave you his answer. If it were to all why not say that. Honestly you are some tulip seriously.

 

[dholliday]

What are you on about?

You asked someone else those questions to which they gave you their answer. So you want any leftiy or liberal to answer it then seen as the person whom you directed it to didn't satisfy you? And your not attempting to troll people?

Oh look you correct peoples grammar also YAY for you.

I really don't care about your questions about Trump. Really i don't. If you read the 1310 pages you didn't take part in you might see where people stand and how they feel instead off coming in to get a rise out of people.

You are like the guy in the wrong lane on a roundabout. No matter how wrong you are you are right.

That's the fecking thing you didn't direct those to all. You bloody well directed them to @Ruairi77 to which he gave you his answer. If it were to all why not say that. Honestly you are some tulip seriously.

What are you on about? That is the bonkers thing about this thread. So much twisting. Ruairi didn't answer and I clearly directed the questions to everyone. You're saying things which contradict posts written mere moments ago. It's a massive brain fart (or blind spot) on your part.

And I didn't correct your grammar, I pointed out you said the opposite of what you thought you were saying. Again, that's something to think about.

Well the second question is irrelevant to me, since I don't use that phrase anyway?

As for the first - if we forcibly wrangle it into a yes or no question (which isn't how it was asked), then I guess the answer is "yes", but it's kind of an inane question.

Sort of like asking "Was Ted Bundy nice to his mother, yes or no?"

If you don't use that phrase, then what are your views when people use it they way it's been used here? You're avoiding the actual issue by taking yourself out of the debate ("I don't use that phrase anyway"). I understand it's to not disturb the prevailing groupthink, which is that Trump is bad, so bad he even supports paedos!

And Ted Bundy, who is/was a serial killer, being nice to his Mum has quite literally zero relevance to whether Trump, who is the sitting US President and does not have a history of violently hurting people, does indeed have sound policies.

So we bypass your ambitious serial-killing disclaimer to at least get one solid response to one of the two key questions I have. We can then move on to the next bit, which is why these sound policies aren't talked about, while unsound policies are hugely in-focus and, as we've seen, often exaggerated & misunderstood.

The answer is groupthink, Web 2.0 version. Groupthink breeds polarised tribalism. Such tribalism sells very well as it provides its users with dopamine hits (clicks, shares & comments = users sharing their own info & providing content for which advertisers happily pay for). That the two sides are constantly riling each other up is the intended effect: more conflict, more clicks. An article about the Chinese landing a probe on an asteroid will garner significantly less clicks/comments than the latest identity-politics paen or Jordan Peterson tweet. Just as an article or comment on a sound Trump policy won't generate any interest, for there's not much dopamine there. No angle, no conflict. Many users may even recognise this and won't be arsed because they're entertained.

Has politics become mere celebrity-following for educated people? It shouldn't be, as it affects real lives in ways glossy-mag celebrities don't.

A conspiracy theorist would speak of Groupthink 2.0 being distraction-material but honestly I don't think mankind is organised or long-sighted enough to pull that off.

The next question is why do so many educated folk fall in line with groupthink? Because many people long to belong, to feel part of something (#theresistance, #metoo, #blacklivesmatter, #itsoktobewhite etc). In the pre-web days we in Western societies supported individualism: be yourself, think for yourself. Web 2.0 has somehow regressed that. Now there's a prevailing you're either with us or against us mentality, which only 17 years ago we admonished Bush Jr for as he tried to sell that to the world. We admonished him because back then we instinctively understood that many situations don't have black & white answers. We weren't so tied to some identity (groupthink) that we had to pick a side.

That web-use makes actual changes to the brain's structures is already known (neuroplasticity)...we just don't know exactly what. But we know even when clear logic is staring right at someone they will still find a way to avoid it (Trump himself and his fans are also clearly very guilty of this!).

The Trump phenomenon is a huge deal in mass human psychology, specifically the insanely-intense focus on him from the antis which has made him the most reported/commented-on person in human history. It can only be defined as an addiction. There are quite a few learned studies on this already, but it's all far from the mainstream for now.

