[Oldmanmatt]

A good point about SecDef’s statement:

https://twitter.com/billkristol/status/1346941194316754951?s=21

He’s locked in his office. The key is on the outside.
Look at how quickly the Tweets were deleted when he got into the POTUS Twitter account (I bet his Nanny got a slap for letting him near a phone).

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Yes.
Though this speaks to my take on their “agency”, I’m not quite as generous as Dave, I think some of the people in that were incapable of agency through education and educational ability..

It's difficult, isn't it. Agency, intent, criminal action. A balanced consideration of the first doesn't condone the latter. However, "moronic" actions of a minority need to be separated out, rather than being used to indicate the "moronic nature" (which there isn't) of the whole.

And the question of "the whole" is an interesting one, when you direct it towards Trump.

Dave, I appreciate your Buddhist leanings and that you seek to see the positive in people. I share your belief in the potential in people. But no, sometimes it isn't 'difficult' - some people and some circumstances are just toxic and dangerous, and you can look to the history of human life on this planet since written records began for evidence in support.  I had typed a long post involving personal life stories and why people have agency, at least enough agency to choose not to act like this (scroll to the end): https://twitter.com/i/status/1347616155394043904

But in the end I couldn't be bothered explaining why I feel qualified to say 'don't act like a cunt just because you feel life served you a lemon'.


BTW in your linked vid, the next clip in line discusses Bayes' Theorem. As you may know this describes an equation for forming beliefs of the world based on the prior available evidence and then how to alter those beliefs as new evidence emerges. Everything you need to know about truth, evidence and Trump supporters can be summarised in the 15 seconds from the timestamp 6mins40 seconds on this clip. I thought that was ironic

And Russell Brand.. give me a break. One attention-seeker talking about another isn't very enlightening. The only way to fight dangerous malevolent narcissists is to not rise to their provocation and to starve them of attention - hence FB, Twitter etc. finally no-platforming Trump and his cronies.

Pete.
I agree with you very much about the behaviour of some people - much more than you might realise.

I think you might be misinterpreting the Bayesian trap. And my "Buddhist leanings"   

Regarding Russell Brand, I think I prefer - and this applies to anyone - to consider the content of what they're saying, rather than to dismiss them for having funny hair 

Regarding your "don't act like a c' just because life served you a lemon". There's no need to explain, other than that you're appealing to insight that just won't be there.

I can certainly understand the strength of reaction emotionally. Absolutely. However, apportioning blame fails to address the complexity of the situation as a whole. There's nothing especially Buddhist about that.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Here's a great little video that might help explain how people get confused about Bayesian statistics:



Go to @3.53 and think Trump 

ie. It's not a different way of getting to a "hard truth" about a situation, but how we might update our beliefs.

The herbal tea bag packet I walked past last night still looked like a fiver when I first saw it. I couldn't believe that was the second time it had fooled me, in a week (seriously)! Maybe I need to update my conclusion that it's a tea bag packet, and go back to check, and pick it up, for better data.

Mind you, it's probably been shredded now, so we'll never be able to prove it. It's so illegal, I mean so illegal.. and I gotta remind you that you're letting it happen.

Sorry, I got carried away there.

You could just shoot him, but that would just reinforce his belief that life is out to get him.

[petejh]

Dave.. I'm not misinterpreting it, and I do understand the Bayesian method.

I used it to make the exact point you're trying to make - which is that if someone's prior belief in the probability of 'something' is 100% (or 0% depends on the 'thing') then it's futile to try debating with someone who holds such beliefs by using evidence to change their opinion. Which I pointed out is exactly what was said at 6'40'' on the Bayes Trap clip I mentioned in my last post. I thought it highly apt, as it applies to Trump supporters morons who can't accept any evidence to the contrary of their belief that there is a 100% probability that their side won the election, that there is a 100% probability that if the Republicans lost then the election was rigged, and that there is a 100% probability that anyone who says it aint so is a collaborator in the great hoax.

(and yes in her experiment I instinctively answered as per the Bayesian view)

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Hi Pete.

I don't disagree with you there; which is why I thought you must have misinterpreted things somewhat - and the points I was making.

However, looking at our own discussion of events in the US, I was trying to highlight our own "motivated reasoning". It's something which I think is very much in evidence in discussions of this sort on the forum, with people on opposite sides wanting their cause to win.

I think this is a great and simple lecture about motivated reasoning.

I'm not sure how helpful it is, to focus on how odious or not Trump may be.. or the lynching of Saddam Hussein.. or etc etc.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Pete,

I've just re-read your earlier post, and feel I was justified to question your understanding, and reasoning. The common error being that we very often fail to acknowledge our own "priors" in arguing over how to apply Bayesian inference.

