If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 18, 2023, 02:11 PM
Throughout all of this you seem to be dancing around the claim that Republican strategists know exactly what they're doing when they lie to Republican voters.
Do Republican strategists know that their voter base is highly morally flexible, and do they consistently lie to their voter base about intentions and expected outcomes of proposed legislation?
Every lie a good strategist tells is one the base wants to hear.
Strategists aren’t the scapegoat, they’re the mirror.
Less poetically: the base are what they are of their own accord, and all responsibility for being so falls to them. The strategists didn’t make them that way.
This box is on a parade route, so I’m wondering if that’s why it got the upgrade. It normally gets taped off for parades.
Picked something up at my local Post Office, and glanced at the blue box outside. It now has the same slot pictured above. No parades around here lately, so I assume it's being rolled out system-wide.
My instincts told me it was a system-wide thing, but the parade route may have been what gave that particular box an earlier position on the refit list.
Has the Republican base gotten nothing from Republican strategy?
Good question. I guess the answer would be “it depends.”
One could say the overturning of Roe is a big win for the base, or at least the evangelical wing of the base. It could be argued, though, that a win for any portion of the base is celebrated as a win for all of the base. Sort of that where-we-go-one-we-go-all q-anon mantra.
Texas and Florida seem to be competing with each other to become the home of “winning.”
A non-functioning Congress is certainly seen as a win by the “drown it in the bathwater” part of the base. Johnson as speaker is seen as a win for the evangelical wing.
I think, though, the biggest “win” for the base has simply been the psychological comfort that comes from the party’s leaders voicing out loud all the bigotry the base has had to hold inside for so long. The feeling that it’s okay now to be a loud, angry white man/woman in public. It’s akin to finally being vindicated for thinking terrible shit about everyone else for so long. I mean, Trump is out there now openly parroting fucking Hitler in his rhetoric and the crowds are utterly loving it.
I always get the sense, though, that the “wins” are only seen as wins until they affect them personally. Then they have an “oh, shit” moment.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 19, 2023, 09:28 AM
Originally Posted by subego
Every lie a good strategist tells is one the base wants to hear.
Strategists aren’t the scapegoat, they’re the mirror.
I chewed on this. It's bullshit.
Republican strategists, think tanks, and news outlets have crafted an entirely different reality that most Republican voters now live in. The people that did this can't just shrug their shoulders and say, "Whoopsie, guess that's what those idiots wanted to hear."
The entire culture war isn't just what someone wanted to hear, it's specifically-crafted narratives fed to people designed to cause controversy and distract Republicans from the fact that their livelihood is being stripped away by Republican policies. It's everything from misreporting actual events, to teaching people ways to quickly dismiss opposing viewpoints before considering them, to outright made up fake news. The end result is that you are not telling them what they want to hear, but you've primed them to want to hear what you want to tell them.
Republican strategists, think tanks, and news outlets have crafted an entirely different reality that most Republican voters now live in.
I stated earlier situational morals are a defining characteristic of conservatism.
I’m conservative. This applies to me.
The overwhelming majority of the time I do not believe this about myself. I am deluded about it.
In other words I inherently live in an entirely different reality.
This is not to dismiss the influence a strategist can hold over me because of it, but they’re the symptom, not the cause. I’m the cause. The cause is what I see as most important to address, even though the strategists presumably rate as more harmful actors then myself.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 19, 2023, 05:20 PM
Originally Posted by subego
This is not to dismiss the influence a strategist can hold over me because of it, but they’re the symptom, not the cause. I’m the cause. The cause is what I see as most important to address, even though the strategists presumably rate as more harmful actors then myself.
The strategists drive what is considered important to address, and the strategists specifically work against any route that would lead the cause being addressed (attacks on teachers, education, science, personal growth, etc.).
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 20, 2023, 09:13 AM
And you believe the moral deficit is an inherent, unavoidable facet of some part of the population from birth? And if the following were in place:
- Excellent prenatal care
- Good nutrition throughout childhood
- Healthy parenting
- Quality schooling that includes building self-awareness, empathy, and a broad knowledge of history and the world
- A clear, true picture of current events from the media
- A plethora of opportunities to achieve financial security through numerous jobs
...that there would be a 0% change in the percentage of the population suffering from a moral deficit?
