Any Dice, Wood, Crowder, and/or Shapiro fans?

All are extremely annoying and unfunny, minus Shapiro.

I think Dice is funny.

1494494049-Andrew-Dice-Clay.jpg
came to post support for Dice too lol

Yeah, she stopped practicing law to help with Bill's career (and it was widely known that they were a team, and she was the more-impressive member). And are you unfamiliar with SCHIP? Generally a key staffer in the Clinton WH.



Of course. She was nationally well-known as Hillary Rodham. Chaired the Legal Services Corporation, among many other things. You should just read her Wiki page.

Anyway, point is that you're extremely inconsistent in your comments on the signalling value of an Ivy League law degree. If it's someone you don't consider to be in your tribe, it's nothing; if it's someone in your tribe, it's a great accomplishment that means they're really impressive (and that version is closer to the truth).



Hmm. Obviously, by your own standards, Clinton was far more qualified than Cruz, right?

onto the topic....do any of you ever get sick of your own blatant cheerleading? like it never occurs to you that youre stuck in the same cycling circle over and over and are not getting anywhere? yeah great...keep voting in these lawyers and big business people ..... they have done wonders for the country! these people are all crooked, all have backgrounds firmly lodged in false institutions and none of them are ultimately going to do right by the people...why?? because they are neither programmed nor capable of doing that when their entire agenda is based on smoke and mirrors.

Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump....you fuckers should have revolted when that was the only two ((feasible)) choices offered...how much of a bigger sign do you need that the political system is an utter failure under its current form?
 
About your first paragraph.
It happens both on the left and the right but more so on the right, I think it's a bad thing for the future of the right. Nutjobs that instead of opposing left wing policy for factual reasons oppose them based on conspiracy theories and stupidity. For example, if I was american I'd oppose Obama because he was soft on third world migrants with DACA and his commentaries about how Islam is peaceful and so on, not because he is supposedly a muslim, a George Soros puppet or he is actually a retard born in Kenya that got a manufactured birth certificate and degree.
Sure, the right has a bigger problem of anti-intellectualism, I don't say that because I'm picking sides or something, it's simply a fact not a matter of opinion or up for debate, see studies by pew research and others.
I agree, it's a problem. It's also weird that conservatives, who usually propose concepts like personal responsibility, freedom of choice + liability for consequences etc, suddenly have a low opinion on intellectuals and higher education because they fear indoctrination and politicization. That always felt counter-intuitive, you're responsible for your own decisions and should take matters into your own hands but don't go to college in order to improve your chances at the job market and intellectual horsepower because other people might make you a socialist??? Sorry but that's one of my strongest disagreements with the right and they're simply wrong there. I was able to graduate without turning into a communist just fine, newsflash, you don't have to repeat what other people tell you.

About your second paragraph, I saw that a lot about Einstein in the past. Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, that doesn't mean everything he ever said was correct, like his praise of communism or even everything he said about physics. Luckily in physics we can disprove wrong theories, not so much in the social sciences, so we have the endless argument of authority.
The desire to hear an expert's opinion on topics far outside of his expertise is weird though, don't you think? I can't explain it. Doesn't it go against most people's personal experience? I always had a talent for mathematics but was a completely untalented in all disciplines not related to math. I'm very well aware of how uneducated I am on most topics and disciplines. For instance, you mentioned social science and their methodology - I know almost nothing about it. I can't even properly form an opinion, I don't know what to think about it. I feel the same about most or many topics that come up in discussions about politics, society etc. Yet I'm pretty confident when it comes to my knowledge on things I'm educated in, but that's not difficult to distinguish, there isn't much of a gray area.
I said that recently in another thread, it's pretty humbling when you read recently published papers in your own discipline and you realize there's plenty of stuff you don't understand, even though you spent years studying it. Why would I assume that it's different for other people? Just look at your average physics or mathematics or CS professor. I wouldn't want to hear these guys' opinions on anything other than what they teach. I still remember when I saw one of my professors for the first time in my first year of college, he stumbled in, hardly was able to doff his raincoat, then lost his glasses when he tried to take off his bike helmet. The one-track specialist isn't a cliche fabricated out of thin air or something.
 
The desire to hear an expert's opinion on topics far outside of his expertise is weird though, don't you think? I can't explain it. Doesn't it go against most people's personal experience? I always had a talent for mathematics but was a completely untalented in all disciplines not related to math. I'm very well aware of how uneducated I am on most topics and disciplines. For instance, you mentioned social science and their methodology - I know almost nothing about it. I can't even properly form an opinion, I don't know what to think about it. I feel the same about most or many topics that come up in discussions about politics, society etc. Yet I'm pretty confident when it comes to my knowledge on things I'm educated in, but that's not difficult to distinguish, there isn't much of a gray area.
I said that recently in another thread, it's pretty humbling when you read recently published papers in your own discipline and you realize there's plenty of stuff you don't understand, even though you spent years studying it. Why would I assume that it's different for other people? Just look at your average physics or mathematics or CS professor. I wouldn't want to hear these guys' opinions on anything other than what they teach. I still remember when I saw one of my professors for the first time in my first year of college, he stumbled in, hardly was able to doff his raincoat, then lost his glasses when he tried to take off his bike helmet. The one-track specialist isn't a cliche fabricated out of thin air or something.