I think it's erroneous to focus on eliminating the "bad" - or for that matter, whether someone is an attention seeking prior celeb.

We also have to look at why, for many, Trump is a "good" - and that isn't because his supporters are idiots.

If Trump is as deluded as I think you imply, then it's unreasonable to also expect him to review the situation and act differently.

We all act with agency, according to our beliefs.

However, do I think Trump is that deluded - for eg about the shredded ballots? I'm not so sure, and I think you may agree with me here. It's the manipulation of events solely for personal advantage. For Trump, the "truth" of things is only measured in terms of personal advantage - whether something helps him "win" - poor use of the word. What is true, is only what causes him less pain/loss. There are many people who operate in that way.
Final edit: I think you'll agree, on "being served up a lemon", it's believing that it's wrong for that to happen, or even that it happened "on purpose". However, I do admit to occasionally uttering "You T..." to the rock, when falling off the last move.

You'll have known that already of course. I'm trying to address how we might better direct the argument.

We also have to consider our own capacity for "Motivated Reasoning", which is why I introduced the Buddhist concept of Conceit, and why I've tried to caution our overt focus on Trump.

[andy popp]

With reference to earlier conversations, here is a very useful site aggregating the early reactions of historians to the events of this week:

http://www.megankatenelson.com/historians-contextualizing-the-capitol-insurrection-a-roundup/

[Oldmanmatt]

I have to share this.
1/ It’s quite good.
2/ I can’t imagine cramming more Conservative Christian/Trumpster Trash triggers into one short video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wT5kafhG3Qw&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1cR9oxiPTFeoFGIbALiFZO-SChcKfYKQvf75T918VhAcJ9CvrpO0rY9s0

[mark s]

Seeing as trumpf has been banned on pretty much all platforms and forums, should ukb be added to the list?  Or could it be his reading while filling the wh shitter

[Oldmanmatt]

Can you imagine his face, reading this lot?
Anyway, Muscle Crap, or A.Greenpenis or what ever user name he has now, is probably either Trump or Guiliani...

[mark s]

I've got a friend on Facebook I know a few on here are also with. The bull shit he posts is top level conspiracy thick cunt level. Anti vax, aliens, 9/11, covid
Then yesterday he posted some shit about antifa starting the riots in Washington. Andi and I often give him shit to which he has no real answer.  At the moment his convienent reply is the video evidence keeps getting removed. You can't fix some people, so far down the rabbit hole.

[Oldmanmatt]

I've got a friend on Facebook I know a few on here are also with. The bull shit he posts is top level conspiracy thick cunt level. Anti vax, aliens, 9/11, covid
Then yesterday he posted some shit about antifa starting the riots in Washington. Andi and I often give him shit to which he has no real answer.  At the moment his convienent reply is the video evidence keeps getting removed. You can't fix some people, so far down the rabbit hole.

Is it a former UKB poster and devout Catholic, frothing anti-abortion nut, who isn’t climbing much these days?
If it is, I think we mutually blocked each other on FB a couple of years ago...

[abarro81]

Ha, if you mean Mark he's not really on FB these days. I'm not friends with him but I've seen Fyfe post some full-bullshit dumbness.

[mark s]

No it's not him, someone from my town who doesn't really climb now

[petejh]

Hi Pete.

I don't disagree with you there; which is why I thought you must have misinterpreted things somewhat - and the points I was making.

However, looking at our own discussion of events in the US, I was trying to highlight our own "motivated reasoning". It's something which I think is very much in evidence in discussions of this sort on the forum, with people on opposite sides wanting their cause to win.

I think this is a great and simple lecture about motivated reasoning.

I'm not sure how helpful it is, to focus on how odious or not Trump may be.. or the lynching of Saddam Hussein.. or etc etc.

Dave, I feel it's almost as if you're trying to teach me to suck eggs in this discussion. Why? Because to respond to your video on a very literal level, I spent 10 years in the infantry where I was an NCO in charge of a small reconnaissance team tasked with observing and gathering information. Literal meaning - I have first-hand experience of the presenter's concept of 'soldier mindset' and I know from first-hand experience her concept of 'scout mindset'. I was literally an embodiment of your presenter's 'scout mindset'..
Watching her presentation feels like watching someone telling me how to tie my shoelaces, but I appreciate the sentiment to share different viewpoints. (honestly).

