Rosencrantz2
5d ago
If you can self-study to the same level then definitely do it! It takes a lot of self-motivation though. Humans are social creatures and being around other students and professors is the typical way to become invested and excited about your ideas as they'll have more purchase with those around you. The internet and new remote learning models could maybe compensate for some of this but not all.
Then, obviously, the career value of a degree, any degree.
Rosencrantz2
5d ago
Thousands of English professors might be unnecessary but why the heck not? We had many more monks in monasteries whose whole job was just upholding a way of life and an institution. As long as they're deeply passionate about it (which I think most English scholars are), I think they're adding to the sum of human fulfilment. There are hundreds of millions of people doing bullshit jobs, after all.
Rosencrantz2
7d ago
Russians hacked the voting machines and changed vote totals to ensure Trump would win. That is very clearly an example of a conspiracy theory.
So here I for sure agree with you. Phrased like this, it's on a level with QAnon and flat earth.
The others not so much. That Kavanaugh for instance was a sexual abuser is nothing close to a conspiracy view, he was accused by a professor. This doesn't require any kind of nefarious shadowy cabal, it requires Democrats to be more disposed to 'believe women' and some motivated thinking, and the Republicans to see plausible doubt that he did anything at a party decades ago, certainly enough that they can give their ally the benefit of the doubt. There's no specific coordination, no outrageous nefariousness, just a he said/she said that's split along lines of self-interest.
Anyway, I agree that both sides use ambiguous and provocative claims, only for many to retreat to more reasonable specifics when under pressure. My only point is that such motte/bailey strategy should be separated from off-the-reservation beliefs that are different in kind because they include implausible specifics, usually to do with central coordination or schizo leanings that the believer is very special. That a pizza restaurant is a paedophile market. That a government higher up is speaking to you directly on the dark web. That the space landings were faked.
I maintain that's a useful distinction.
Rosencrantz2
7d ago
So the second one sounds like an example of a conspiracy theory – it's not just an exaggeration but implies a shadowy cabal who's really in control. Unless the speaker just means Trump is a 'Russian asset' in the minimal sense that his existence is of value to Russia (rather than in the spycraft sense).
The others seem a bit more like rash overclaims than complete fantasies to me though it really depends on how the speaker elaborates on what they mean when questioned. Russia did interfere with the 2016 election, for example, but it does not appear at all likely it made a significant difference to the outcome.
Rosencrantz2
7d ago
What is the patriarchy or whiteness except the ultimate in shadowy central planning?
Depends on how it's cashed out and elaborated on. I believe it to be patently obvious we live in a patriarchy that has been making slow-motion improvements, but that this fact is just a reflection on millions of people's net behaviours over time rather than something anyone has ever nefariously discussed in a group.
Rosencrantz2
8d ago
A conspiracy theory typically involves some shadowy group doing something in a centrally planned way. Your bullet points are all just badly worded versions of perfectly reasonable observations about uncoordinated human behaviour.
A conspiracy theory such as flat earth or Qanon are in a completely different category.
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
Even if you don't think that Russia has territorial expansion aspirations (which it does, but agreeing to disagree ...), the Finnish public is afraid of Russia invading and wants to defend against it by joining NATO. You can say that it's symbolic by the leadership, and the public is being tricked into being afraid of something that would never happen, but what is the evidence for that?
Rosencrantz2
13d ago
Finland clearly joined to prepare for a possible Russian attack in the medium term future.
Rosencrantz2
15d ago
I would never say that a type of joke is "always" unfunny but if a joke has no twist or self-flatters the teller without much seeming awareness of the vanity involved (e.g. Maga thinking of itself as Gondor), it comes across as flat footed too me and lacks the element of unexpectedness I would need to enjoy it. It's not fake learned behaviour to no longer enjoy in general jokes about women being ugly, any more than it is fake learned behaviour to grow out of all kinds of one dimensional humour (mother in law jokes, dumb Irish jokes, etc). With exceptions for actually inventive jokes in those categories.
Rosencrantz2
18d ago
But maybe what's actually funny is your troll act?
Rosencrantz2
18d ago
That is what I thought. Doesn't work for me as comedy even slightly, it just seems kind of mean spirited and slightly moves me from "4b is a slightly absurd reaction" to "man, their detractors are even worse."
Rosencrantz2
18d ago
What about that do you find funny? (I'm not even certain that I get it.)
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
I'm torn! In this thought experiment the dictatorship still has a majority population that is bent on genocide and they may get their way in time (else the dictator may have to genocide them to maintain power). But anyway, you can't go from 'prefers a benevolent dictatorship to a genocidal democracy' to 'doesn't care about democracy at all'. I didn't say democracy was the ultimate and only value I have, I just don't agree that no one cares about it.
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
I don't see how covid presented much of an opportunity for Trump to cement his power. It was a hot potato he had to handle and made life more difficult for him.
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
Legally, yeah.
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
So why didn't he become a dictator during the first four years he was president? I've never heard a good response to this one. He was already president for four years, and yet we still have democracy. He's a known quantity.
A couple of things to this:
(1) It's hard to become a dictator in the US, would be one huge reason. When people are worried he's going to 'become a dictator' there are a lot of steps that would need to happen, only some of which he has any control over. The right war, the right resistance, the right economic resentments etc. He's not likely to declare himself dictator against the popular will, it's far more likely he'd subvert normal democratic norms and processes by consent. (2) When people find Trump's dictator-forward attitudes alarming, it's not only because they think there is a practical danger of him subverting democracy. It's that it feels like an offence against the office, akin to having a new vicar appointed who is loudly atheist. (Which actually I would like, but you get the analogy.)