Well, I believe there is a strong correlation between talent in one field and general intelligence. Of course, there are idiot savants that are only able to function in one very specific task. But I'd bet the average physics professor will have an easier time learning French or music theory than the average McDonald's cashier.
The renaissance man isn't a cliche fabricated out of thin air or something.

Compare your posts with the average sherdogger, at least you got good grammar.
 
yeah great...keep voting in these lawyers and big business people ..... they have done wonders for the country! these people are all crooked, all have backgrounds firmly lodged in false institutions and none of them are ultimately going to do right by the people...why?? because they are neither programmed nor capable of doing that when their entire agenda is based on smoke and mirrors.

Huh?

Hunter claimed that Shapiro's educational background was worthy of great respect (true!) and on other occasions has claimed that someone else with a much more impressive educational background is not. I pointed out the hypocrisy--a sad example of the kind of tribalism that dominates around here. Your post really has nothing to do with that discussion.
 
The school you graduated from means nothing in today's day and age. Just look at the campus of Berkeley, intelligence had nothing to do with admissions.

Harvard Law for the time being still has some weight. Shapiro is a better debater and fat more intelligent than all liberal personalities combined, in regards to politics and law.
 
Dice is better when he's just doing those petitions he does.

Crowder is a 78 IQ douchebag

Shapiro is pretty good with this arguing thing. My fave of the bunch.
 
The school you graduated from means nothing in today's day and age. Just look at the campus of Berkeley, intelligence had nothing to do with admissions.

Harvard Law for the time being still has some weight. Shapiro is a better debater and fat more intelligent than all liberal personalities combined, in regards to politics and law.

<Dany07>
 
Allow me to rephrase. It's not that I don't think that he's intelligent at all, but rather I just think that he's elevated to a place he shouldn't be by others. There are some incredible thinkers on the right that are every bit as good than the best that the left has to offer. Both sides have individuals that are obviously capable of making coherent arguments supported by relevant facts that rely on the judgment of the listener. I just don't think that Shaprio is in that class of thinkers.

As a quick aside, I wish that we had that respect for one another in American politics. We're too quick to call the other side idiots, stupid, etc. Outside of real extremists (actual Nazis, fascists, Communists, etc.), we should absolutely listen and respectfully debate/discuss the ideas that we disagree with.
I agree man. Escalating political tribalism is one of the biggest problems this country faces.
 
Allow me to rephrase. It's not that I don't think that he's intelligent at all, but rather I just think that he's elevated to a place he shouldn't be by others. There are some incredible thinkers on the right that are every bit as good than the best that the left has to offer. Both sides have individuals that are obviously capable of making coherent arguments supported by relevant facts that rely on the judgment of the listener. I just don't think that Shaprio is in that class of thinkers.

As a quick aside, I wish that we had that respect for one another in American politics. We're too quick to call the other side idiots, stupid, etc. Outside of real extremists (actual Nazis, fascists, Communists, etc.), we should absolutely listen and respectfully debate/discuss the ideas that we disagree with.

I like this post overall, but who are you referring to when you mention incredible thinkers on the right?

Some of my favorite right-wing writers are MBD, David Frum, Ross Douthat, Peter Lawler (actually died recently), Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, Julian Sanchez, and Eric Falkenstein. I wouldn't call any of them "incredible thinkers," though, but maybe just because I would be reluctant to use that on anyone (needless to say, they all blow away people like Shapiro). I think as a group, in America at least, there's a pretty clear imbalance favoring the left at the highest levels of thought, partly because of the right-wing media infrastructure that is violently anti-intellectual and dishonest and because of the influence of the religious right first and now populists in setting the agenda for the movement.
 
But I'd bet the average physics professor will have an easier time learning French or music theory than the average McDonald's cashier.