This thread is a solid example. I find it very interesting, hence my occasional posts here.


I don't mind all the troll accusations, it'd be worth it if at least one or two non-posting readers of this thread come to similar conclusions.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

If you don't use that phrase, then what are your views when people use it they way it's been used here? You're avoiding the actual issue by taking yourself out of the debate ("I don't use that phrase anyway"). I understand it's to not disturb the prevailing groupthink, which is that Trump is bad, so bad he even supports paedos!

The question wasn't "what do you think about..." it was "will you continue to use..." Since you seem so set on precision, maybe focus on asking the actual questions you want answered, rather than complaining about people not answering questions that weren't asked?

And Ted Bundy, who is/was a serial killer, being nice to his Mum has quite literally zero relevance to whether Trump, who is the sitting US President and does not have a history of violently hurting people, does indeed have sound policies.

That's... pretty debatable.

So we bypass your ambitious serial-killing disclaimer to at least get one solid response to one of the two key questions I have. We can then move on to the next bit, which is why these sound policies aren't talked about, while unsound policies are hugely in-focus and, as we've seen, often exaggerated & misunderstood.

And THIS is the easiest part to answer. They're not talked about because they are dwarfed by the negative/unsound/despicable policies. And this is exactly where my analogy, while purposefully hyperbolic for emphasis, is entirely relevant. Let's say Bundy was the best son in the world, did everything for his dear old mother, bought her flowers regularly, looked after her, ensured her every need was met.

Would it surprise you that no one put much emphasis on that?

Much like Trump - if you put into place rules/laws/decrees/policies that involve splitting children apart from their families (with, as we know now, NO solid plan for reuniting them), ban people from serving in the military due to their gender identity, attempt to remove health coverage from millions of people (including some of those most in need of it), roll back regulations intended to protect the health of the planet, are credibly accused of a variety of crimes all while citing your biggest accomplishment to be cutting taxes on the wealthiest members of society, at a time when wealth inequality is already at or close to its peak... (NB these are just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's plenty more abhorrent stuff he's done that isn't springing to mind immediately)

It's hardly surprising that people don't put a huge amount of focus onto the few bits and pieces you might do that could be potentially positive.


Oh, and as an aside - putting up the MeToo movement as an example of "oh people just want a group to belong to" is pretty fkn despicable if you ask me.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Oh, and as an aside - putting up the MeToo movement as an example of "oh people just want a group to belong to" is pretty fkn despicable if you ask me.

The more I think about it, that's actually one of the most insidious things I've read on these boards in a long time. You think anyone wants to be part of that movement? You think anyone (or should I say any decent person) wants that movement to need to exist? I don't care at this point whether you're trolling and I'm biting, or you're deadly serious. Get a grip, grow up and realise the impact your throwaway, "oooh I'm gonna be edgy" little comments can have. You complete and utter cretin.

 

[dholliday]

The question wasn't "what do you think about..." it was "will you continue to use..." Since you seem so set on precision, maybe focus on asking the actual questions you want answered, rather than complaining about people not answering questions that weren't asked?

Was I complaining? You answered one question by clearly avoiding the issue at hand, so I asked the follow-up question to be more precise, and you're still avoiding answering it.

Because to answer it would go against the prevailing groupthink ethos. You'd rather not do that. To hell with principles.

That's... pretty debatable.

Accusations of assault vs serial murder. Same thing in your book, I see. Your book isn't very deep.

And THIS is the easiest part to answer. They're not talked about because they are dwarfed by the negative/unsound/despicable policies.

That would make half of the USA's people negative, unsound & despicable, for why else would they support such policies? Can you confirm you believe that to be so?

That's quite a lot of hate you've got banked up there...you've spent more time than two minutes here, I venture.

And this is exactly where my analogy, while purposefully hyperbolic for emphasis, is entirely relevant. Let's say Bundy was the best son in the world, did everything for his dear old mother, bought her flowers regularly, looked after her, ensured her every need was met.

Would it surprise you that no one put much emphasis on that?

That is still a stupid inane irrelevant preaching-to-the-groupchoir analogy. It's just plain silly.

