Depressing.
The clear distinction is the absolute unwillingness to listen logic without screaming what-a-about conspiracy A, or conspiracy B, or C. Or the classic "your just a socialist" inbetween talking about their social security and medicare benefits.
There's clearly a segment of the population that has the inability to compute simple logic without triggering a fight/flight/amygdala response.
I used to think education was the problem.
But I'm starting to think this inability to control their emotional response when hearing anything that conflicts with their "belief system" is the hack that various organizations leverage to build a cult-like following.
Edit: thanks for all the fanfare(sarcasm towards the downvotes), I think that it proves my point.
What is the implication here? Is it bad to have friends who are Trump supporters?
EDIT: I see my point of political bias proven, complete with intolerance, rationalization of said intolerance, gross assumptions, and overall it leaves me disappointed that the HN crowd allows this.
To put it bluntly, you are judging yourself when you take yourself to be judging others, you claim an excuse that associating with others leads to your own self-admitted "badness"... You judge yourself, and rather than taking sentence with those aspects within, you externalize it and make assumptions based upon comparisons of your ideal shitty person, which deep down we both know that we are our own worst critics.
This only leads down one road, self-annihilatory behavior.
Learn to love yourself completely, you are not lacking, and to be honest, you taking yourself to be one that thinks of others or yourself as a shitty person is one of the most lovable parts about you.
It reads very similar to a response I received from the owners of a fishing website that I used to frequent when I questioned them about BLM.
Further reading: https://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/69.html
That you'd ask yourself if this reply is coherent is a function of your own mind seeking meaning from what appears to be unresolved processing of a response you received from the owners of a phishing website. Given you used to frequent said site and received a text you deem similar when questioning them about BLM, is understandable, given that the narratives and subtopics generated are still in flux, history is continuing to be written and the echos of the past keep crowning into our collective reality by the mere attention placed upon them.
A world where one loves themselves completely and thoroughly is often seen as incoherent due to the limitations one finds themselves confined in--usually in the form of narratives, beliefs, values aka the "already dead driftwood" of the mind--by taking themselves to be other than what they are, the past self in cahoots with the present self vying for the spotlight of consciousness, really just another form of communication, really.
Where it breaks down and a text seems incoherent is when such attention is placed upon a text... perhaps you've been looking for incoherence ever since you received that response on that website you spoke of and couldn't bear the mind to let it go, so you carry it with you everywhere, perhaps not realizing that this gets triggered every time a text taps on the walls of your own self constructed limitations--in this case it's one of inner reflection and unconditional love for oneself in a world where everyone and everything is interconnected.
That or you can call me a bumbling idiot.
May you be Loved. <3
In other words, your understanding of coherence is that it is subjective.
Is that right?
Coherence arises out of Love.
Nah, you see, promotion is very much based in spacetime, a fourth dimensional manifold. The speed of light in this system is much too slow for my preference. And the desire systems to ride those rainbows of light are very rudimentary and will never fulfill their sirens promise, no matter where you look.
May the Sun Open upon you, May it fill your Heart with a radiance so brilliant that it breaks infinitely only to fill the cracks with the Love that is you, May You Be Love.
Nice, novelty accounts on hn.
That's lovely. I accrue some great insights from this sites river, but I should probably start curating my own river again. The insightful:judgemental signal-noise ratio is trending in a direction I simply fine unstimulating of productive discourse.
I think that's a worldwide phenomenon, not just HN.
I'd love to hear from a credible left-leaning person about an example of intelligent discourse they had with a trump-supporter(not just a conservative, there's a difference).
This morning, I walked pass a Trump 2020 campaign flag with the slogan "No more bullshit." What kind of intelligence went into displaying that kind of message in public?
I would expect such a strong statement like this to be better explained.
What has confirmed what? What is the logic behind your conclusion? Please share.
Jonathan Haidt describes this as "morality binds and blinds". The full quote being:
"Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say."
I also like Haidt's interpretation of Hume's "reason is a slave to the passions". Haidt descibes logical thinking as like a press secretary of emotion; with as much power over emotion as a rider has over an elephant. - The elephant goes where it wants to.
This is what makes this "abuse of the amygdala" a hack. The flat-earthers/trump-supporters don't have anything "important" to say unless you want to give credit to their conspiracies.
That said, they are indeed screaming loud and clear that there is a significantly large segment of people with certain mental dispositions that are being abused by leaders in the top ranks of our government and society.
For example, they're not keen on a huge influx of foreigners from a different culture. Maybe you're dismissive of that, but it's because you're not listening.
Or, for example, they want to keep their jobs, e.g. coal miners. Maybe you're dismissive of that, but it's because you're not listening.
Or, for example, they're tired of politicians saying they'll do something but then nothing actually happening. Mainly because there are downsides to that action, e.g. because mass immigration now drives growth due to falling birth rates, there are no real attempts to stop it. Maybe you're dismissive of that, but it's because you're not listening.
Look at what happened recently in most western countries and it comes across as rigged. Mass immigration even though the population opposes it, no consequences for bankers in the 2008 crash, widening wealth inequality, falling wages when you take account of inflation. And America has really weird political dynasties, Kennedys, Bushes, Clintons. It's supposed to be a democracy and yet somehow you almost have feudal-esque ruler inheritance.
You can see why Trump's anti-establishment message worked.
These concepts aren't new. They're also universal truths about human nature.
Everyone wants to think that they're in control, at least in their head. But until they come to terms with the fact that they are not in control, they will continue to do detriment to themselves and others. See "alcoholics anonymous" (AA) for evidence of this.
I always thought it's a natural thing: once everybody matures they'll stop their knee jerk, emotional responses and only allow those well thought out, analytical ones.
It seems though, there is an opposing and totally intentional force to that.
Somehow I feel that removing the emotional reactions could lead to collapse of some bigger social structures, cause it seems that this is the main glue that holds them together