Of course but that's beside the point. The point is do I want to hear a physics professor's opinion on music theory because I know that he's 'smart', or shouldn't I be more interested in what a professor for music education or a professional pianist has to say about it because I know for sure that he studied the field for years and officially has earned credential for his work.
That they still know more about most topics than a blue collar worker is self-evident, I was talking about talent in the sense of excelling at something, not performing well compared to a bouncer or having excellent grades in high school. I'd say the renaissance man or universal genius is definitely more of a myth these days, there aren't many scientists who are at the top of their game in multiple disciplines. That wasn't as uncommon in the past but even back then many now famous intellectuals wrote a lot of nonsense about stuff outside of their expertise. I'm sure Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wasn't a dumbass but ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethean_science
At the end of the day, I'm not interested in the IQ of a lecturer, that's precisely the problem when people quote theoretical physicist on economics or religion.
 
I like this post overall, but who are you referring to when you mention incredible thinkers on the right?

Some of my favorite right-wing writers are MBD, David Frum, Ross Douthat, Peter Lawler (actually died recently), Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, Julian Sanchez, and Eric Falkenstein. I wouldn't call any of them "incredible thinkers," though, but maybe just because I would be reluctant to use that on anyone (needless to say, they all blow away people like Shapiro). I think as a group, in America at least, there's a pretty clear imbalance favoring the left at the highest levels of thought, partly because of the right-wing media infrastructure that is violently anti-intellectual and dishonest and because of the influence of the religious right first and now populists in setting the agenda for the movement.
I like a lot of the things that Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Yaron Brook, Peter Thiel, and others. Obviously, some are throw-backs, while others are more contemporary.

This is what I'm talking about, Jack. You're willing to say that your side has a monopoly on intelligence, but it's simply not the case. Reasonable people can view things differently, and that's why we have public discourse. For all those citizens who approach an issue with an open mind, they can be convinced by whichever side can make the more coherent argument.

You're talking about the right as though it's entirely one group of people. The right and the left are both collectives, terms used to paint very broad ideas about people. But the stock yuppie from New York is going to be a very different kind of conservative than the lawyer from Houston who will be a different kind of conservative than the farmer from Iowa. In that same sense, the Hollywood liberal is going to be a very different kind of liberal than the college professor from Connecticut who is a very different kind of liberal than the lifelong Democrat that lives in shitty Section 8 housing in DC. This really helps illustrate why being a governing party is different than being a part of opposition. The Democrats are solidly united in their opposition of Trump, just as the Republicans were solidly united in their opposition of Obama. And when you have to lead, you need to appease all the groups, so I wouldn't say that the religious right has any more inherent influence than the other groups within the collective movement. Unless you can show me how it's them that's driving most of the policies? Because what I'm seeing is a slant towards protectionism, doubling down on defense of the homeland (particularly in regards to slowing or stopping immigration from select locations), aggression in foreign policy (although probably undue aggression in a lot of places), and a push for major tax cuts/tax reform/banking deregulation. I'm not seeing the same stuff as what came out of the Bush Administration, such as trying to bar same-sex marriage or stopping late-term abortion.
 
I like a lot of the things that Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Yaron Brook, Peter Thiel, and others. Obviously, some are throw-backs, while others are more contemporary.

This is what I'm talking about, Jack. You're willing to say that your side has a monopoly on intelligence, but it's simply not the case.

I didn't say that. I said that there's an imbalance. If I say that there's an imbalance in talent between the Indians and the Angels, I'm not saying that the Angels have no good players (in fact, they have the best player in the world). I further gave a reason for that imbalance that surely you would agree is at least plausible. If you think I'm wrong, why?

Note that the two of the people you named are long dead. Aside from his willingness to be bought out, I don't think Friedman would be a fan of the modern right-wing movement.

Reasonable people can view things differently, and that's why we have public discourse. For all those citizens who approach an issue with an open mind, they can be convinced by whichever side can make the more coherent argument.

Sure.

You're talking about the right as though it's entirely one group of people.

But I listed a bunch of people who disagree often with each other and who are all on the right and are good thinkers. How can you have this takeaway from my post? It seems to me that you're not really reading and are throwing out pre-prepared arguments that don't apply in this specific case.

This really helps illustrate why being a governing party is different than being a part of opposition. The Democrats are solidly united in their opposition of Trump, just as the Republicans were solidly united in their opposition of Obama. And when you have to lead, you need to appease all the groups, so I wouldn't say that the religious right has any more inherent influence than the other groups within the collective movement. Unless you can show me how it's them that's driving most of the policies? Because what I'm seeing is a slant towards protectionism, doubling down on defense of the homeland (particularly in regards to slowing or stopping immigration from select locations), aggression in foreign policy (although probably undue aggression in a lot of places), and a push for major tax cuts/tax reform/banking deregulation. I'm not seeing the same stuff as what came out of the Bush Administration, such as trying to bar same-sex marriage or stopping late-term abortion.

"...because of the influence of the religious right first and now populists in setting the agenda for the movement."

Seems like we both agree that the religious right previously had more influence and that the influence of populists is growing, no? And that influence of populists is another factor that makes it hard for really smart people to support the movement in America (and thus self-identify as being on the right).

