Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm often amazed at the lack of curiosity some people have. Also aware, that's maybe bordering on just another way of calling people ignorant...

Many people are also strongly inclined to believe things simply because they would like those things to be true, and are strongly disinclined to seek anything that would show them that those things are not true.

(That also has the danger of sounding patronising, but I'd say it's something we all have an inclination towards, but some are more aware of that and will seek to counter it than others.)

That still leaves the puzzle as to why people would want these particular things to be true, though.

 

[Yossarian]

I've argued - reasonably respectfully - with a number of Ohio Trump supporters, a friend is from there and his high school friends tend to respond robustly to his anti-Trump posts on Facebook - wasn't especially enlightening, their main arguments revolved around Fox reports that aren't true, and an insistence that anybody who disagrees with them is gay

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've argued - reasonably respectfully - with a number of Ohio Trump supporters, a friend is from there and his high school friends tend to respond robustly to his anti-Trump posts on Facebook - wasn't especially enlightening, their main arguments revolved around Fox reports that aren't true, and an insistence that anybody who disagrees with them is gay

Fucking hell. Are they 12???

 

[kabbes]

The division is not really about whether people are stupid or evil. It’s more fundamental than that. The question is about whether people have have an essential individual nature that is theirs alone and can’t be changed or whether they are indivisible from their cultural-historical context. It’s about whether knowledge exists separately from the people trying to access and use it or whether knowledge is mediated by the tools used to make sense of that knowledge. Because the former implies you need to change the context and culture in order to change how people make sense of their world, whereas the latter implies each individual freely chooses their own path in isolation. Is the problem located in the system or in the individual? And that brings us back to the Youngstown article. That article discusses motivations for voting for Trump that are not about individuals choosing what they agree with or think is best for them personally. It’s talking about system-based responses. That’s why I’m encouraging people to try restating it until they’ve really empathised with it.

 

[Boo Radley75]

I remember last time Trump was in and, on another forum I was on, I was laughing about his "drinking bleach to cure covid" comment. There was a sweet, old American lady on there who I had personally got on with very well for ages. When she was seriously ill we had many private conversations which she said helped her get through her fears. Anyway, she turned into a raging arsehole about that and even started accusing me of brainwashing my daughter to support terrorism. Was very shocking and had to cut all contact with her after that. Just find the whole Trump thing a cult.

 

[Rompipalle]

I remember last time Trump was in and, on another forum I was on, I was laughing about his "drinking bleach to cure covid" comment. There was a sweet, old American lady on there who I had personally got on with very well for ages. When she was seriously ill we had many private conversations which she said helped her get through her fears. Anyway, she turned into a raging arsehole about that and even started accusing me of brainwashing my daughter to support terrorism. Was very shocking and had to cut all contact with her after that. Just find the whole Trump thing a cult.

Is that last sentence a typo?

 

[tim]

Yes, I vary, shall we say. It is infuriating when obviously disingenuous bullshitters blame everything on the forrins and anyone goes along with them, let alone 70-odd million people in a single country. And yeah, lots of these people blaming the forrins are richer than me. It's not about me looking down on them. I'm looking across or up at them shaking my fist/head (depending on the mood).

Why use the word "forrins" to mock the way you perceive people speak if you don't look down on them?

 

[brogdale]

The division is not really about whether people are stupid or evil. It’s more fundamental than that. The question is about whether people have have an essential individual nature that is theirs alone and can’t be changed or whether they are indivisible from their cultural-historical context. It’s about whether knowledge exists separately from the people trying to access and use it or whether knowledge is mediated by the tools used to make sense of that knowledge. Because the former implies you need to change the context and culture in order to change how people make sense of their world, whereas the latter implies each individual freely chooses their own path in isolation. Is the problem located in the system or in the individual? And that brings us back to the Youngstown article. That article discusses motivations for voting for Trump that are not about individuals choosing what they agree with or think is best for them personally. It’s talking about system-based responses. That’s why I’m encouraging people to try restating it until they’ve really empathised with it.

Yes, to an extent, some of the people interviewed in Gumbel's piece are talking about the system-based outcomes they hope will follow from their votes for Trump, but not surprisingly they all tend to be based on their own personal experience (knowledge) of declining job security, wages, community cohesion, local economy and general living standards. They want things "shaken up" because under the alternating 2 party 'democracy' their standards of living had collapsed. On matters of lived experience they are, of course, far from stupid and are 'high-information' voters with many able to remember the better times or hear about them from their elders.

