Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[kabbes]

It's perhaps a bit different, but the word rational also dissolves when you look at the reality of people's lives, when you try and think about things from their perspective and their experiences. We all think things and do things on the basis of who we are, our experiences and the influences brought to bear on us. When it comes to things like voting, it is rarely irrational, there is always a reason or, perhaps, a rationale. Calling people stupid or irrational means you don't have to engage with them, who they are and what is going on in their life. Don't even have to think about the wider political economy. To be honest, I think that using 'stupid' as a reason to not engage with people or think about their lives has been going on on this thread. I don't say that (purely ) to provoke a further round of Urban's 'stupid war', I think it's an important point to make in itself.

In fact it seems feckin' obvious. When you get something like Brexit or the Dems failure to win even against someone like Trump, something is worthy of further thought. Something about the liberal order and the effects of neoliberalism and austerity. Stupid doesn't take you there.

Taking this further, rationality is a concept from the study of logic, which is itself an offshoot of epistemology. So we can analyse rationality using a lot of tools. Rationality refers to the idea that there are reasons for things consistent with the axioms underlying a particular system of logic.

When people refer to “rational”, though, they generally don’t specify their axioms. And normally, they implicitly mean economic logic, which are based on the set-theoretic axioms of choice. However, that is just one way of ordering data — one in which you can commensurate all goods as a common dominator in order to compare baskets of goods against each other.

There are three other ways of ordering data, which are mutually incomparable — nominal, ordinal and interval. These produce three other types of rationality. Nominal is where you can’t quantify and therefore no counting (or exchange) is possible. We generally think this way about bodily autonomy. Ordinal is where you can rank but not track items. This produces hierarchy. And interval allows us to track items like-for-like but not against each other. This produces the rationality of gift giving and favours for favours

If you try to use one rationality where another has cultural acceptance, you get confusion, anger and punishment. So trying to buy a body part with money is normally seen as morally wrong. Similarly, you don’t pay your friend for making you a meal. You can’t declare a hierarchy amongst your friends.

One of the tricks capitalism pulls is to privilege economic rationality over all other forms. But don’t fall for it. Other systems of logic are also valid! And depending on the context, maybe much more valid.

 

[maomao]

They are murderers

Before some internet bore pops up with the dictionary definition of murder it's probably best to point out that intelligent human beings make use of figurative language to express their opinions and that's fine.

 

[ska invita]

weirdest thread on urban

 

[Derek S-H]

My experience in the UK is that people know they are being failed and the current system is not working. I was radicalised as a child to blame immigrants and particularly Muslims for the problems in my local area. Violence against them promoted. I might have voted Farage. Might have been on the other side of the protest lines in August. I saw the problems, I just didn't see the root causes at that time and the other solutions had not yet cut through to me. I suspect many would label me as stupid then, and I guess that I was less stupid once I came around to another way of thinking. This stuff goes deep and it's not about intelligence imo.

So how did you get from there to here?

If it's not stupidity to believe a liar like Trump, Bozo and Nige, then what is it? Is critical thinking harder work than just believing what you're told, so voters are lazy?

Or are people being radicalised by the Right to not only see problems, but to believe in the "solutions" they offer?

I don't blame anybody for voting for liars, charlatans and grifters, not when certain messages are being disseminated and amplified by the likes of Musk and Zuckerberg. Notwithstanding the quality of people's lives, it is blatantly clear that they have their own agenda and zero interest in following through with their promises. Our lives got worse under the Tories; I have very little faith that Trump offers any positive solutions to his working class supporters.

 

[Santino]

There are three other ways of ordering data, which are mutually incomparable — nominal, ordinal and interval. These produce three other types of rationality. Nominal is where you can’t quantify and therefore no counting (or exchange) is possible. We generally think this way about bodily autonomy. Ordinal is where you can rank but not track items. This produces hierarchy. And interval allows us to track items like-for-like but not against each other. This produces the rationality of gift giving and favours for favours

If you try to use one rationality where another has cultural acceptance, you get confusion, anger and punishment. So trying to buy a body part with money is normally seen as morally wrong. Similarly, you don’t pay your friend for making you a meal. You can’t declare a hierarchy amongst your friends.

Is there a readable book that talks about this?

 

[prunus]

Before some internet bore pops up with the dictionary definition of murder it's probably best to point out that intelligent human beings make use of figurative language to express their opinions and that's fine.

I would say this very thread shows clearly that it is not always fine, and is often in fact very destructive, or at the very least inimicable to useful debate, especially when said figurative language is highly emotive.

 

[kabbes]

Is there a readable book that talks about this?

I don’t know about a readable book, but the original paper in which Fiske introduces the theory and the subsequent one in which he and a colleague use it to talk about taboo trade-offs are both very readable as these things go.