To flesh out the points a little more: the MSM and academia act as kind of checks on the kinds of statements people make. But because of the existence of an alternative media on the right, those checks have very different effects. If a well-known liberal politician makes a stupid comment or advances bad policy, the MSM points it out or it gets pushback from intellectuals, the base gets angry and it becomes very damaging to him. If the same happens on the right, the base ignores the MSM and academic response and it gets defended by the right-wing media. That, IMO, is how you get a lot of objectively false claims (climate science is a hoax, Obama was not eligible to be president, tax cuts pay for themselves, etc.) becoming mainstream in the right-wing movement, which makes it hard for someone who knows better to identify with those people. You don't see similar things on the left. Polls show that left-wingers are more likely to believe in astrology or have weird beliefs about food--which shows that the gap is not based on inherent characteristics or more-rational thought processes in general (it does that conspiracy thinking is more common on the right in reality though it has left-wing implications). But there are checks that keep people in line that don't operate on the right.
 
came to post support for Dice too lol



onto the topic....do any of you ever get sick of your own blatant cheerleading? like it never occurs to you that youre stuck in the same cycling circle over and over and are not getting anywhere? yeah great...keep voting in these lawyers and big business people ..... they have done wonders for the country! these people are all crooked, all have backgrounds firmly lodged in false institutions and none of them are ultimately going to do right by the people...why?? because they are neither programmed nor capable of doing that when their entire agenda is based on smoke and mirrors.

Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump....you fuckers should have revolted when that was the only two ((feasible)) choices offered...how much of a bigger sign do you need that the political system is an utter failure under its current form?

Politics doesn't actually work in the form that is presented to you in television and news media.

Politicians are figureheads for a separate decision making government controlled by international banking families/cartels.

It's all an illusion. Your vote doesn't actually count, so there no point in getting emotional about it or pretending that your vote can fix the system. That's not how any of this works.

Some people can see this, and they just enjoy the comedic aspect of it all without having to dedicate too much thought or emotion into something that you have absolutely no control over whatsoever.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but yeah, you have been fooled.
 
I didn't say that. I said that there's an imbalance. If I say that there's an imbalance in talent between the Indians and the Angels, I'm not saying that the Angels have no good players (in fact, they have the best player in the world). I further gave a reason for that imbalance that surely you would agree is at least plausible. If you think I'm wrong, why?

Note that the two of the people you named are long dead. Aside from his willingness to be bought out, I don't think Friedman would be a fan of the modern right-wing movement.

Sure.

But I listed a bunch of people who disagree often with each other and who are all on the right and are good thinkers. How can you have this takeaway from my post? It seems to me that you're not really reading and are throwing out pre-prepared arguments that don't apply in this specific case.

"...because of the influence of the religious right first and now populists in setting the agenda for the movement."

Seems like we both agree that the religious right previously had more influence and that the influence of populists is growing, no? And that influence of populists is another factor that makes it hard for really smart people to support the movement in America (and thus self-identify as being on the right).

To flesh out the points a little more: the MSM and academia act as kind of checks on the kinds of statements people make. But because of the existence of an alternative media on the right, those checks have very different effects. If a well-known liberal politician makes a stupid comment or advances bad policy, the MSM points it out or it gets pushback from intellectuals, the base gets angry and it becomes very damaging to him. If the same happens on the right, the base ignores the MSM and academic response and it gets defended by the right-wing media. That, IMO, is how you get a lot of objectively false claims (climate science is a hoax, Obama was not eligible to be president, tax cuts pay for themselves, etc.) becoming mainstream in the right-wing movement, which makes it hard for someone who knows better to identify with those people. You don't see similar things on the left. Polls show that left-wingers are more likely to believe in astrology or have weird beliefs about food--which shows that the gap is not based on inherent characteristics or more-rational thought processes in general (it does that conspiracy thinking is more common on the right in reality though it has left-wing implications). But there are checks that keep people in line that don't operate on the right.
I think the many silos of each group honestly make it nearly impossible to determine the balance. If you are asking which side of the aisle has more PhD's, then I concede that it's probably the left. But if you look at the titans of industry, many of whom are leading innovators, then I think that the answer starts to change. Academia is far from the only avenue for intelligent people. And if we accept that all these millionaires and billionaires, corporate leaders, etc. are actually enforcing their interests via the Republican Party as people like Bernie Sanders would have us believe (he said as much last night during the tax debate), then why would you think that there is an imbalance of intelligence slanted towards the left? I would contend that the question is so obtuse that it is impossible to be answered with the data at hand and absent political bias.