However, like many of those that end up voting for right-wing populists, when it comes to understanding the system they want changed or the prospects of achieving that by voting for another neoliberal outfit, they could be considered somewhat naive and have been described as 'low-information' or 'mis-information voters'. I've previously had long discussions on here about the appropriateness of the term 'low-information voter' and decided against using it as it can easily be seen as a derogatory term for working class voters making 'the wrong" electoral choices. That said, when it comes to the relationship between the superstructure and the (neoliberal) base, how many of those voting could really claim to be 'high-information voters'? Coming from a working class family and community I have direct experience of the desperation that drives voters into the hands of the populists, so I do understand the drivers examined in the Gumbel piece. But, all the same, the very act of voting for the right-wing populist in the hope of change displays a depressing political illiteracy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why use the word "forrins" to mock the way you perceive people speak if you don't look down on them?

I despise anti immigrant scapegoating. And I do think less of people who fall for it, yes.

 

[emanymton]

I despise anti immigrant scapegoating. And I do think less of people who fall for it, yes.

Anyone who says they don't feel superior to them in some way is lieing, possibly to themselves.

 

[Santino]

How many anti-Trump people insist on believing that he used the word 'bigly' when it's pretty clear he never did?

 

[emanymton]

How many anti-Trump people insist on believing that he used the word 'bigly' when it's pretty clear he never did?

No idea I've never heard that.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyone who says they don't feel superior to them in some way is lieing, possibly to themselves.

If someone comes on here and starts banging on about stopping the boats, how we're a soft touch and the Rwanda plan was right, etc, I guarantee that large numbers of posters will be very rude to them.

 

[Ax^]

Not sure it's about defending Trump voters rather than the limited utility of calling them stupid. Cards on table, I flit between here and Facebook some nights and on there, do trall the news feed and call perfect strangers morons and the like. Because I find it mildly cathartic and it's that type of arena. There's no real discussion. Not big and not clever, but some times you just want to chuck a brick.

I've got no time for the patronising, let's hold hands and try to understand the misguided masses thing. I don't think anyone's doing that here but there was a element of that during the Brexit aftermarth in the wider world, media. A lot of the Trump voters, as with Brexit, are far more better off than I economically, social Capital wise anyway.

Here, when it's good, is somewhere to look at the motivations, drivers, context of why people are drawn to political tendancies. How societal, economic forces are playing out and being exploited or potential fruitful lines of defence / argument. My only objection to the volume of look at these stupids, Trump is a rotter, type posts are it's just a bit tedious and doesn't leave us learning much. Some might see that as wanky debate club stuff. I see it as useful to at least martial your own thoughts and come to an understanding where you are philosophically speaking.

the scary part is plenty of people within the country would accept a leader who blamed everything on the forrins if he promised to lower the price of just like the states..

it how what left of the Tory party or reform will fight the next election

 

[Rompipalle]

How many anti-Trump people insist on believing that he used the word 'bigly' when it's pretty clear he never did?

Probably just because it was mildly amusing to interpret his words as such. In fact "bigly" is apparently an archaic word but Trump did not know that. He was actually saying "big league" but that is a phrase with which many non-Americans may not be familiar so it was heard as "bigly".

He does, however, have something of a track record for mispronunciation and malapropism... as well as making up words of his own.

 

[Santino]

Probably just because it was mildly amusing to interpret his words as such. In fact "bigly" is apparently an archaic word but Trump did not know that. He was actually saying "big league" but that is a phrase with which many non-Americans may not be familiar so it was heard as "bigly".

He does, however, have something of a track record for mispronunciation and malapropism... as well as making up words of his own.

So, in the interests of the greater good, this kind of falsehood is actually ok. And people don't really believe it, even though their behaviour gives you every reason to think they do.

 

[Rompipalle]

So, in the interests of the greater good, this kind of falsehood is actually ok. And people don't really believe it, even though their behaviour gives you every reason to think they do.

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of people genuinely thought that is what he said and are unaware that it has been established what he actually did say.

It's not some huge conspiracy - just that some people are possibly still unaware of the reality.

The other thing is that it has now become something of a standing joke that whenever Trump makes one of his famous overblown, boastful comments, people affix the adverb "bigly" just for mischief. There's nothing sinister about it but he does have a tendency to say some really ridiculous things in all seriousness.

 

[emanymton]

So, in the interests of the greater good, this kind of falsehood is actually ok. And people don't really believe it, even though their behaviour gives you every reason to think they do.

Of the things that people who oppose Trump belive that are wrong this is pretty low down the list of ones to worry about.

 

[Santino]

Of the things that people oppose Trump belive that are wrong this is pretty low down the list of ones to worry about.

Yes yes, I realise that OUR cognitive biases are nothing to worry about.

 

[emanymton]

Yes yes, I realise that OUR cognitive biases and nothing to worry about.

Yes that's exactly what I said.

 

[emanymton]

Or maybe I think the number of people who belive he said he would end elections is more of an issue than people making fun of him because they think (or pretend) he used a silly word.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, in the interests of the greater good, this kind of falsehood is actually ok. And people don't really believe it, even though their behaviour gives you every reason to think they do.

