Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

At this point doing your homework is the threshold for elite status.

[Hannibal]

Hanni thinks more than half of Sweden is Kurdish.

I never said that the Rape Capital of Europe is "half Middle Eastern" or whatever nonsense you are talking about. I said that the Leftists in charge of Sweden and other countries in that region are pursuing a strategy of demographic replacement and that it is wreaking havoc in those countries, something that is blindingly obvious to anyone paying attention. The demographic replacement is something that they aren't even trying to hide anymore as they now regularly produce propaganda videos for ramming it down the throats of the natives. I even posted one of those videos for you. But people tend to not like when the government floods their country with Third World immigrants who then immediately latch onto the welfare state while insisting that they get to keep all of their shitty Third World customs that the Western world rejected hundreds of years ago. That is why Right Wing Nationalist parties are surging in literally every European country right now.

Once you define ``elite'' to mean ``people who disagree with me''.

You guys are the ones designating the "elites". They are the people I am supposed to trust blindly and whose opinions I am supposed to absorb without question. You fell back on that, as you always do, when I pointed out the 20th Century track record governments designed to wipe out the "plagues" of racism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism. You have probably surmised by now that I use the label "elites" in a mocking sene. A lot of people considered "elites" are actually ignorant dumbasses who have been designated as experts.

[iam416]

Well that's interesting. I would not have guessed the subject matter would interest you enough to read it. As AA would say, you get 10 forum points. Kapuscinski was never about explaining how he knew things, so I can understand ``incomplete thought'', but since I am so interested in the guy I'm all ears as to why you thought so.

Awhile ago, when I took the train to work, I read all the time -- well, probably 60 books a year. My mother is a now-retired English teacher and, IMO, a sheer genius when it comes to literature. So we'd talk different books and exchange recommendations. I read Shadows of the Sun on her tip, which I enjoyed, and The Soccer War on my own. He was a nice break from lit reading even if some folks think he may have blurred journalism and fiction a tad. Whether he did or didn't matters not to me as I enjoyed the read.

Anyway, I think it's an incomplete thought because it purports -- or at I read it as -- identifying 3 types "thought" that lead to these bad consequences as the full universe. I think the things he identifies are certainly not the full universe. I prefer to look it as dogma leads to bad things. The 3 things RK identifies, IMO, are the basis for reaching the dogmatic conclusion -- you're making a conclusion based on race or nationality or religion. There are other bases, too. Some more likely to actually produce a correct conclusion and others as unlikely.

So, I'd view the problem as those who think they are incontrovertibly correct that can be the problem. That's not to say you can't be so -- the Earth orbits the Sun and so forth. But, for most political issues it's not so. [edit* -- as you suggest in your response to Hanni]

I also don't think being nationalistic or devout or categorized the world in terms of race necessarily leads to the results he suggests -- and he's clear -- there are no exceptions. But, I haven't thought that through enough, and it may be the case if we're talking in terms of politics -- that rational, accepting people will still vote or support one side of the issue based on their faith.

[iam416]

I don't think its any coincidence that those types of media are full of those common labels. Conservative and liberal and fascist and anti-capitalist and all those other things people use in lieu of actually judging things on the merits. We've got to get away from the labels.

That's not going away. Ever. You can win the politics by discrediting the source. Rs used to rely on the liberal tag. Ds always had their standard "racists, sexist, all-around BIGOT" tag ready to go. The Ds still have that one locked and loaded, but fascist is their new term. While the Trumpian Rs have laid seige to the "fake news" media.

And then the way you reinforce your tags is to put the worst of each side front and center. As I said, we are so far apart that it's now possible to run against a candidate's supporters. If THOSE people don't like what my guy said, then what he said must have been correct! It dovetails brilliantly with labels as a way to excise rational thought.