I'm also a big fan of John Locke, another person who is long dead. As for what Friedman thinks of the modern right-wing movement, I say two things: First, I'm not married to the guy, so I don't have to agree with him on everything. Second, I don't love everything that's happening on the right these days. Truth be told, I'm more of a libertarian than anything else.

I'm having this takeaway because you are repeatedly using terms like "the right" and "the right wing." You seem to be accusing me of a bias while ignoring your own as though you're staying perfectly objective. That's not being honest with yourself or me.

We agree that the religious right holds less influence than they once did. But why do you think that I have to support the modern wave of populism in order to identify as someone who holds conservative positions on different topics? I personally don't see why those things need to be an "and" statement. It's an "or" statement. Yeah, I think a lot of positions that the religious right holds are not good. I think that true populists hold positions that are not good. I think that the wing of the Democratic Party that identifies as democratic socialists hold positions that are not good. I really don't feel the need to place people into these kinds of buckets.

This is a false narrative that you've laid out. Both parties have done more than their fair share of political spin throughout the years. It's the very nature of modern politics. I think that the MSM has favored one side throughout recent years, and some people are sick of it. If there are two sides to every story, they want to hear the side that echoes their opinion. Now, a referendum on media bias would be fine, but the issue with independent media is that it allows for anyone to say virtually anything without having to verify the authenticity of the data. Whereas MSNBC can present information in a slanted way, at least the story's facts are probably true. Alex Jones, on the other hand, can go out there and spout whatever he wants, and some people believe him. So that part isn't good, and verified news stories still hold value. And you pretty much said it yourself. Look at the places where the anti-vax movements have been the most successful. It's the Pacific Northwest, places like Vermont, and pockets like Colorado (Source: Centers for Disease Control). There's nothing policing up the nonsense on either side of political aisle because there is no commitment to truth, only to ideology (and the country becomes further and further divided as people disappear further down their respective rabbit holes). As you've pointed out many times when discussing BLM, these are collectives, not organizations. So no one even can police up the people on their side of the aisle. No one group can speak or act on another, so the only ones responsible for anyone's words and actions are the ones conducting the speaking and doing.
 
came to post support for Dice too lol



onto the topic....do any of you ever get sick of your own blatant cheerleading? like it never occurs to you that youre stuck in the same cycling circle over and over and are not getting anywhere? yeah great...keep voting in these lawyers and big business people ..... they have done wonders for the country! these people are all crooked, all have backgrounds firmly lodged in false institutions and none of them are ultimately going to do right by the people...why?? because they are neither programmed nor capable of doing that when their entire agenda is based on smoke and mirrors.

Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump....you fuckers should have revolted when that was the only two ((feasible)) choices offered...how much of a bigger sign do you need that the political system is an utter failure under its current form?
Except people voted them to be the only two options.
 
I think the many silos of each group honestly make it nearly impossible to determine the balance. If you are asking which side of the aisle has more PhD's, then I concede that it's probably the left. But if you look at the titans of industry, many of whom are leading innovators, then I think that the answer starts to change.

Stop there because I don't buy the premise. I think the right has a big edge in small-business owners but not in "titans of industry." And remember that "titans of industry" receive huge material benefits if the right-wing movement gets its way politically.

I'm also a big fan of John Locke, another person who is long dead. As for what Friedman thinks of the modern right-wing movement, I say two things: First, I'm not married to the guy, so I don't have to agree with him on everything. Second, I don't love everything that's happening on the right these days.

I didn't say you do. Just pointing out that what is repelling intelligent people from the current American right-wing movement wasn't necessarily in effect in his time. I point that out because my issue isn't that there is an inherent anti-intellectualism on the right that makes it hard for intelligent people to identify with but that there is a current problem that has that effect. In Friedman's time, one could be more easily intellectually satisfied with the right movement.

I'm having this takeaway because you are repeatedly using terms like "the right" and "the right wing." You seem to be accusing me of a bias while ignoring your own as though you're staying perfectly objective. That's not being honest with yourself or me.

Hmm. If I thought I had any bias leading me astray, I would immediately correct it, as I'd assume anyone interested in truth would do. I don't think I accused you of bias in this thread, either.

We agree that the religious right holds less influence than they once did. But why do you think that I have to support the modern wave of populism in order to identify as someone who holds conservative positions on different topics?

You don't. I didn't say you did. I said that the character of the right-wing movement in America repels serious thinkers today, and then I got into some of the reasons for that.

I personally don't see why those things need to be an "and" statement. It's an "or" statement. Yeah, I think a lot of positions that the religious right holds are not good. I think that true populists hold positions that are not good. I think that the wing of the Democratic Party that identifies as democratic socialists hold positions that are not good. I really don't feel the need to place people into these kinds of buckets.

I was responding to this:

"There are some incredible thinkers on the right that are every bit as good than the best that the left has to offer."

