The New Political Divide: Fiction vs. Reality

[HOLA]

when you talk about this subject it is difficult to get any other impression than that you are buffing. i feel like in the same word count you just put out a person who was well versed could have easily given a different one.

i call bs that you really know what your talking about or can put any of it succinctly in your own words or can refute any intelligent opposition to your stance.

It seems like he's taking over Inquisitor's schtick. That poster saw Communist subversion in every Sherdog post and this guy's boogeyman is Postmodernism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

when you talk about this subject it is difficult to get any other impression than that you are buffing. i feel like in the same word count you just put out a person who was well versed could have easily given a different one.

i call bs that you really know what your talking about or can put any of it succinctly in your own words or can refute any intelligent opposition to your stance.

I want to see what he's going to say. The thing is, obviously there's no need for any theoretical critique for people to prefer to believe comforting myths and to feel tyrannized by science and objective reality. Liberalism is a very recent invention, and it doesn't come naturally to us. So I think he's a little off track from the start.

But the roots of this particular theoretical attack on liberalism come from the right. It's just that because of the Cold War, we started identifying capitalism (key part of liberalism) with the "right," and leftist academics who were not as interested in an academic critique of capitalism borrowed the more-sophisticated rightist spiritual/cultural critique of it. That really was interesting and exciting stuff (even though it's daft), as it inspired art and an angle to view a lot of different things. So it took off in a big way before people started to realize that some seriously reactionary thought got snuck in, and the left started moving away from it. Some on the far right are snorting the good stuff now, but it's mostly being smoked out of aluminum foil by red hat morons.

 

[Natural Order]

when you talk about this subject it is difficult to get any other impression than that you are buffing. i feel like in the same word count you just put out a person who was well versed could have easily given a different one.

i call bs that you really know what your talking about or can put any of it succinctly in your own words or can refute any intelligent opposition to your stance.

Ask any question you wish sir and I will reply in earnest.

You think there is something difficult to grasp about the philosophy? Why do you guys pretend it doesn't exist, lol. CT! CT!

It's not a group of people pressing this intentionally with a purpose. It's a self-defeating, lazy philosophy that reached enough low iq people that it began to take over concepts of reason and logic. I see it everywhere, in all aspects of life. Clear as day. Most people aren't even aware they're engaged in (see: you)

The only retort worth replying to came from @Jack V Savage who indicated an astute observation that the general laziness has shifted to the right (as evidenced by the glaring retardation of most Trump supporters and the hills they pretend to die on).

 

[Natural Order]

Apparently my posting history of lambasting shit theory and ethics on the left and right in equal measures goes unnoticed in these parts. Makes sense, most of you are frothing partisans.

 

[Natural Order]

I want to see what he's going to say. The thing is, obviously there's no need for any theoretical critique for people to prefer to believe comforting myths and to feel tyrannized by science and objective reality. Liberalism is a very recent invention, and it doesn't come naturally to us. So I think he's a little off track from the start.

But the roots of this particular theoretical attack on liberalism come from the right. It's just that because of the Cold War, we started identifying capitalism (key part of liberalism) with the "right," and leftist academics who were not as interested in an academic critique of capitalism borrowed the more-sophisticated rightist spiritual/cultural critique of it. That really was interesting and exciting stuff (even though it's daft), as it inspired art and an angle to view a lot of different things. So it took off in a big way before people started to realize that some seriously reactionary thought got snuck in, and the left started moving away from it. Some on the far right are snorting the good stuff now, but it's mostly being smoked out of aluminum foil by red hat morons.

It's more important than ever that as the earth grows towards 10 billion people in 30 years we have cohesive intelligence and unified goals. The absurdity of that idea coming to fruition should not be lost on anybody. Lazy post-modernist shit-thinking is the enemy of mankind, I don't care what your political slant is.

 

[High Altitude]

All politicians are about selling the public an alternative reality that is never going to happen.

 

[Jack V Savage]

All politicians are about selling the public an alternative reality that is never going to happen.

Not really. Presidents generally try to do everything they promise, and generally succeed at a pretty good portion of it. Trump is unusual in that he made a bunch of conflicting promises and delivered very little of what he talked about.