The thing that those of us who care need to think about, IMO, though, is that the labels aren't made up from whole cloth. The supporters aren't irate for no reason. A significant portion of the electorate isn't hopping on board with a label if they don't recognize at least a kernel of truth to it (and probably more). In part, that's why it's so important to give nutjobs the mic. But, I think, it's more a basis of our experiences and perceptions. To that end, folks who actually care need to think about why that perception exists and then whether it's a good idea to try to ameliorate that view.

I think to label the millions and millions of folks who are taken in by labels and other nonsense as irredeemable idiots is precisely what we cannot do.

[Hannibal]

Labels are useful when they fit. A big reason why is because many agendas are pushed via lies and subterfuge. Labels help expose this.

[hack]

Fair enough. Most of us hacks have to show, not tell. He gets to tell and doesn't have to show, because you have that kind of authority after witnessing 25 revolutions or whatever the number.

I am pretty sure I agree. I don't think the infection he talks of is a yes/no scenario, and you have people with mild cases of one or all of the three who are still perfectly reasonable, but since he doesn't do details in that way, we have to assume he means that or assume he sees it as either you have it or you don't. I do think that once you cross a threshold, your brain is basically broken. But that's a high threshold. Hanni and I disagree on a ton, and I've caught him sticking with beliefs based on obviously false facts even though any rational person could see the issue, but not in all areas. In some areas I can clearly see he has the ability to reason, and quite effectively. Perhaps he feels the same about me -- dunno. We certainly agree on the sports side of things quite a bit here.

But, point being, the threshold before you get to the broken-brain stage is pretty high in the US. It's a lot lower in other countries where people don't get a decent education.

[iam416]

Labels are useful when they fit. A big reason why is because many agendas are pushed via lies and subterfuge. Labels help expose this.

Yeah, I edited my post to point out that most "labels" are tied to some varying amount of truth. At least the ones that stick. I don't think it's because of the reason you state -- I think it's more basic -- they ring true to SOME people. Or, at least true enough. And that absolutely goes both ways.

[AlabamAlum]

I know for a fact that Talent's favorite book is Turtledove's "Guns of the South."

[iam416]

But, point being, the threshold before you get to the broken-brain stage is pretty high in the US. It's a lot lower in other countries where people don't get a decent education.

I'm not sure I would have ever guessed that as the point, but hey, I agree!

[iam416]

Given the rise of the Trumpian Alt-Right, it's but a matter of time before Guns of the South is retroactively awarded the Pulitzer Prize of Greatest Fucking Book Ever.

[hack]

The thing that those of us who care need to think about, IMO, though, is that the labels aren't made up from whole cloth. The supporters aren't irate for no reason. A significant portion of the electorate isn't hopping on board with a label if they don't recognize at least a kernel of truth to it (and probably more). In part, that's why it's so important to give nutjobs the mic. But, I think, it's more a basis of our experiences and perceptions. To that end, folks who actually care need to think about why that perception exists and then whether it's a good idea to try to ameliorate that view.


Irate and should be. But thanks to labels rather than thought processes, they've got them pointing their fingers in the wrong direction. Of course campus liberals are annoying and bossy, and of course Hillary is a pay-for-play liar, but when you blow the former up into fascists and the latter into a corrupt criminal, you obscure what's actually going on. The people who banged on all summer about emails and conflicts of interest are now indulging in those practices on a much larger and more damaging scale. Thanks to that labeling process, the people who voted against the left for those reasons have enabled the very thing they were told to be angry about.

[hack]

I'm not sure I would have ever guessed that as the point, but hey, I agree!

Well I was being a bit charitable for Hanni's sake, but I'm happy to stake out the most literal reading of the passage as possible if you want. I truly do believe that those three devils are exceptionally harmful.

[iam416]

To be clear, hack, I'm not talking about one specific side or the other re labels. I can list tons of examples from both sides and some that are apolitical.

[AlabamAlum]

Given the rise of the Trumpian Alt-Right, it's but a matter of time before Guns of the South is retroactively awarded the Pulitzer Prize of Greatest Fucking Book Ever.

it will replace the current senior year history book.

[Wild Hoss]

Repeaters rule.