It’s a bad day for human beings

[zk]

This article was written 5 years ago. It’s only gotten worse since then.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/03/20/age-of-ignorance/

In it, the author says,

“The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state…is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit.”

And

“The hucksters, who manipulate them for the powerful financial interests, know that they can be made to believe anything, because, to the ignorant and the bigoted, lies always sound better than truth:

Christians are persecuted in this country.
The government is coming to get your guns.
Obama is a Muslim.
Global Warming is a hoax.
The president is forcing open homosexuality on the military.
Schools push a left-wing agenda.
Social Security is an entitlement, no different from welfare.
Obama hates white people.
The life on earth is 10,000 years old and so is the universe.
The safety net contributes to poverty.
The government is taking money from you and giving it to sex-crazed college women to pay for their birth control.

One could easily list many more such commonplace delusions believed by Americans. They are kept in circulation by hundreds of right-wing political and religious media outlets whose function is to fabricate an alternate reality for their viewers and their listeners.”

I’m not going to say all trump voters are racist or bad people. But I do think that virtually all of them are “gullible dolt[s] unable to tell truth from bullshit.”

[The-Shoveler]

Seriously I did not vote for Trump, but there was a lot of BS being slung and Gullibility on both sides.
If the Dem’s had run a honest election and nominated Sanders they would have won.

Right now those who want the status quo to continue are in the biggest fight of their lives (same reason the Dem’s would not allow Sanders).

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Seriously I did not vote for Trump, but there was a lot of BS being slung and Gullibility on both sides.
If the Dem’s had run a honest election and nominated Sanders they would have won.

Right now those who want the status quo to continue are in the biggest fight of their lives (same reason the Dem’s would not allow Sanders).[/quote]

If you’re middle class, you want continuation and evolution. By definition, the middle class, professionals or bourgeoisie are the support class of the establisment.

I don’t think there is symmetry of bullshit. On the right side, you have the conspiracy theorists and the crazies ZK pointed out. And on the other side, you perhaps have equivocation. No symmetry.

With Trump, the right wing deplorables have turned our country to oligarchs. If we become more like Russia or China, then it’s their fault. No sympathy from me if the rural areas and rustbelt suffer. We will be more like China where people in first tier cities prosper and the rural/urban gap widens.

To be fair, the Bush wing of the Republican Party put up a good fight, but they hold responsibility for enabling Trump. Republicans bear at least 3/4 of responsibility for Trump.

[FlyerInHi]

ZK, if you feel the way you do, then how do you countenance Trump supporters?

Personally, I have written off Trumpistas as irredeemable. They don’t want politeness and correctness, education and knowledge. So it’s about time they are told to their faces what they are really all about. They want it straight up and let’s give it to them.

I may have lost a few friends but if they feel like advocating for Trump, I’m entitled to do the opposite. Why should I remain quiet and polite and bear their bullshit? They think there is symmetry, let’s give them symmetry.

One thing about Trumpistas, they think they are tough, and want toughness (not liberal empathy) in solving problems. But they are very thin skinned, get upset and take outrage very easily.

[njtosd]

[quote=zk]This article was written 5 years ago. It’s only gotten worse since then.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/03/20/age-of-ignorance/

In it, the author says,

“The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state…is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit.”

And

“The hucksters, who manipulate them for the powerful financial interests, know that they can be made to believe anything, because, to the ignorant and the bigoted, lies always sound better than truth:

Christians are persecuted in this country.
The government is coming to get your guns.
Obama is a Muslim.
Global Warming is a hoax.
The president is forcing open homosexuality on the military.
Schools push a left-wing agenda.
Social Security is an entitlement, no different from welfare.
Obama hates white people.
The life on earth is 10,000 years old and so is the universe.
The safety net contributes to poverty.
The government is taking money from you and giving it to sex-crazed college women to pay for their birth control.