I think you can access the original 1992 paper without any academic login:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan-Fiske/publication/21700623_The_four_elementary_forms_of_sociality_Framework_for_a_unified_theory_of_social_relations/links/0046351a3070f19d78000000/The-four-elementary-forms-of-sociality-Framework-for-a-unified-theory-of-social-relations.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

I’ll attach the 1997 paper on taboo trade-offs. There is also a 2022 paper that I won’t attach (because it is less readable) that uses the theory to talk about incentive schemes, which is a really interesting use of the theory. It addresses why economic incentives can not just fail but completely backfire if they belong to the wrong relational mode.

 

[maomao]

I would say this very thread shows clearly that it is not always fine, and is often in fact very destructive, or at the very least inimicable to useful debate, especially when said figurative language is highly emotive.

Where?

 

[Petcha]

weirdest thread on urban

It did seem to take quite a bizarre turn there. Quite funny though.

 

[Santino]

I don’t know about a readable book, but the original paper in which Fiske introduces the theory and the subsequent one in which he and a colleague use it to talk about taboo trade-offs are both very readable as these things go.

I think you can access the original 1992 paper without any academic login:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alan-Fiske/publication/21700623_The_four_elementary_forms_of_sociality_Framework_for_a_unified_theory_of_social_relations/links/0046351a3070f19d78000000/The-four-elementary-forms-of-sociality-Framework-for-a-unified-theory-of-social-relations.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

I’ll attach the 1997 paper on taboo trade-offs. There is also a 2022 paper that I won’t attach (because it is less readable) that uses the theory to talk about incentive schemes, which is a really interesting use of the theory. It addresses why economic incentives can not just fail but completely backfire if they belong to the wrong relational mode.

I'm going to need this to be packaged up in a nice white-covered paperback shelved in the 'Smart Thinking' section of Waterstones, with a vaguely amusing title and a picture of a head on it.

 

[ska invita]

It did seem to take quite a bizarre turn there. Quite funny though.

Im looking forward to the inauguration and Trump getting into power just so this thread can get back on track

 

[klang]

So was Abu Hamza.

So was Abu Hamza.

Plus the Dems played their part in radicalising people like Hamza. And Duckworth.

 

[emanymton]

Whenever anyone says Duckworth, all I can think of is Jack Duckworth.

 

[MrsArcanum]

All the questioning over the intelligence or lack thereof of Cheeto voters matters little, the world wide consequences will be interesting to say the least.

One curse I wish we were not living under.

 

[Serge Forward]

Whenever anyone says Duckworth, all I can think of is Jack Duckworth.

Same. The words "Flamin' 'eck, Vera" immediately go through my mind.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

So how did you get from there to here?

If it's not stupidity to believe a liar like Trump, Bozo and Nige, then what is it? Is critical thinking harder work than just believing what you're told, so voters are lazy?

Or are people being radicalised by the Right to not only see problems, but to believe in the "solutions" they offer?

I don't blame anybody for voting for liars, charlatans and grifters, not when certain messages are being disseminated and amplified by the likes of Musk and Zuckerberg. Notwithstanding the quality of people's lives, it is blatantly clear that they have their own agenda and zero interest in following through with their promises. Our lives got worse under the Tories; I have very little faith that Trump offers any positive solutions to his working class supporters.

And they won't get better under Keith or the other lot, ehrm, Lib Dems. So that leaves the grifters who are telling you they understand your issues and they will do something about it. Even if people know deep down that they won't do anything for them, they know as a solid fact that the Tories and Labour will continue to make their lives worse. What's left for folk?

Seems the problem started with Thatcher/Reagen; they started the trend that it was OK for the rich to stop throwing even their crumbs down, that it was OK to hoard every last penny. 1000 years of Rich cunts avoiding revolution in the UK by carefully balancing how much they needed to offer up, gone in a greed-fuelled decade and the rich haven't stopped to look back.

Maybe.

 

[Sweet FA]

I'm going to need this to be packaged up in a nice white-covered paperback shelved in the 'Smart Thinking' section of Waterstones, with a vaguely amusing title and a picture of a head on it.

Don't look sad kabbes - write the book.

C&P from your urban posts plus a few wry quotes; mixed with some long words and a sprinkle of existential fear and wtf. A bit of bants with Santino as your wide-eyed sidekick and Fiske's your uncle: Amazon self-publishing sensation.

(Picked up by a major publisher; all the big chat shows; tied into a huge 3 book deal; Santino sues for his share; courtroom scenes; shocking revelations; fade back into obscurity; Netflix 3 part doc in 10 years.)

 

[emanymton]

Same. The words "Flamin' 'eck, Vera" immediately go through my mind.