Based on the above, I presume that you would thereby see my judgement as faulty. But the feeling is not mutual. I don't see your judgement to oppose Trump as incorrect; I just think you're a different type of person than me and you have different values, so of course you would think differently. You see me as faulty, whereas I just see you as different; and difference is not in itself a bad thing. Does this fact give you any pause?
I mean, yeah, correct, this is one difference between right and left. A huge part of the pain of this election is (a) feeling a degree of judgement towards the electorate, but then also (b) feeling terrible about this because it seems to confirm the right's stereotypes of the left as being judgemental.
I think the right's self image of being very tolerant of different opinions is massively exaggerated though: there are tonnes of people on the right who absolutely revel in liberal tears and obviously loathe their political opponents. You say you just see me as different but in the end our ideas are probably incommensurate so if you are going to impose your beliefs on mine (as is the right of those who win elections), how do you feel okay about it if you don't think your ideas are superior but just different? Do you just see it as a valid exercise of your tastes?
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
What do you mean? I can vote against him and campaign against him. Maybe I'll stand for office, I think my 'Stop the Gay-o-Caust' messaging would be quite popular. That is all the recourse I am entitled to.
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
Trump just spent four years claiming the Dems are an existential threat to democracy and stole an election, why didn't Trump supporters stop squawking on social media and buy weapons to assassinate them?
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
That is cynicism gone too far. People care about living in a democracy because democracy appears to work better than the alternatives. I'd rather live in a democracy than a dictatorship whose policies match my beliefs, because in the latter case, if the government changes, I'll have no recourse. Do you think that is so unusual as a position?
Rosencrantz2
21d ago
I don't know if I can do justice to this request right now but I'll try briefly to at least copperman the 'democracy in peril' argument. I think we have plenty of evidence that Trump admires dictators and wants to become one and will work towards becoming one. Will he do this systematically and openly? Well no, both for characterological reasons and because it would be self-undermining for him to be seen to be doing this. But if opportunities to take more power come along or can be engineered he won't hesitate to seize them, and he is in a position where he is likely to get these opportunities, especially as he has built a following who trust him above anyone or any organisation. I find it likely that – in the event he's still alive and energetic – he'll be the real power behind the throne of the next Republican candidate to an extent we've never seen before (Putin/Medvedev style). Most of his voters will actively want this arrangement.
I don't really want to get into evidencing all of this – I would be supplying tonnes of quotes of his, that you're likely familiar with already and that Trump's admirers can just choose to say are meant non-literally. To people like me and I suspect George Saunders, Trump comes across as a creature who is transparently knowable. There is no mystery. You can follow his thought processes and drives exactly and see where they'll take him, and you can observe that he's not subject to political norms that do hold other politicians back. (Now it's very interesting that at least lots of his voters appear to either not mind this, or to see something else in him, and does this fact give me pause? Sometimes, but ultimately 99% of people I esteem and respect in the field of ideas/politics/philosophy oppose Trump so this makes it pretty easy for me to conclude that his supporters are the ones with faulty judgement.)
An additional dimension is that 'democracy is in peril' is not only about elections. It's also about the ability of ideas to face off against one another in a somewhat mutually comprehended arena. Trump and/or his followers endanger this because they have special abilities to believe in lies (and I do see this as a collective and advantageous 'ability' rather than simply a failing). Of course people in this forum just think Dems lie more cunningly, whereas Trump's birtherism or election-denying is to them more honest, because less legalistic and more bald-faced. So again, I am not going to try to provide evidence, but this is the gist of my case.
Rosencrantz2
22d ago
I (as a very liberal person who detests Trump but sometimes also find the reaction to him unhelpfully hysterical, or at least unfocused in how it's hysterical) found this post from George Saunders to be quite helpful: https://georgesaunders.substack.com/p/a-slightly-altered-course
Quote:
I am, above all else, an artist. As an artist, I am trying to be interested in what has just happened. I am trying to maintain two ideas at once: 1) Most people who voted for Trump are nice people. (I know this because many close friends and family members voted for him and, well, more than half of voters did), and 2) Our democracy really may be in peril. Trump has repeatedly said things to indicate this and people who worked closely with him the first time have said this.
So, what I’m trying to figure out is: how do the people who voted for Trump, some of whom I love, not see what I see in him? And, also, importantly: what am I not seeing, about the way the world looks to them? I'm not saying that the way they see it is right – I feel very strongly otherwise - but I am saying, or accepting that, yes, it really does look that way to them.
This mirrors my reactions to the election and in its curiosity seems more constructive than just hysteria posting. Would it help to share it with your circle??
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
I think that when the situation becomes scary, everything changes. Another covid-style pandemic wouldn't do it, until and unless hospitals became overrun on a whole new level. If it was something much more horrific, I reckon you'd be surprised how quickly people's current bravado would disappear.
Rosencrantz2
24d ago
Depends if it's a situation as unfamiliar as the first one, where medical establishments and governments were truly panicking. That fear is transmissible and I don't think there'd be that much resistance. If it's what looks like a repeat of Covid though, and there is less of a sense of the unknown, I do think people would likely resist.
Rosencrantz2
28d ago
I read most of this thread and still having trouble understanding what's going on. In what sense did the democrats do this?
I wonder what the teacher would have said to a boy who said he wanted to be a dad.
More options
Context Copy link