One could easily list many more such commonplace delusions believed by Americans. They are kept in circulation by hundreds of right-wing political and religious media outlets whose function is to fabricate an alternate reality for their viewers and their listeners.”

I’m not going to say all trump voters are racist or bad people. But I do think that virtually all of them are “gullible dolt[s] unable to tell truth from bullshit.”[/quote]

You seem to be congratulating yourself on having the clear sightedness to see that people who disagree with you are stupid. It reminds me of the title of my favorite book: “A Confederacy of Dunces”. The title is taken from the following quote by Jonathan Swift: “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.” The humor is that the main character believes himself to be intellectually superior, which he is in many ways, but he has significant shortcomings.

When are people going to get tired of feeling so self righteous? I think the ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state is someone who wants very much for others to think that s/he is good, but does not care whether it is true. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Germans are pretty bright, and you know what happened there. And I won’t start on the Cultural Revolution.

And here’s the other thing, and I’m not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter’s administration would not have been such a debacle – and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.

I do not believe that I can predict the future – those of you who believe that you can are either lucky or misguided.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd]

You seem to be congratulating yourself on having the clear sightedness to see that people who disagree with you are stupid.
[/quote]
I do use the word “idiot,” and by that I mean gullible and credulous and easily manipulated. So, if by “stupid,” you mean, “gullible and credulous,” then, yes, I do feel that I’m more clear-sighted (on this issue) than them. Not sure where you get “congratulating yourself” from, though.

And it’s not that they “disagree”with me that makes me think I’m more clear-sighted than them:

Say you’re walking down a street in New York with a friend. Your friend has never been out of Iowa before, and you’ve seen him be duped before. Your friend watches another guy win at three card monte, and your friend insists he can win money at three-card monte, and he gets out his money to bet. You are virtually certain that the guy who just won is a shill. You know that that’s how that works. You try to explain it to your friend. Your friend doesn’t believe you and insists that he can win. Is your friend gullible and credulous, or do you just disagree with him? Would you feel clear-sighted for seeing what was happening, and think that your friend was being less than clear-sighted?

While this situation isn’t quite as simple as that one, it’s really not much different. Trump has a very long history of behavior that indicates his lack of concern for anybody or anything but himself, he has a very long history that indicates his willingness to lie, cheat, and steal, he has a very long history that indicates that he has a thin-skinned, angry, unstable temperament… and the list goes on. To bet the future of this country on a “man” like that is foolish. Is that just my opinion? Yes. Same as your opinion that your friend shouldn’t play three card monte. Do I think I’m more clear-sighted (on this subject) than someone who can’t see what a loser trump is? Absolutely. Just like you (would/should) feel more clear-sighted than your friend when it comes to three card monte.

[quote=njtosd]
It reminds me of the title of my favorite book: “A Confederacy of Dunces”. The title is taken from the following quote by Jonathan Swift: “When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.” The humor is that the main character believes himself to be intellectually superior, which he is in many ways, but he has significant shortcomings.
[/quote]
If I were the only person who felt this way, that might be a valid comparison. (But probably not, because there are many other differences between that character and someone who thinks almost everybody who voted for trump is a gullible dolt.) If I were the only person who felt this way, I’d take a harder look at it (than I already have, which is pretty hard). I’m far from the only person who feels this way. So that comparison doesn’t hold any water.

[quote=njtosd]

When are people going to get tired of feeling so self righteous? I think the ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state is someone who wants very much for others to think that s/he is good, but does not care whether it is true. Not to beat a dead horse, but the Germans are pretty bright, and you know what happened there. And I won’t start on the Cultural Revolution.
[/quote]
I honestly don’t understand any of that paragraph or how you’re relating it to this discussion. I would like to respond, though, so if you could expound a bit, that would be great.