(
Last edited by Laminar; Dec 20, 2023 at 11:25 AM.
)
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 20, 2023, 11:29 AM
So now we're back to whether or not the moral deficit is inherent to a person from birth or if some facet of a person's upbringing and environment can foster or affect the level of moral deficit.
I think it’s a combo of nature and nurture, and like with many such things it can be hard to pin down what causes what.
This might sound flip, but my working theory as to the biggest nurture causes in me were 80s action movies and D&D. Perhaps also some measure of rebellion.
The four things you mentioned which I was given didn’t stop it, but undoubtedly tempered it, and did so in many ways I would not trade.
Perhaps this is cynical on my part but I imagine the idealistic, hippy, Montessori teachers I had would consider my conservatism a mistake and not a victory. The mistake was not eliminating it entirely, and if given another chance, that’s what they’d endeavor to do.
If this observation is correct, is it unfair for me to judge these educators as hostile?
Perhaps like most of us, teachers are just making it through each day. Any ulterior plans may be projection - it would assume a level of coordination that working Joes probably don't have time for. I've never been a teacher, but it's got to be like herding cats. Especially the younger grades.
(
Last edited by reader50; Dec 21, 2023 at 01:25 AM.
Reason: added cat herders)
There doesn’t need to be an ulterior motive for the results to mimic one.
I don’t think there was an ulterior motive at my grade school, but because it was an idealistic, hippy, Montessori school, it selected idealistic, hippy, Montessori teachers.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 20, 2023, 03:09 PM
Originally Posted by subego
Perhaps this is cynical on my part but I imagine the idealistic, hippy, Montessori teachers I had would consider my conservatism a mistake and not a victory. The mistake was not eliminating it entirely, and if given another chance, that’s what they’d endeavor to do.
If this observation is correct, is it unfair for me to judge these educators as hostile?
I don't think that matters.
I think you probably should spend more time with real life Republicans, because I'm not sure you know what it means to continue lumping yourself in with that group.
It probably wouldn’t hurt. Exposure to the views of others is generally a good thing. Learned that in hippy school.
I lump myself in with them because there’s an undeniable moral overlap. I wouldn’t keep coming to their defense otherwise. It’s not like I give that conscious thought… it just happens.
I considered voting for Trump in 2020. Where do you lump that?
Edit: should I lump your post above in the category of intending to address my conservatism or change it? Perhaps mistakenly, it feels like the latter to me.
If it is the latter, I want to note I genuinely and honestly don’t hold that against you in any way whatsoever. I’m not challenging the intent here. My challenge is this can only be termed as “addressing” my conservatism if one believes the only way it can be addressed is to change it.
(
Last edited by subego; Dec 20, 2023 at 04:40 PM.
)
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 20, 2023, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by subego
I considered voting for Trump in 2020. Where do you lump that?
As always, it depends on the context. Was the reason rooted in reality and not culture war bullshit or lies told by Trump, the Republican strategists, or the media? Then I'm willing to consider your reasoning.
Edit: should I lump your post above in the category of intending to address my conservatism or change it? Perhaps mistakenly, it feels like the latter to me.
If it is the latter, I want to note I genuinely and honestly don’t hold that against you in any way whatsoever. I’m not challenging the intent here. My challenge is this can only be termed as “addressing” my conservatism if one believes the only way it can be addressed is to change it.
Neither - I want to understand it, and I want to understand why it's an immutable part of who you are, completely immune to change.
I guess I don't see myself that way - I'm a person that has taken in information, processed it, and come to some conclusions, which drive the actions I take and the policies I advocate for. If new information comes in, it gets processed and there's a chance that the conclusions change. This happens all of the time to me, and occasionally in a big way.
The way you portray yourself is as a slave to the default chemistry of your brain, unable to escape the conclusions that it comes to completely without your conscious intervention, and because your brain serves up these conclusions, you have to assume they're good, or at least useful.
Being flexible and informed is not the same thing as putting yourself in an irrefutable bucket A or B. The old tropes that when people without money (democrats) get money they become Republicans. Or when college kids grow up, (ie, get jobs and become responsible) they become republicans.