To respond on another level.. if you don't know (I expect you do know), look at one of the models of personality, the five traits model - OCEAN. I've long been interested in brain science, personality, psychology etc. at a layman level. The presenter in your vid is basically talking about the 'O' of the five traits OCEAN model. Every time I've looked into this over the last ten or more years I've scored pretty much max in the 'O'. Try it yourself, see where you are. I don't really feel concerned about my capacity or desire to understand other's viewpoints as it's something I naturally feel an affinity for and like to do. I find people fascinating, couldn't eat a whole one etc.

This is straying off topic now..
The mindset she's talking about changing is the open-mindedness part of OCEAN. It isn't something that's easily changed by watching TEDx videos or reading self-improvement books. Look into the models of brain science understandable to the layman - some of the brain's connections are able to be re-wired while some aren't. Personality traits such as open-mindedness are difficult to change, you don't just decide to become more openminded and your brain follows, although it can be altered to some degree. There's some genetic component and some early years wiring of the brain that won't respond to will-power or self-improvement. I'm sure there are much better qualified people than me on here to comment.

Kind of lost my thread, but the point being I think that it's obvious - to the point of barely being worth discussing in this moment - that Trump and his support are a symptom of underlying causes rather than the cause themselves. I mean, duh, it's blatant!
I find your philosophising now on the nature of agency and inequality, while many of those people are still plotting to march again on the Capitol this time as an armed militia, analogous to standing around watching a tower block burning with people inside it and philosophising about the nature and failings of capitalism that led to buildings being clad with inappropriate materials.
 
To me it's obvious that some things are so toxic that in the immediate moment they just need stamping on hard to prevent further damage. The worst aspects of Trumpism and its enablers need to be destroyed or severely constrained, not nurtured or navel gazed over. Thankfully that's happening with him silenced on all media and at least some politicians acting to impeach. The GOP should find their nerve and do their part to kill off this symptom of the underlying rot.

Following that, people will have time to philosophise all they like about the causes of the toxicity. There'll be endless articles and essays to digest and share discussing the causes, here's the mandatory Guardian one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/10/trump-american-carnage-inequality-racism-polarisation

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Hi Pete.

If you think I'm teaching someone to suck eggs, I assure you I'm not.

Your response is very strong, on a let's do something now to stamp this thing out level, yes, as though the aggressor is appearing over the hill.

Maybe your approach and reaction here, is more a product of your time in the infantry than you realise. Just a thought.

If I can say, you are very strong in your position. It's already decided.
Are you willing to consider other things, to re-evaluate how you see them? That includes the comments and contributions of attention seeking celebs with funny hair  (and I admit to hiding from my own prejudice when listening to what he says!)

I think you negate "philosophising" to defend your own perspective. You present something of a circular argument.
Let's look at things differently, is always a valid suggestion, is it not?
Who sees who/what as toxic?

This thread is titled "Trump", and I've always felt uneasy about the tendency to put certain figures up there as pariahs; to ridicule and bash.
It's way too easy, and in my view, is as symptomatic of the polarising of opinion, as what we might want to "attack".

How often do groups of people want to find an enemy, in order to establish their own virtue?

There are lots of people who contribute to this thread, who might read it. We all have different perspectives on things - or rather, see different "things". I try to consider this when putting up a reply.

The great thing about an online forum, is that it creates a space, hopefully for something more discursive than a call to arms.

 

[andy popp]

This thread is titled "Trump", and I've always felt uneasy about the tendency to put certain figures up there as pariahs; to ridicule and bash.

I'm an enemy of the "great men" view of history, and the forces we're seeing manifest themselves right now run deep and wide, far beyond Trump's orbit and influence. Nonetheless, Trump is undoubtedly an unusually consequential figure, despite all his pathetic inadequacies.

[Oldmanmatt]

This thread is titled "Trump", and I've always felt uneasy about the tendency to put certain figures up there as pariahs; to ridicule and bash.

I'm an enemy of the "great men" view of history, and the forces we're seeing manifest themselves right now run deep and wide, far beyond Trump's orbit and influence. Nonetheless, Trump is undoubtedly an unusually consequential figure, despite all his pathetic inadequacies.

Andy, those forces are always and have always been, there.
Probably Tharg the Mammoth Twatter, thought Trug the Pot Maker (who turned up, one day, from two valleys over) was an airy fairy liberal tosser, stealing his job by “making a cup out of clay” instead of  “carving it out of tusk” like proper valley people do.

They just wax and wane with economies and climates.

It’s the wankers that spot a way to exploit that. The grifters and conmen, who are morally bankrupt enough to whip them up to this extent.