[quote=njtosd]

And here’s the other thing, and I’m not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter’s administration would not have been such a debacle – and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.
[/quote]
That’s like saying, “sometimes people who wear seatbelts are injured worse than they would’ve been if they weren’t wearing seatbelts. Therefore, wearing seatbelts isn’t a guarantee that you’ll have less injury than if you don’t wear a seatbelt. Therefore, I’m not going to wear a seatbelt.”

“There have been intellectual, good-hearted people who were bad presidents. So electing an intellectual, good-hearted person isn’t a guarantee that you’ll get a good president. So it’s ok to vote for a hateful, exceptionally selfish, simple-minded person.”

Is that what you’re saying?

Reagan, by the way, might not have been “intellectual.” But he generally thought before he spoke, and stuck to what he knew most of the time. Neither of those can be said for trump. Trump’s lack of intellectualness isn’t the biggest problem. In fact, that problem, isolated, is buried deep under other concerns I have about trump. But combined with his lack of impulse control and so many other problems, his lack of intellect is, to me, a big problem.
[quote=njtosd]

I do not believe that I can predict the future – those of you who believe that you can are either lucky or misguided.

[/quote]

If someone said, “I can predict everything that’s going to happen in the future with 100% accuracy,” then clearly they’d be delusional.

If someone says, “I predict trump will be a horrible president,” that’s not saying, “I can predict the future, and what I predict will come true.” It’s just a prediction, and obviously there’s no certainty that it will happen. As I’ve said before, I desperately hope that my predictions about trump are wrong.

You make predictions about the future – and take action based on those predictions – a hundred times a day: “That guy has his left turn signal on. I predict he’s going to turn left, and I’m going to adjust my driving accordingly.” “It’s 5:30 and the garage door just opened. I predict my spouse will walk in in about 20 seconds, and I’m going to get up and go to the door for a hug.” “Two jehovah’s witnesses are walking up my driveway. I predict they’ll ring my bell and want to talk to me. I’m going to pretend I’m not home.” “My derelict sister asked me to lend her money. I’m not going to, because I predict she won’t pay me back, and I predict it won’t help her in the long run anyway.” “I’m going to buy stock in company x because I predict that will be more profitable than a CD.” “I’m going to vote for Smith for congress, because I predict she’ll be better for my district/the country than Jones.” Etcetera.

[Anonymous]

[quote=njtosd]And here’s the other thing, and I’m not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter’s administration would not have been such a debacle – and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.[/quote]

Nobody here has made the claim that intellectual good hearted people are guaranteed to make good presidents.

And you don’t even back up your strawman very well. The “Carter bad, Reagan good” summary of that period of history is a ridiculously flawed oversimplification.

[moneymaker]

It’s a spectacle for sure. Even without a lot of Hollywood stars there it feels like a reality show. The 2 interviews with the public I’ve seen so far reinforce what’s been said about the average Trump supporter being less educated. Jimmy Carter is there! Wow! Carter there at age 92, same age as Bush Sr.

[njtosd]

[quote=harvey][quote=njtosd]And here’s the other thing, and I’m not a Trump lover, but if intellectual good hearted people were guaranteed to make good presidents, Carter’s administration would not have been such a debacle – and if the opposite were true, the Reagan years would have been much worse.[/quote]

Nobody here has made the claim that intellectual good hearted people are guaranteed to make good presidents.

And you don’t even back up your strawman very well. The “Carter bad, Reagan good” summary of that period of history is a ridiculously flawed oversimplification.[/quote]

First of all, I never said Carter bad, Reagan good. I said better and worse and I stand by my point – it is very hard to figure out who is going to be a good and/or bad leader. I used to have a friend who worked for a leadership study initiative that was part of the U.S. Dept. of Ed. They were incapable of coming up with anything beyond a rudimentary set of characteristics that were relatively common among good leaders. I voted for Bill Clinton, but I think I was not alone in being surprised at what a good president he was. I was also surprised that the charisma of the Obama presidency dissipated so quickly.

