dagblog - Comments for "The poor suffering American male tribe"

"Victimhood populism"

artappraiser — Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:25:55 +0000

In reply to The poor suffering American male tribe

"Victimhood populism"

ICYMI: On The Bulwark podcast, I chatted with @DavidAFrench about life, faith, and why Tucker Carlson is Wrong.https://t.co/SW0icw6gHb
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) January 15, 2019

Thank you so much moat. I see

artappraiser — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 04:44:47 +0000

In reply to The Dunning-Kruger effect.

Thank you so much moat. I see "bingo", but the bingo I see in your link belongs definitely over here rather than on this thread. I even posted a video on this other NCD thread that has neatly compiled for a clear Dunning-Kruger diagnosis. Especially the effect is particularly dangerous when someone with influence or the means to do harm doesn’t have anyone who can speak honestly about their mistakes....“You get into a situation where people can be too deferential to the people in charge,” Dunning explained. “You have to have people around you that are willing to tell you you’re making an error.” Here, I think this is just plain ranting and wanting to act out in role play. Just like they get their steam off yelling at Rick Wilson on twitter. Acting out emotions doesn't tell you one damn thing about whether they get something or not. As to here, I don't think it applies as accurately as it does to Trump, as Dunning Kruger effect isn't about angry nonsensical rants, it's about claiming expertise. Sure, he doesn't seem to get that he's applying nonsensical labels, so no expertise there, but I just don't find it as spot on. While for Trump, it's so spot on.

I don’t see any argument that

rmrd0000 — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 03:44:23 +0000

In reply to O Kat - you might want to

I don’t see any argument that can be made by Democrats to convert current Trump supporters. Those who focu# on race or abortion, have no reason to change. From what I have seen those who leave the HOP realize that being anti-abortion means that they support many other evils. The racists realize that Trump policies have negative effects personally. True Trump supporters only double down when challenged.

Peter’s responses are no different than the verbal contortions we see from Lindsay Graham or Susan Collins, although he does frequently enter Kellyanne Conway territory.

O Kat - you might want to

NCD — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 03:03:41 +0000

In reply to I doubt that. peter can write

O Kat - you might want to read this from Psychology Today, on "How Authoritarians get Away with it".

On why facts you present don't help:

....(authoritarian followers) ....reason poorly. If they like the conclusion of an argument, they don’t pay much attention to whether the evidence is valid or the argument is consistent.

They are highly dogmatic. Because they have gotten their beliefs mainly from the authorities in their lives, rather than think things out for themselves, they have no real defense when facts or events indicate they are wrong....

lulu had no idea the strait

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 02:18:45 +0000

In reply to I doubt that. peter can write

lulu had no idea the strait even existed or what role it played in the war.

You suggested that in a thread where you could not even keep it straight what the issue was. You made up the charge ["Be honest, before I mentioned the Bab al-Mandab Straits you had no idea they even existed even though most analysis of the situation cites the straits as the cause of Iran and SA entering the civil war"] out of thin air swirling somewhere in your angry, defensive, insecure little mind based on nothing you could possibly know. Now you declare it as an established fact based on, I suppose, the fact that you heard yourself say it and you are never wrong. Right? Bullshit is not supposed to convince the bullshitter. You were wrong then and you are spewing shit about it still. Get over yourself.

I doubt that. peter can write

ocean-kat — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:25:53 +0000

In reply to p.s. really, I suspect you

I doubt that. peter can write. He can string words together in a grammatically correct fashion and has a decent vocabulary. But to defend a policy one must have knowledge and facts and it never appears he has either. It's not an eloquent defense to use spin and lies to defend a policy, at least not here where so many of us have knowledge and facts.

When he tries to discuss issues he fails miserably. One example was his claim that the poor don't get Obamacare, they get Medicaid. That's just not true and a complete misunderstanding of what the ACA is. So I spent my time explaining what Obamacare is and what it does to someone who didn't read about it and only knows a few mostly incorrect talking points about it.

In some ways it's the same problem with lulu. One simply cannot have a discussion of the war in Yemen as it concerns Saudi Arabia and Iran if one doesn't know about the importance of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. lulu had no idea the strait even existed or what role it played in the war. And honestly, I have limited interest in spending a lot of time explaining the basic facts to people.

I'm not trying to claim some sort of superiority over the people here. There are things I know and things I don't. I find some threads interesting to read but never post a comment. For example the thread on the public domain. Interesting topic but I don't know enough about it to weigh in on the discussion.

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

moat — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 23:49:00 +0000

In reply to p.s. really, I suspect you

The Dunning-Kruger effect.

The feedback you are referring to is a feature, not a flaw.

If x does y it means z. Fox started doing x so the rest follows.

There is nothing to contradict.

p.s. really, I suspect you

artappraiser — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 18:30:57 +0000

In reply to Your screed is:

p.s. really, I suspect you have the capability to eloquently defend some pro-populist Trumpist policies but instead you make yourself look ridiculous with these nonsensical rants. It makes no sense why you do that, it's curiously counterproductive, it's what makes you look like a robot troll. No one cares that you're angry and want to rant anonymously on the internet, it's a silly counterproductive exercise.

this strikes me as clarifying

artappraiser — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 18:18:03 +0000

In reply to Bannon type populism, anti

this strikes me as clarifying as to one thing most true conservatives believe, for good or ill:

What Romney Exposed About Late-Stage Trumpism

For some reason, Trump supporters get angry when critics discuss the president's character.

by Charlie Sykes @ The Bulwark.com, Jan. 6

[...] Back in the 1990s, under a different president, Bill Bennett argued eloquently that: “It is our character that supports the promise of our future—far more than particular government programs or policies.” And: “The President is the symbol of who the people of the United States are. He is the person who stands for us in the eyes of the world and the eyes of our children.” [....]

Your screed is:

artappraiser — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 17:52:41 +0000

In reply to This clown Wilson projects

Your screed is:

just further proof of what anyone with a brain knows: that Fox News is full of partisan hacks and ratings junkies who swing with which way the wind is blowing.
further encouragement for me to admire Never Trumpers who are not partisan hacks. Partisan hacks are among my least favorite thing, doesn't matter which party they are hacking for
as always when you do one of these, filled with malapropist name calling, where the slurs are nonsensical, with their impact mainly making you look ridiculous to 99% of your readers. It's like you have no inkling of the historical meaning of the terms you use, and therefore end up looking like someone who has just landed from another planet and is trying to pretend you know our lingo