Much like Trump - if you put into place rules/laws/decrees/policies that involve splitting children apart from their families

Interesting why you don't mention why this has happened, and you also don't mention Trump motioned to stop it.

Groupthink 2.0 - you must accentuate the things that paint Trump in a bad light, disregard the things that may throw some shade on that black light. It's in your programming (neuroplasticity).

ban people from serving in the military due to their gender identity

What is gender identity? It's a relatively new social construct. Why might there be a ban in the military thereof? The military isn't a PC-zone, there has to be considerations for things that might be distracting (such as the latest social media craze).

For the record I'm vehemently anti-US military in many of their foreign policies and actions. But I can understand the conservative reasoning for the above. Maybe time will change that. To call it "despicable" is hyperbolic, but then that's what you're meant to do.

these are just off the top of my head - I'm sure there's plenty more abhorrent stuff he's done that isn't springing to mind immediately)

Again, we could go back and forth on the detail of these policies...there's always two sides to a story, you're only telling one. The other side only tell theirs, and we end up with two polarised sides because both think they're in the right.

Oh, and as an aside - putting up the MeToo movement as an example of "oh people just want a group to belong to" is pretty fkn despicable if you ask me.

The more I think about it, that's actually one of the most insidious things I've read on these boards in a long time. You think anyone wants to be part of that movement? You think anyone (or should I say any decent person) wants that movement to need to exist? I don't care at this point whether you're trolling and I'm biting, or you're deadly serious. Get a grip, grow up and realise the impact your throwaway, "oooh I'm gonna be edgy" little comments can have. You complete and utter cretin.

You're easily outraged. To the point of resorting to name-calling now. I didn't even criticise the #metoo movement, I just listed it as a movement some people want to feel part of.

Here are some famous actual critics of the #metoo movement, are they also "insidious cretins"?

- Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid's Tale
- Germaine Greer
- Catherine Deneuve

and hundreds more prominent women associated with classical feminism.

and some men too (do they even count?)

- Liam Neeson
- Michael Haneke
- Sean Penn
- Henry Cavill
- Matt Damon

...and many more, naturally.

Here's some further reading from left-leaning publications which also mirror my thinking that #metoo is an optional movement and is as such open to criticism:

CNN:

It's OK to criticize the #MeToo movement

WIRED:

The Problem with #MeToo and Viral Outrage

ATLANTIC:

The Glaring Blind Spot of the 'Me Too' Movement

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Was I complaining? You answered one question by clearly avoiding the issue at hand, so I asked the follow-up question to be more precise, and you're still avoiding answering it.

Because to answer it would go against the prevailing groupthink ethos. You'd rather not do that. To hell with principles.




Accusations of assault vs serial murder. Same thing in your book, I see. Your book isn't very deep.




That would make half of the USA's people negative, unsound & despicable, for why else would they support such policies? Can you confirm you believe that to be so?

That's quite a lot of hate you've got banked up there...you've spent more time than two minutes here, I venture.





That is still a stupid inane irrelevant preaching-to-the-groupchoir analogy. It's just plain silly.




Interesting why you don't mention why this has happened, and you also don't mention Trump motioned to stop it.

Groupthink 2.0 - you must accentuate the things that paint Trump in a bad light, disregard the things that may throw some shade on that black light. It's in your programming (neuroplasticity).




What is gender identity? It's a relatively new social construct. Why might there be a ban in the military thereof? The military isn't a PC-zone, there has to be considerations for things that might be distracting (such as the latest social media craze).

For the record I'm vehemently anti-US military in many of their foreign policies and actions. But I can understand the conservative reasoning for the above. Maybe time will change that. To call it "despicable" is hyperbolic, but then that's what you're meant to do.




Again, we could go back and forth on the detail of these policies...there's always two sides to a story, you're only telling one. The other side only tell theirs, and we end up with two polarised sides because both think they're in the right.






You're easily outraged. To the point of resorting to name-calling now. I didn't even criticise the #metoo movement, I just listed it as a movement some people want to feel part of.