Clearly there are buckets being referred to there. And sure everyone disagrees with other people in their own broad coalition. But what I'm referring to goes a little deeper than that. If don't hold climate science CTs, don't hold to any magical thinking in economics (I mentioned one--I could also mention beliefs about the effects of immigration or many others), aren't a tribalist with regard to race, aren't religious, etc., at some point, don't you stop thinking of yourself as being on the right in America? Or maybe *you* don't, but surely you can see why others might shy away from the label, even if they're, say, OK with rising economic inequality or something.

This is a false narrative that you've laid out. Both parties have done more than their fair share of political spin throughout the years. It's the very nature of modern politics. I think that the MSM has favored one side throughout recent years, and some people are sick of it.

It's not a false narrative. You can look at polls. Right-wingers are far more likely to simply reject information that comes from the MSM, and most hold the view you do (which I think is very false) about the MSM "favoring" the left.

If there are two sides to every story, they want to hear the side that echoes their opinion. Now, a referendum on media bias would be fine, but the issue with independent media is that it allows for anyone to say virtually anything without having to verify the authenticity of the data. Whereas MSNBC can present information in a slanted way, at least the story's facts are probably true. Alex Jones, on the other hand, can go out there and spout whatever he wants, and some people believe him. So that part isn't good, and verified news stories still hold value.

Yes! And this is clearly more of a problem on one side than the other.

And you pretty much said it yourself. Look at the places where the anti-vax movements have been the most successful. It's the Pacific Northwest, places like Vermont, and pockets like Colorado (Source: Centers for Disease Control).

Could be, but the right nominated and elected an anti-Vaxxer for president, while such a view would be disqualifying on the left.

There's nothing policing up the nonsense on either side of political aisle because there is no commitment to truth, only to ideology (and the country becomes further and further divided as people disappear further down their respective rabbit holes). As you've pointed out many times when discussing BLM, these are collectives, not organizations. So no one even can police up the people on their side of the aisle. No one group can speak or act on another, so the only ones responsible for anyone's words and actions are the ones conducting the speaking and doing.

On the first point, I think that is a real problem but that you greatly exaggerate the extent of it. Since this thread is partly about him, let me point to a recent Shapiro column that relates to this (that was kind of childishly written and presented but mostly right):

https://townhall.com/columnists/ben...-it-isnt-as-dirty-as-you-think-it-is-n2356623

Americans don't trust politicians. That's for good reason. Politicians fib to get elected; they pander to particular constituencies; they leave principle at the door in favor of convenience in order to maintain power and position. But they do not, at least not that often, murder people and collude with foreign governments.

But thanks to popular culture, that's exactly what many Americans think politicians do. If you watch "House of Cards," you're likely to believe that top-level politicians off each other on a regular basis -- and you might be more willing to believe conspiracy theories about the murder of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich. If you've seen "The Manchurian Candidate," you're more likely to believe that either former President Obama or President Trump is one.

President Trump, who was a layman until he became president, obviously believes a lot of the pop culture mythology surrounding politics. That's why he told Bill O'Reilly that it's not that big a deal that Russian President Vladimir Putin kills his political opponents. "You think our country's so innocent?" he said in jaw-dropping fashion. That's why Trump believes that politics is such a "dirty business" -- dirtier, even, than Manhattan real estate, where Trump worked with mafia figures. Politics, in Trump's mind, is the lowest of the low.

That means a more corrupt administration. If you believe, as Trump assuredly does, that anybody would take a meeting with Russian government figures to dig up dirt on an opponent, then you'll do it, too.

Follows with nuttiness, but what can you do?

And, yes, to your later point. But it still understandably makes it hard for some people who otherwise would be great champions of right-wing thought to identify with the group.
 
Stop there because I don't buy the premise. I think the right has a big edge in small-business owners but not in "titans of industry." And remember that "titans of industry" receive huge material benefits if the right-wing movement gets its way politically.
You seem to want it both ways right here. Are the big corporations on the side of the people defending their interests (ie the political right), or are they supporting liberal candidates? Because it reasons that this would be consistent in some manner...

I didn't say you do. Just pointing out that what is repelling intelligent people from the current American right-wing movement wasn't necessarily in effect in his time. I point that out because my issue isn't that there is an inherent anti-intellectualism on the right that makes it hard for intelligent people to identify with but that there is a current problem that has that effect. In Friedman's time, one could be more easily intellectually satisfied with the right movement.
The case could be made that social issues have alienated people from the American left. Hence the constant barrage of posts on this forum in many other threads about "the hypocrisy of the left," how the left is "eating itself," and all sorts of other claims. It's been largely groups on the right that have claimed that they are the ones who have a monopoly on "common sense," although I maintain that there are plenty of intelligent people on both sides who should be talking to one another reasonably and finding common ground rather than seeking divisiveness.

