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.
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.