More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy. I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk – like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of. Interestingly, Iowa is actually one of the smartest states in the country, and the midwest ranks uniformly high: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/13/actually-mr-trump-iowa-is-one-of-the-smartest-states-in-the-union/?utm_term=.c17424dd4c57

The people on this board seem to think that simply being in favor of the Democratic candidate makes them smart guys – and that those who disagree with them or question them are dumb. I would think those who despised prejudice would know better.

[Anonymous]

[quote=njtosd]it is very hard to figure out who is going to be a good and/or bad leader[/quote]

We’re talking about Trump.

It’s not hard to figure out.

[Coronita]

I just find it funny that so many of the cabinet position appointees don’t appear to have any experience in what they were appointed into.

I am laughing like at the Dept of education appointee with her comments.

I am laughing at the EPA appointee. And the Dept of energy appointee.

I mean, I understand trying to shake things up with outsiders…But here’s the travesty of it.. to give you an example, a recruiter called me and asked me if I was interested in a management position at a small company. Jokingly I said I wanted to be the VP of product strategy. The recruiter politely said I had no experience with that role…To which I said, well that’s a good thing and that’s why I am a perfect candidate…. because I am an outsider that can think outside the box and bring new ideas to your otherwise stale product line your company has had for the past few years…

I guess if we normalize this as being OK, well I am really not that unqualified.

[zk]

[quote=njtosd]
More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy.
[/quote]

Bullshit. I shall explain why that’s bullshit below. And I defy you find a single instance of my being hypocritical in the decade plus that I’ve been on this forum.
[quote=njtosd]

I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk – like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of.

[/quote]

You say I’m hypocritical and your only justification is I suggested a guy from Iowa might be a rube? It was a device. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess I have to spell everything out for you. I was trying to paint a picture of a not-streetwise person, so I made up somebody from Iowa who’d never been to the big city. And you think that means I’m biased and prejudiced against people from Iowa? It’s like in the movies, where they give the dorky guy red hair. They’re not saying “all red-haired guys are dorky.” But they know it’s a stereotype that will inform the audience as to how the director wants them to see that character. I’ll spell it out further, in case you still don’t get it. I don’t think people from Iowa are any smarter or less smart than anybody else. It was just a device. You’ve ignored the substance of my post and tried to attack me based on a silly, insignificant little device I used. Sounds pretty desperate to me. It doesn’t matter where they’re from. What matters is the question that that scenario raises: Do you just disagree with them, or do you think they’re gullible? And that question that was not rhetorical.

That post “DRIPs with prejudice and bias?” Bullshit. Show me. You are constantly reading things into my posts that aren’t there. And then when I point out your erroneous inferences, you ignore that. And then you proceed to make more erroneous inferences. Do you feel that your arguments against mine are too weak to stand up without making nonsensical inferences about my posts? Or do you really have that much trouble understanding what I’m saying?

[quote=njtosd]

The people on this board seem to think that simply being in favor of the Democratic candidate makes them smart guys
[/quote]
Another nonsensical inference. It’s not being in favor of the democratic candidate. It’s seeing through Donald Trump’s con artistry. Seeing his bullshit. His lying, cheating, stealing, misogyny, racism, islamophobia, ignorance, thin-skinnedness, anger, unstable temperament. Et cetera. And seeing through the bullshit that is the right-wing noise machine’s attacks on Hillary Clinton over the past 30 years. A friend of mine is convinced that Clinton was disbarred and that she was kicked out of her party at one point. These are just a couple of the dozens of not-true things that people who feast on fake news believe.
[quote=njtosd]

– and that those who disagree with them or question them are dumb. I would think those who despised prejudice would know better.
[/quote]

There you go, ignoring it when I point out the nonsensical inferences that you’ve made. It’s not a matter of disagree, as I said before. It’s their refusal to believe what the evidence shows them. Namely, that trump is an ignorant, lying, cheating, stealing, misogynist, racist, islamophobic, thin-skinned, unstable con artist. And Clinton, while not perfect, was never disbarred, was not kicked out of her party, her associates do not run a child-sex ring, she does not wear a defibrillator, there is not a picture of her grabbing a man’s crotch, she did not unilaterally approve a uranium deal with the Russians based on donations to the Clinton Foundation. That list goes on for miles. And there are millions of trump voters who can’t see any of it.