I was responding to this:

"There are some incredible thinkers on the right that are every bit as good than the best that the left has to offer."

Clearly there are buckets being referred to there. And sure everyone disagrees with other people in their own broad coalition. But what I'm referring to goes a little deeper than that. If don't hold climate science CTs, don't hold to any magical thinking in economics (I mentioned one--I could also mention beliefs about the effects of immigration or many others), aren't a tribalist with regard to race, aren't religious, etc., at some point, don't you stop thinking of yourself as being on the right in America? Or maybe *you* don't, but surely you can see why others might shy away from the label, even if they're, say, OK with rising economic inequality or something.
I will agree that plenty of people are comfortable willing to tow the party line. And sure, plenty of people do it. So I was discussing the travel ban recently with my wife in mixed company. One of her friends is a smart person (she's getting her PhD from UNC in economics) who identifies herself as a member of the political left. She is someone who many of this forum would call a SJW, just to paint a simple word picture. She proceeded to argue that Somalia shouldn't be on the list. So we talked about how it was basically a failed state, had high rates of crime and terrorism, that the government that Somalia did have wasn't friendly with the US and had an interest in seeing us fail in the future, didn't have a reliable system to identify who was a criminal and who wasn't, didn't have reliable health records to determine what diseases and communicable medical issues a person might have, that Somalia had several refugees from the US return to Somalia to fight with al Shabaab and ISIS (influx of radical ideology into the US), and some others. For everything, her response was, "Well, there are other places with [insert point here] that aren't on the list, so why is this one special?" At the end, I pointed out that it wasn't just one thing, but it was all those things weighed against the potential good that could come from admitting those refugees. This hasn't been an isolated incident confined to this woman. So I have a fundamentally difficult time believing that ridiculous notions are confined to one party because they aren't. I hear things all the time from people that simply aren't truth. They talk about the incredible economy under President Obama. The issue during that time, following the Recession, was that there wasn't a ton of growth, but inflation continued, and wages were repressed (in addition to higher unemployment rates that were reduced to current levels of about 4% thanks to the steady hand of Janet Yellen, although I think she could have been a little more aggressive in getting there quicker).

Listen Jack, I respect the fact that you're a smart guy. That's why I'm talking to you. There are other posters on the forum that I simply don't engage because I think it's a total waste of time. I just want us to be honest here and understand that there are stupid people and smart people everywhere, and I want us to agree that holding one particular ideology does not give you a higher intellectual ceiling than holding another. If we can agree there, that will be a success.

It's not a false narrative. You can look at polls. Right-wingers are far more likely to simply reject information that comes from the MSM, and most hold the view you do (which I think is very false) about the MSM "favoring" the left.
We'll have to agree to disagree there. I don't see how someone can reasonably believe that modern media has not had a preference for Democratic candidates.

Could be, but the right nominated and elected an anti-Vaxxer for president, while such a view would be disqualifying on the left.
I do not agree with the President's view on this. And it seems that most of the people that do agree with him do not share his ideological viewpoints on most issues.

On the first point, I think that is a real problem but that you greatly exaggerate the extent of it. Since this thread is partly about him, let me point to a recent Shapiro column that relates to this (that was kind of childishly written and presented but mostly right):

https://townhall.com/columnists/ben...-it-isnt-as-dirty-as-you-think-it-is-n2356623
I think you article you posted is generally correct. There is an issue with pundits as well. I think that the problem with pundits is that they are each an individual node capable of saying anything. Most of the decisions that our government makes are good ones that are nonpartisan in nature. There are definitely some bad ones made, but I think a lot of those decisions are misrepresented by the opposition party in order to score political points. Such is the nature of politics. The truth is that stuff like the raid in Yemen back in January had little to do with President Trump. But it was used as a means of making him look back as the Commander in Chief. And those misrepresentations are taken at face value and perpetuated by pundits, influencing the views of others. And therein lies the problem.

Follows with nuttiness, but what can you do?

And, yes, to your later point. But it still understandably makes it hard for some people who otherwise would be great champions of right-wing thought to identify with the group.
I'm not saying that the loudest voices on the right are the ones best-suited to lead. Same with the left. Such is life, I suppose.
 
You seem to want it both ways right here. Are the big corporations on the side of the people defending their interests (ie the political right), or are they supporting liberal candidates? Because it reasons that this would be consistent in some manner...

I don't see any inconsistency there. Haven't done any research on it, but the impression I get is that true titans of industry mostly lean a little left *despite* the fact that the right has policy preferences that are much better for their material interests. One interesting thing about the last election is that even though Trump's platform probably was the most extreme ever in terms of promoting upward redistribution, he lost support among professionals and gained it among the working class.