I don't buy either of those.
But then, I don't have any money.*
*(well not REPUBLICAN-level money.)
(
Last edited by andi*pandi; Dec 23, 2023 at 12:38 PM.
)
Had Obama offered a candidate McConnell and his party truly found suitable, for them to reject them would be dumb, right?
The answer differs depending on the timescale you are looking at. The GOP’s strategy has become more and more short-term. Obama based Obama Care on Romney Care, i. e. on a set of ideas that had backers in some conservative circles. Or Clinton’s balanced budget. If your criterion is “appearance of success”, the McConnell would indeed reject a conservative candidate. Didn’t Lindsey Graham famously exclaim he’d vote against himself should Obama nominate him.
This shift away from wanting ideas to win/be implemented into law towards wanting people to win elections is very toxic and shortsighted. People don’t even seem to notice when people are doing good jobs. Look at how Biden is judged: he managed to pass several big laws with bipartisan support (e. g. the chips act), inflation is down and his approval rating is in the gutter. In comparison, the only big piece of legislation Trump passed with a trinity backing him was a law that lowered taxes and increased the deficit. But Biden is boring. He is the husband that takes out the trash and comes home to his wife while his office mates are snorting blow and spend money on strippers. He is the pedantic accountant who wants numbers to add up.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I did not complete this to my satisfaction, but it was taking too long.
Originally Posted by Laminar
The way you portray yourself is as a slave to the default chemistry of your brain, unable to escape the conclusions that it comes to completely without your conscious intervention, and because your brain serves up these conclusions, you have to assume they're good, or at least useful.
Am I way off base?
This is an excellent summary. Replace the idea of “conclusions” with “moral principles” and you have it exactly. I’ll give you an example of a specific principle my brain chemistry serves up.
Authoritarianism is the solution to civil disorder.
You asked what was the reason I considered Trump. The answer goes no further than Trump is a natural choice for someone such as myself, who holds the above moral principle with the unshakable conviction of a religious zealot.
Whatever truth might lie inside the claim authoritarianism is the solution to civil disorder, I imagine elevating it to the status of moral principle is a proposition you find revolting. If so, how much conscious thought was required for the conclusion? How mutable do you think it is? Do you have any desire whatsoever to change it? Is it possible this response was a result of brain chemistry and not rational thought?
If it is, I can tell you with almost total assuredness it’s happening because it confers an advantage to you.
(
Last edited by subego; Dec 24, 2023 at 01:15 PM.
)
To me what’s far more terrifying is the occult nature of the underlying process which caused it. The version of me who had effectively no awareness this is how I felt is how I existed for a very long time.
I can say with certainty you have less to be terrified of from me by dint of my awareness.
Was it dumb for them to hold out for a more conservative Supreme Court appointment?
I'd argue that it reinforced a distrust and destroyed some of the basic assumptions about how democracy works (because it only does if everyone who participates has an interest in keeping it functioning), so yes.
Yes, and because keeping topics like abortion as things to get votes on for as long as you don't have to deal with the details when you actually want to cast your policy ideas into law. Abortion is “easy” if you don't actually have to deal with the messy details of life. Calling for spending cuts is easy when you are not in a position to make these a reality. They sound great, as long as you don't cut “my” favorite programs.
The SCOTUS appointment forced the GOP into the uncomfortable position that they have to deal with some of these things — and they find out how unpopular their position is.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Has the Republican base gotten nothing from Republican strategy?
Depends on how you define “winning”, no? I think a lot of Republican voters have gotten a lot out of it, a warm, fuzzy feeling perhaps, the sort that you get when your favorite sports team wins an important game or a championship. I'd argue just in terms of laws passed, I don't think they got much out of it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
To me what’s far more terrifying is the occult nature of the underlying process which caused it. The version of me who had effectively no awareness this is how I felt is how I existed for a very long time.
I can say with certainty you have less to be terrified of from me by dint of my awareness.
Are you basically saying, “It’s not scary that I hold this position, because I’m aware I hold it — what’s terrifying is how I and millions of others were manipulated into holding this position”?