That kind of falsehood doesn't matter either way. It has no real-world consequences.

Believing that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump despite the lack of any evidence, and plenty of evidence that Trump himself was trying to steal it, would be an example of a consequential falsehood. By all accounts tens of millions of people believe that one.

It's not like there is a shortage of far madder stuff that Trump really did say, like they're eating the cats.

 

[Boo Radley75]

How many anti-Trump people insist on believing that he used the word 'bigly' when it's pretty clear he never did?

Yep, you're right. He said covfefe, which makes much more sense.

 

[BigMoaner]

edited cos all been said before

 

[emanymton]

Yep, you're right. He said covfefe, which makes much more sense.

It's a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[BigMoaner]

The division is not really about whether people are stupid or evil. It’s more fundamental than that. The question is about whether people have have an essential individual nature that is theirs alone and can’t be changed or whether they are indivisible from their cultural-historical context. It’s about whether knowledge exists separately from the people trying to access and use it or whether knowledge is mediated by the tools used to make sense of that knowledge. Because the former implies you need to change the context and culture in order to change how people make sense of their world, whereas the latter implies each individual freely chooses their own path in isolation. Is the problem located in the system or in the individual? And that brings us back to the Youngstown article. That article discusses motivations for voting for Trump that are not about individuals choosing what they agree with or think is best for them personally. It’s talking about system-based responses. That’s why I’m encouraging people to try restating it until they’ve really empathised with it.

it has to be both - the acting subject, and the system itself. the grammer of thought creates the subject, creates the "I". The self doesn't create thought, thought creates the self. The I pronoun is nothing other than a data point in the constant stream of thought, which is a stream outside of any subjective "will" - it happens on its own. Heidegger - writing one of the most profoudn sentances in human history in my view - put it this way: "we don't come to thought, thought comes to us". That sentance is also an easy door way to the "spiritual" if you ask me, but that's a whole other matter. so i don't think that grammatical form "I" can be eradicated from thought, so we cannot help but see individuals when we see ourselves and other humans, but it's just another useful delusion, probably to keep us surviving as a species. so it's both, isn't it - the individual acting and the system. both one and the same thing, either can change at one time, affecting the other.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

This is where the approach that 'we have our reality and you have your reality' doesn't really work. If one side of that reality is empirically, provably wrong about something, there isn't an equivalence between the two positions.

Yes, this is where left academic po-mo crap and Trumpist ‘alternative facts’ churn out variations of the same nonsense - “there is no truth, only power”.

 

[kabbes]

it has to be both - the acting subject, and the system itself. the grammer of thought creates the subject, creates the "I". The self doesn't create thought, thought creates the self. The I pronoun is nothing other than a data point in the constant stream of thought, which is a stream outside of any subjective "will" - it happens on its own. Heidegger - writing one of the most profoudn sentances in human history in my view - put it this way: "we don't come to thought, thought comes to us". That sentance is also an easy door way to the "spiritual" if you ask me, but that's a whole other matter. so i don't think that grammatical form "I" can be eradicated from thought, so we cannot help but see individuals when we see ourselves and other humans, but it's just another useful delusion, probably to keep us surviving as a species. so it's both, isn't it - the individual acting and the system. both one and the same thing, either can change at one time, affecting the other.

I think that the problem with this, BM, is that you fall into a content/process duality, which takes you back to the same mind/body dualism that infects so much modern psychology. You have to look at the formation of the dispositions deriving from the habitus in terms of an inward embodiment of the field, which then drives behaviour that becomes collectivised, normalised and re-outwardly embodied as symbolic capital that restructures the field. So there is no upstream or downstream — the self and the context are one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think that the problem with this, BM, is that you fall into a content/process duality, which takes you back to the same mind/body dualism that infects so much modern psychology. You have to look at the formation of the dispositions deriving from the habitus in terms of an inward embodiment of the field, which then drives behaviour that becomes collectivised, normalised and re-outwardly embodied as symbolic capital that restructures the field. So there is no upstream or downstream — the self and the context are one.

Thing is that we all effectively operate according to a heuristic that is inherently dualistic, namely one that talks of agents with free will.

Even if we know deep down that the agents are constructions and free will is a bad concept, we all do it. As Daniel Dennett pointed out, there isn't really any other way to operate. Dennett was a monist in theory, but a dualist in everyday practice. Is anyone a monist in everyday practice? It's hard. Maybe a hardcore Buddhist monk?

 

[BigMoaner]

I think that the problem with this, BM, is that you . So there is no upstream or downstream — the self and the context are one.

I agree, but within that context is the appearance of individual self’s deciding. Another way of putting it is I don’t really believe in any dualities at all, just the appearance of such in our sense perception including conciousness. The subject and object are the same thing.