The case could be made that social issues have alienated people from the American left. Hence the constant barrage of posts on this forum in many other threads about "the hypocrisy of the left," how the left is "eating itself," and all sorts of other claims. It's been largely groups on the right that have claimed that they are the ones who have a monopoly on "common sense," although I maintain that there are plenty of intelligent people on both sides who should be talking to one another reasonably and finding common ground rather than seeking divisiveness.

The case is often made. Where I see a difference is that climate-science denial and various dumb economic ideas are mainstream on the right in a way that Trigglypuff or whatever is not on the left. And intelligent people on both sides is a given, but one side appealing more to intelligent people is, too. See the point about the Indians and Angels. Also, I don't think common ground is really possible on the big issues.

Look at healthcare. Should the gov't do more to ensure its affordability or less? There's no middle ground there. Even keeping things the same isn't on the table and isn't acceptable to either side. It's not a matter of intelligence (though I think a careful look at the arguments shows that the popular reasons given by the right are bunk); it's a matter of values. Some people think it is immoral to tax wealthy people more to ensure that everyone has access to care and some think that it's immoral not to. My position on this forum is mostly that we should get the facts right first and then argue (meaning the argument should be "is it good or not good to redistribute downward to ensure that everyone can get care?" rather than having to go through mountains of bullshit), but that still enrages many people.

I will agree that plenty of people are comfortable willing to tow the party line. And sure, plenty of people do it. So I was discussing the travel ban recently with my wife in mixed company. One of her friends is a smart person (she's getting her PhD from UNC in economics) who identifies herself as a member of the political left. She is someone who many of this forum would call a SJW, just to paint a simple word picture. She proceeded to argue that Somalia shouldn't be on the list. So we talked about how it was basically a failed state, had high rates of crime and terrorism, that the government that Somalia did have wasn't friendly with the US and had an interest in seeing us fail in the future, didn't have a reliable system to identify who was a criminal and who wasn't, didn't have reliable health records to determine what diseases and communicable medical issues a person might have, that Somalia had several refugees from the US return to Somalia to fight with al Shabaab and ISIS (influx of radical ideology into the US), and some others. For everything, her response was, "Well, there are other places with [insert point here] that aren't on the list, so why is this one special?" At the end, I pointed out that it wasn't just one thing, but it was all those things weighed against the potential good that could come from admitting those refugees. This hasn't been an isolated incident confined to this woman.

Sure, if everyone is on the level, there are issues that can be settled. But what about, say, immigration? The economic case against low-skill immigration is weak, and the economic case for high-skill immigration having clear benefits to the native population is overwhelming. So if someone really buys the economic case against immigration, an agreement can probably be reached, but what about people who advance those arguments not because they believe them but because they have other reasons for not wanting immigration that they prefer not to express? Can't really expect much from them other than resentment that their surface argument is trampled. People aren't going to be argued out of their emotions.

So I have a fundamentally difficult time believing that ridiculous notions are confined to one party because they aren't. I hear things all the time from people that simply aren't truth. They talk about the incredible economy under President Obama. The issue during that time, following the Recession, was that there wasn't a ton of growth, but inflation continued, and wages were repressed (in addition to higher unemployment rates that were reduced to current levels of about 4% thanks to the steady hand of Janet Yellen, although I think she could have been a little more aggressive in getting there quicker).

The economy under Obama did outperform almost the entire Western world, and inflation was extremely low (and below wage growth). And further, we could have improved much faster if we had a stronger monetary and fiscal policy response, and Congressional obstructionism was a big reason that it was muted on the fiscal side (and irrational fear of inflation hurt the monetary response). But anyway, ridiculous notions pop up everywhere but are shot down on the left because the left doesn't have an alternative bullshit media structure.

Listen Jack, I respect the fact that you're a smart guy. That's why I'm talking to you. There are other posters on the forum that I simply don't engage because I think it's a total waste of time.

Ditto to both points.

I just want us to be honest here and understand that there are stupid people and smart people everywhere, and I want us to agree that holding one particular ideology does not give you a higher intellectual ceiling than holding another. If we can agree there, that will be a success.

Again, see the baseball example. As written, this is true.

We'll have to agree to disagree there. I don't see how someone can reasonably believe that modern media has not had a preference for Democratic candidates.

I can agree to disagree with that.

I do not agree with the President's view on this. And it seems that most of the people that do agree with him do not share his ideological viewpoints on most issues.

Sure, but if Clinton had come out as an anti-vaxxer, she would have been crucified in the media for it and rightly lost huge amounts of support and the nomination if it were at the same point in the campaign.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,869
Messages
55,313,311
Members
174,733
Latest member
Bob Gnuheart
Back
Top