Sellotape on glasses for me. I thought of making a joke about that yesterday but thought it might be too niche.

 

[story]

Are the last three days of this thread indicative of the last three months?

Is there any point me going back to look for anything?

 

[Santino]

Flamin' Nora, Australia have to score 220 runs in 18 overs without losing more than 5 wickets, our Terry.

 

[Coffeecup]

Ha, Tammy Duckworth just tore him a new backside. Well done Senator. The quality of representatives is very telling. Mullin and Tuberville are just maga clowns, without any political integrity. I'm very impressed with the Dems, who are actually doing their jobs, It's good to see some of the women tear him a new one over his misogyny too. It sounds as if Duckworth is a veteran, so his comments have not gone down well.

Some highlights from earlier, although refusing Reed was not a highlight, but very telling. Just some snippets from Rupar of a few seconds long, so I haven't spoilered.

Redeemed by Our Lord Jesus Christ. So he redeemed himself?

Trump choosing loyal supporters who haven’t got any experience of politics etc, will have chaos. It’s a recipe for disaster and we’ll all be affected.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Taking this further, rationality is a concept from the study of logic, which is itself an offshoot of epistemology. So we can analyse rationality using a lot of tools. Rationality refers to the idea that there are reasons for things consistent with the axioms underlying a particular system of logic.

When people refer to “rational”, though, they generally don’t specify their axioms. And normally, they implicitly mean economic logic, which are based on the set-theoretic axioms of choice. However, that is just one way of ordering data — one in which you can commensurate all goods as a common dominator in order to compare baskets of goods against each other.

There are three other ways of ordering data, which are mutually incomparable — nominal, ordinal and interval. These produce three other types of rationality. Nominal is where you can’t quantify and therefore no counting (or exchange) is possible. We generally think this way about bodily autonomy. Ordinal is where you can rank but not track items. This produces hierarchy. And interval allows us to track items like-for-like but not against each other. This produces the rationality of gift giving and favours for favours

If you try to use one rationality where another has cultural acceptance, you get confusion, anger and punishment. So trying to buy a body part with money is normally seen as morally wrong. Similarly, you don’t pay your friend for making you a meal. You can’t declare a hierarchy amongst your friends.

One of the tricks capitalism pulls is to privilege economic rationality over all other forms. But don’t fall for it. Other systems of logic are also valid! And depending on the context, maybe much more valid.

I agree that 'economic rationality' is often utilised by neo-classical economists to obscure the reality that people have different interests and normative positions concerning the economy.

At the same time, I think it's pretty clear that some beliefs are objectively more rational than others. It is irrational - objectively irrational - to believe many of the things Trump and his supporters push - for example that anthropogenic climate change is made up, that Obama is not a US citizen, that the 2020 election was 'stolen' by Biden, that wind turbines cause cancer etc. To the extent that Trump voters believed these things (and to be clear I'm not saying they all did), they held irrational beliefs.

 

[smokedout]

I agree that 'economic rationality' is often utilised by neo-classical economists to obscure the reality that people have different interests and normative positions concerning the economy.

At the same time, I think it's pretty clear that some beliefs are objectively more rational than others. It is irrational - objectively irrational - to believe many of the things Trump and his supporters push - for example that anthropogenic climate change is made up, that Obama is not a US citizen, that the 2020 election was 'stolen' by Biden, that wind turbines cause cancer etc. To the extent that Trump voters believed these things (and to be clear I'm not saying they all did), they held irrational beliefs.

You could equally add that it's irrational to believe in a supernatural religion, or astrology, or homeopathy, or any kind of superstition or the many many other things that people from all political persuasions routinely believe. There will also no doubt be many non-Trump voters who believe RFK's assassination was a cover up, the moon landings were fake, or that the government is covering up evidence of aliens. So the question is are Trump voters uniquely irrational, or irrational in some special way that differs from the irrationality that most people succomb to in some ways. And does this mean they are stupid?

 

[Wilf]

weirdest thread on urban

A bold claim.

 

[Wilf]

Taking this further, rationality is a concept from the study of logic, which is itself an offshoot of epistemology. So we can analyse rationality using a lot of tools. Rationality refers to the idea that there are reasons for things consistent with the axioms underlying a particular system of logic.

When people refer to “rational”, though, they generally don’t specify their axioms. And normally, they implicitly mean economic logic, which are based on the set-theoretic axioms of choice. However, that is just one way of ordering data — one in which you can commensurate all goods as a common dominator in order to compare baskets of goods against each other.