If they acknowledged all of the above – all of which there is undeniable evidence for – and still wanted to vote for him, then I would agree to disagree. But, at this point, it’s not a matter of agree or disagree. It’s a matter of them dealing from falsehoods. It’s a matter of them living in an alternate reality for which there is no evidence. It’s a matter of them having been duped.

So, as I said, the question I asked wasn’t rhetorical, and I’m curious what your answer is. If it was you in New York, not some hypothetical person, and your friend (wherever he was from) wanted to play three-card monte, despite you having explained to him how it works (which is that a shill will “win” money from the dealer for a number of games, making it look easy when, in fact, it’s virtually impossible), would you think he was gullible, or would you think he just disagreed with you about not playing?

Let me take my analogy a step further, since you had trouble with it the first time. Let’s say you – not some hypothetical person – you – have a friend, and your friend is married. You catch her husband cheating on her. You tell her about it. You give her all the details. And there’s more evidence. It was a woman he’d had his eye on, he came home late that night smelling like somebody else’s perfume, she found a receipt for some condoms, etc. There was also more graphic evidence that we won’t go into here. The evidence is overwhelming. She confronts her husband, and he denies it. Now, if she believes that he was cheating on her, and wants to stay with him even though you think it’s a bad idea, that is disagreeing. But if she believes her husband, despite overwhelming evidence, and you know that he’s lying because you saw him cheating with your own eyes, that’s a whole other matter entirely. So, if she didn’t believe you, would you call that “disagreeing,” or would you think she was being gullible (and believing what she wanted to believe) for believing her husband?

[njtosd]

[quote=zk][quote=njtosd]
More importantly, I find zk to have a significant streak of hypocrisy.
[/quote]

Bullshit. I shall explain why that’s bullshit below. And I defy you find a single instance of my being hypocritical in the decade plus that I’ve been on this forum.
[quote=njtosd]

I especially take issue with the hypothetical from the perspective of some unidentified (probably zk – like) smart guy trying to prevent the rube from Iowa being duped in NY. This post DRIPs with prejudice and bias, which I thought was what everyone was accusing the Trumpers of.

[/quote]

You say I’m hypocritical and your only justification is I suggested a guy from Iowa might be a rube? It was a device. I thought that was pretty obvious. I guess I have to spell everything out for you. . . . . [/quote] Etc.

Love the hypothetical – shill’s, NY, perfume, condoms, etc. Here you go – I will admit that some people are gullible and some people use denial to deal with their problems. And I can think of a very famous example that loosely follows your hypothetical: Hillary Clinton – if you make the condom receipt the blue dress. I think by your analysis you would decide she was gullible, but I’m not sure because, frankly, it was sort of rambling and weird.

Do I believe that gullibility and/or denial are used more often by members of one political party versus another? No. Do I think you are hypocritical? Yes – but you don’t want to believe it (I think that makes you like the wife that doesn’t believe her husband is cheating – but again, rambling and weird). Do I have the time or inclination to address each of your (many) points? No. So I guess we will just have to agree to “disagree”.

[svelte]

Jesus Christ!

Get a life people!

So much more important things to do in life than trade ASCII jabs in cyberspace!

Whose mind do you think you’re changing anyway!

Wasted keystrokes…

[FlyerInHi]

It’s pretty obvious Trump voters are gullible. His promises are not just aspirational, but very specific. Neither he, his cabinet or the Republican will even attempt to deliver.

China? Ha! His cabinet appointees have connections to China and want more trade, not less. That’s fine by me, but it’s was gullible for voters to believe Trump.

[Author]

Posts