So you’re actively working to change your position, and worried for those who don’t even know that they are, effectively, fascist minions?
I’m not actively trying to change my position. I don’t think I could if I wanted to, and I’m not sure I want to.
What’s terrifying is the millions who don’t know why they hold the position and attempt to justify it as anything more than it is: cognitive bias.
You have less to be terrified of me personally because I’m generally an honest person. When I am on my game I will never attempt to justify the principle in any other way.
The phrase “unwitting manipulation” strikes me as a one-sided view of cognitive bias.
I won’t deny cognitive bias operates through unwitting manipulation by one’s brain, and should always be suspect because of it, but if it wasn’t happening I wouldn’t be able to arrive at conclusions fast enough to insure my survival.
Cognitive bias a mixed bag.
Because I know the cause of the conviction is cognitive bias, if I’m on my game, my honesty bars me from claiming my conviction has any inherent value other than it’s sourced from cognitive bias.
The people to be afraid of are those who claim their convictions have value because they are sourced in something else… like truth.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 26, 2023, 08:26 AM
Originally Posted by subego
This is an excellent summary. Replace the idea of “conclusions” with “moral principles” and you have it exactly.
But this is the crux of my question - in all of your posts you talk about your biology governing these urges within you, but you don't really address the conscious choices you make at the end of the day.
I’m not actively trying to change my position. I don’t think I could if I wanted to, and I’m not sure I want to.
What’s terrifying is the millions who don’t know why they hold the position and attempt to justify it as anything more than it is: cognitive bias.
Let me double-check just to make sure I don't misread you: I took your attitude here to be that of a devil's advocate, helping others to understand where a good portion of the American population is. But the way I read your posts in this thread is that you say you really are holding these principles (moral principles, conclusions, whatever).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
But this is the crux of my question - in all of your posts you talk about your biology governing these urges within you, but you don't really address the conscious choices you make at the end of the day.
It’s hard for me to understand this question in the context of what it’s replying to.
I gave the reason I considered Trump. The choice to do this involved no conscious thought. What would you like me to address?
Let me double-check just to make sure I don't misread you: I took your attitude here to be that of a devil's advocate, helping others to understand where a good portion of the American population is. But the way I read your posts in this thread is that you say you really are holding these principles (moral principles, conclusions, whatever).
I do hold them. That’s where my insight on others who also hold them comes from.
I’d say my subconscious is entirely dominating the process.
There’s no practical difference between what I’m talking about and confirmation bias.
As with confirmation bias, my subconscious ascribes merit to an argument based on how well it confirms the bias. My conscious mind ascribes the exact same merit, but is convinced the conclusion is objective.
Another way to put it is how my conscious mind defines merit is a product of my subconscious, and hence it dominates everything which follows.
I’ll give you an example of a specific principle my brain chemistry serves up.
Authoritarianism is the solution to civil disorder.
You asked what was the reason I considered Trump. The answer goes no further than Trump is a natural choice for someone such as myself, who holds the above moral principle with the unshakable conviction of a religious zealot.
I would contend that Authoritarianism is a solution to civil disorder.
It is a very dangerous solution to civil disorder, and has attendant side effects which make it the wrong decision to civil disorder. The problem (it seems to me) is that the authoritarian regime gets to decide what constitutes order, and therefore what constitutes disorder. In the beginning it is the actions of thugs, criminals and naughty people, then it becomes the people themselves, then it becomes people of the wrong colour or religion: the authoritarian needs a problem to justify their position as the solution to the problem - as they "solve" problems, they must manufacture more problems to make sure that they are still needed in the eye of their base.
The only reason that someone recognising their cognitive bias is less dangerous that one that doesn't is if that recognition allows them the awareness to change that position.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
I would term my current goal as giving this cognitive bias an accurate weight in my decision-making process.
This is by definition less than my bias forces on me, but it’s non-zero.
Is this enough change?
If you still think that authoritarianism is the solution to civil disorder, then no.
Chris. T.
"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
I've seen the theory seriously uttered several times by people who would consider themselves in the left side of the political spectrum (actual left, not center-right U.S.-Democrat "left") that Western democracy is a failed experiment and we need a sort of "benign authoritarianism" to put us back on track.
Top