There are three other ways of ordering data, which are mutually incomparable — nominal, ordinal and interval. These produce three other types of rationality. Nominal is where you can’t quantify and therefore no counting (or exchange) is possible. We generally think this way about bodily autonomy. Ordinal is where you can rank but not track items. This produces hierarchy. And interval allows us to track items like-for-like but not against each other. This produces the rationality of gift giving and favours for favours

If you try to use one rationality where another has cultural acceptance, you get confusion, anger and punishment. So trying to buy a body part with money is normally seen as morally wrong. Similarly, you don’t pay your friend for making you a meal. You can’t declare a hierarchy amongst your friends.

One of the tricks capitalism pulls is to privilege economic rationality over all other forms. But don’t fall for it. Other systems of logic are also valid! And depending on the context, maybe much more valid.

What you say, particularly given this thread, brings to mind Down's Economic Theory of Democracy and public choice theory more generally.

 

[Wilf]

Whenever anyone says Duckworth, all I can think of is Jack Duckworth.

My first thought was to go down the Jack and Vera route, but thought it wouldn't be respectful, given that she is a decorated war veteran. So I went for Abu Hamza instead.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

You could equally add that it's irrational to believe in a supernatural religion, or astrology, or homeopathy, or any kind of superstition or the many many other things that people from all political persuasions routinely believe. There will also no doubt be many non-Trump voters who believe RFK's assassination was a cover up, the moon landings were fake, or that the government is covering up evidence of aliens. So the question is are Trump voters uniquely irrational, or irrational in some special way that differs from the irrationality that most people succomb to in some ways. And does this mean they are stupid?

Obviously not only Trump voters have irrational beliefs, we all do in varying degrees. Whether Trump voters are more irrational than the general population is an empirical question, but I think we can safely say that the industrial strength bullshit that Trump churns out on a daily basis is pretty much amongst the most irrational shit to believe.

 

[smokedout]

Obviously not only Trump voters have irrational beliefs, we all do in varying degrees. Whether Trump voters are more irrational than the general population is an empirical question, but I think we can safely say that the industrial strength bullshit that Trump churns out on a daily basis is pretty much amongst the most irrational shit to believe.

Which is more irrational though, to believe someone saying that climate change is a hoax, or has been over-stated or whatever, based on a deep suspcions of institutions generally. Or to be certain that climate change is a imminent and deadly threat to all human life on earth and then to vote for a politician, like Harris, that was unlikely to do anything meaningful about it. Both positions are deeply irrational. Isn't that the problem? That there is no rationality on either side. It may not be rational to support or believe Trump, but neither is it rational to believe that Harris, or Starmer, or the centre left generally has any solutions to the problems both the planet and individuals face.

And if you're a white, non-migrant, straight, cis man, just about surviving on a below average income in a precarious industry, then is voting for Trump irrational given he pledged to cut taxes and introduce tariffs to protect your industry? It may be short sighted, it's certainly self-centered, but is it anymore more irrational than voting for someone who you don't feel is offering you anything at all, just more of the same?

 

[prunus]

Obviously not only Trump voters have irrational beliefs, we all do in varying degrees. Whether Trump voters are more irrational than the general population is an empirical question, but I think we can safely say that the industrial strength bullshit that Trump churns out on a daily basis is pretty much amongst the most irrational shit to believe.

If I’m understanding the picture painted by articles such as the one linked above aright, Trump’s supporters don’t believe his bullshit, they just don’t care about it, and do believe (not unfairly) that he will break things, which they see as desirable.

This (seeing destruction as desirable) might not be ‘rational’, in that usually breaking societal institutions makes things generally worse rather than better (for the vast majority), however as an emotional reaction I must recognise that I recognise it - there have been times and situations in my life where my strong instinct has been ‘fuck it let’s depth-charge the lot’ rather than trying for incremental improvements. Usually when it looks like very hard (scary) work to try to make those improvements.

I may have totally misunderstood of course, please do enlighten/correct, but this is as adjacent to empathy for trump supporters (excluding the ones who actually are racist misogynistic shits, of which there are plenty I’m sure) that I can get at the moment.

 

[Wilf]

Obviously not only Trump voters have irrational beliefs, we all do in varying degrees. Whether Trump voters are more irrational than the general population is an empirical question, but I think we can safely say that the industrial strength bullshit that Trump churns out on a daily basis is pretty much amongst the most irrational shit to believe.

I suspect it is true that some Trump voters inhabit a Venn diagram of toxic shit, conspiracies and things that are factually incorrect. I just don't think it best to analyse this as 'he says stupid stuff and they believe stupid stuff'. More it's a feature of the times, a consequence of the consensus breaking down in all its forms. Its about people losing their trust in politicians and the lie that they are even minimally acting on their behalf, only to encounter a new and more toxic politician. There are also a large number of people who never did that well when things were 'good', more recently in the apparently good years of the Biden administration. In a sense, this was always going to happen.