It’s not any different, at base, from any other political rhetoric. It differs only in it’s extent, it’s extreme. That is a function of an individual or (relatively) small group, with no qualms about the cost, in the right (wrong) place at the right time, provoking an extreme reaction, for their own ends.

Otherwise, life meanders along, grumbling and chuntering from both extremes, sometimes louder one way and sometimes the other.
Nothing great about these tits.
Find them early enough, spot them growing, stop them and you’ll stall the revolution.
Because revolutions still require leaders. No leader and it’s undirected anger and frustration. Heads and Snakes and all that.

Edit:

Actually, Hydra.
It’s a pretty constant effort, chasing the next Trump.

[mrjonathanr]

Trump did not cause all the disaffection and extreme right wing views which feed off it, but he has hugely enabled people of that ilk because the bully pulpit gives his words so much power. They are more confident now.

That, and the fact that he's keen to go to war with Iran, make him a  clear and present danger. He needs standing up to and removing. Appeasement is not sensible.

None of that requires ignoring root causes, that's a sine qua non.

edit - posts crossed. I'd pretty much agree with that summary OMM, but the forces shaping evemnts need looking at better pdq because the next one could be a Cotton, or a Cruz, or maybe even  a- heaven help us- Gove.

[andy popp]

I actually don't really agree with Matt in this case; we need very specific historical analyses rather than just amorphous stuff about human nature.

[mrjonathanr]

I will let Matt speak for himself but I read that as disaffection is an ever present well for any demagogue, at any time, to dip into.

Effectively dealing with that disaffection requires the sophistication to see the forces shaping it. That's hard. Especially when the pace of change, the political disconnect top-to-bottom and social fracturing are accelerating. Advancing technology leaves a lot of people behind.

[Will Hunt]

This is all a bit philosophical for me now. I hope we can at least agree that, quite apart from being a white supremacist/fascist/misogynist/all of the above, he's also one of the world's biggest dickheads.

[duncan]

I've got a friend on Facebook I know a few on here are also with. The bull shit he posts is top level conspiracy thick cunt level. Anti vax, aliens, 9/11, covid
Then yesterday he posted some shit about antifa starting the riots in Washington. Andi and I often give him shit to which he has no real answer.  At the moment his convienent reply is the video evidence keeps getting removed. You can't fix some people, so far down the rabbit hole.

I think it's worth considering what you want to achieve. If it's just to score debating points then carry on! However, engaging means the FB or wherever algorithm will direct more traffic that way and arguing with true believers tends to reinforce their beliefs.

With reference to earlier conversations, here is a very useful site aggregating the early reactions of historians to the events of this week:

http://www.megankatenelson.com/historians-contextualizing-the-capitol-insurrection-a-roundup/

Thanks. I made sure the lad and I sat down to watch the news together that evening. So many historical resonances.

This thread is titled "Trump", and I've always felt uneasy about the tendency to put certain figures up there as pariahs; to ridicule and bash.

I've been counting the days til I can wield my moderators power and retitle it. Suggestions welcome!

[mrjonathanr]

This is all a bit philosophical for me now.

Trump isn't the mob in Congress, he isn't the hard right militia guys, he isn't QAnon loons, and he certainly isn't the 75,000,000 who voted for him.

So whilst he needs dealing with, so do the reasons why they think he's great. And a lot of that is why they think his nasty simple solutions (which don't solve things of course) are the answer to their grievances.


Since that was my quote Duncan, may I humbly propose
'The first president to be impeached and convicted in history'?

[Oldmanmatt]

I will let Matt speak for himself but I read that as disaffection is an ever present well for any demagogue, at any time, to dip into.

Effectively dealing with that disaffection requires the sophistication to see the forces shaping it. That's hard. Especially when the pace of change, the political disconnect top-to-bottom and social fracturing are accelerating. Advancing technology leaves a lot of people behind.

This^^^

I kinda assumed people would read that post in conjunction with my lament about people not “ leaving their village” (an analogy that’s going to snap if I stretch it further).
Even that didn’t come over as I meant it to. My point was, we all ignore the villages, write off their denizens as “rubes”, forget how many of them there are and when we do go back and meet with them; struggle to find common ground etc etc.
Ironically, Pete actually reinforced what I was alluding to, when he pointed out how patronising people find it, when somebody comes waltzing back into the village with tales of their sophistication.

Ultimately, I’m closer to Pete than Dave. Root cause needs to be addressed, but you need to stamp on the head first. You want to stop the Elephant stampede? Shoot the Matriarch and make sure you do it well, winging her will make it worse.