Here are some famous actual critics of the #metoo movement, are they also "insidious cretins"?

- Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid's Tale
- Germaine Greer
- Catherine Deneuve

and hundreds more prominent women associated with classical feminism.

and some men too (do they even count?)

- Liam Neeson
- Michael Haneke
- Sean Penn
- Henry Cavill
- Matt Damon

...and many more, naturally.

Here's some further reading from left-leaning publications which also mirror my thinking that #metoo is an optional movement and is as such open to criticism:

CNN:

It's OK to criticize the #MeToo movement

WIRED:

The Problem with #MeToo and Viral Outrage

ATLANTIC:

The Glaring Blind Spot of the 'Me Too' Movement

Genuinely can’t be bothered going through that point by point, but a couple of quick thoughts:

1. I didn’t say accusations of assault (sexual or otherwise) were the same as serial murder, but then I was replying to a comment that didn’t mention serial murder. You said “doesn’t have a history of violently hurting people” - a broad category which BOTH assault and serial murder fall into.

2. Re: Transgender troops - they’ve been serving in the military, and were due to be allowed to enlist (as opposed to transitioning while enlisted) when Trump made his decision - a decision which most military leaders railed against. And Trump’s argument was nothing to do with force readiness, it was a “financial burden” argument - despite all analysis showing that the financial cost was relatively inconsequential. If you don’t want your motives questioning, maybe make your reasoning more robust.

3. Writing off anything you don’t agree with/like as “groupthink 2.0” is pretty hilarious.

4. There may be problems with the MeToo movement (one of the articles you highlighted is actually lamenting that it doesn’t go far enough in its efforts to highlight the experiences of people of colour, for example), but yeah I feel it’s pretty despicable to make light of it by suggesting that people “want to be a part of it”. And as someone who lost a close friend to suicide in the aftermath of an experience the likes of which MeToo has grown up in response to, maybe I am “easily outraged”. Or maybe I just have some real world context.

5. “Do men even count” is a particularly dumb thing to say.

 

[dholliday]

Genuinely can’t be bothered going through that point by point, but a couple of quick thoughts:

1. I didn’t say accusations of assault (sexual or otherwise) were the same as serial murder, but then I was replying to a comment that didn’t mention serial murder. You said “doesn’t have a history of violently hurting people” - a broad category which BOTH assault and serial murder fall into.

2. Re: Transgender troops - they’ve been serving in the military, and were due to be allowed to enlist (as opposed to transitioning while enlisted) when Trump made his decision - a decision which most military leaders railed against. And Trump’s argument was nothing to do with force readiness, it was a “financial burden” argument - despite all analysis showing that the financial cost was relatively inconsequential. If you don’t want your motives questioning, maybe make your reasoning more robust.

3. Writing off anything you don’t agree with/like as “groupthink 2.0” is pretty hilarious.

4. There may be problems with the MeToo movement (one of the articles you highlighted is actually lamenting that it doesn’t go far enough in its efforts to highlight the experiences of people of colour, for example), but yeah I feel it’s pretty despicable to make light of it by suggesting that people “want to be a part of it”. And as someone who lost a close friend to suicide in the aftermath of an experience the likes of which MeToo has grown up in response to, maybe I am “easily outraged”. Or maybe I just have some real world context.

5. “Do men even count” is a particularly dumb thing to say.

i am very sorry to hear about your friend, we disagree on things here (let's agree to disagree) but i understand how such a loss can make one think about things.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

i am very sorry to hear about your friend, we disagree on things here (let's agree to disagree) but i understand how such a loss can make one think about things.

I have no problem talking about issues related to it. Im not oblivious to the fact that the movement has some issues - some intractable, some that could be worked on (not enough focus on the service industry etc) - but I maintain vehement disagreement with the idea that anyone would “want to be part of” this particular movement. With the possible exception of a few outliers with their own serious mental issues - but those numbers would be so small as to not even warrant mention. Especially when contrasted with the (I think) 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men who have experienced some form of sexual assault.

Anyway, logging off now to engage in more enjoyable topics than that orange buffoon.