 

[Natural Order]

A failing capitalist society inherently nurtures and reinvigorates communal philosophy and to a greater extent, apathy and postmodernist approach.

The wealth gap is real and the dumb elite aren't smart enough to understand that to continue this game they need to regularly reinject 80% of their wealth back to the middle and lower classes to keep the game going. They'll still be the uber rich, but the rest of society needs to be able to buy what they're selling. They keep this up and eventually, as seen historically before, they will be eaten by the poor. It's a vicious cycle that they can't seem to figure out because they're inherently TOO greedy. It's almost comical in a tragic sort of way.

Wealth caps should absolutely be a reality.

In the meantime, they keep us divided with horseshit rhetoric about identity politics and hyper-partisanship.

 

[Wingslaught]

An op-ed by Bruno Maçães make an extremely important point about the Trump phenomenon; it isn't primarily about left vs. right-- it is about a what Maçães calls "hyperfreedom." Americans, as we know, are freedom junkies. And what is the purest, most unadulterated form of freedom possible?

Freedom from reality.

Here is the piece:

President Trump has been endlessly mocked for his reality-show stunts and attacked for his willful disregard for the facts (to choose one example of many, the hundreds of times we were “rounding the bend” on the coronavirus).

But what most critics have missed is that the disconnect from reality is a feature, not a bug. It is not a flaw to be corrected, because without it, Mr. Trump would never have become president in the first place. And even now, in the dying moments of his presidency, every accusation of voter fraud, no matter how implausible, seems to him preferable to the fact of defeat.

A former reality TV star, Mr. Trump filled the White House with media personalities (often, like John Bolton, the former national security adviser, someone the president saw on Fox) and ran the administration almost like a TV series, shaped by the beats — conflict, crisis, resolution, as with parts of the North Korean diplomacy — and even common settings (the use of the White House itself as a political campaign prop) of conventional narrative stories.

Over and over again, Mr. Trump has striven to produce a vision of political events plausible enough to be absorbing, but without the drab and pain of reality. The problems of a typical president were political in nature; for Mr. Trump, though, they seemed like technical problems of storytelling.

A key was to create deeply immersive story lines without allowing them to crash against the limits of reality. He was often successful, convincing his followers that they were living in a new country — even when very little of substance had actually been accomplished. His executive orders, for example — like one that pledged to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions — were often less acts of government than narrative tricks.

About a year ago, during a rally in Minneapolis, Mr. Trump addressed his followers with wistful eagerness, recalling the night of his 2016 victory: “That was one of the greatest nights in the history of television.” It was one of the most revealing moments of his years in the White House: His presidency, it seemed, was not an event in the political history of the country, but an event in the history of television.

What Mr. Trump promised was the power to create imaginary worlds and the freedom to unleash a selfish and extravagant fantasy life, free of the constraints of political correctness or even good manners, the limits imposed by climate change and the international rules tying America to the ground. This extreme form of freedom — call it hyperfreedom — appealed to Greenwich, Conn., financiers no less than to West Virginia coal miners. It was also, as we found out in the election, attractive to some minorities.

In the traditional way to think about freedom, we want to limit or even eliminate obstacles to individual choice, but ultimately we must deal with reality. Mr. Trump’s example is to take it an extra step: Why not be free from reality as well? Indeed, this may be the ultimate goal of contemporary America: a society that is pure fantasy life, free from reality.

Covid-19 is perhaps the best lens through which to view Mr. Trump’s hyperfreedom — and its limits. Mr. Trump seemed to take the pandemic’s arrival on American shores as a personal insult. If only he could wish it away, re-election would be assured. He tried: the questions about its seriousness and lethality; the outdoor and indoor rallies and gatherings (sometimes, as with the announcement of Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee, both on the same day); the refusal to model simple public health tactics like masks; the drumbeat of assurances that it would soon pass.

The illusion started to buckle under the relentless attack of this physical threat. Even then, even when Mr. Trump tested positive, the reality-TV impulses never stopped: the videos from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center; the successful return to the White House, pulling away the mask and standing strong; and the heroic return to the campaign trail.

But the virus had a hard logic of its own and would not disappear. With a winter wave approaching, Mr. Trump was vulnerable.

What Joe Biden seemed to understand before everyone else was that the fantasy was about to collapse, and voters weren’t ready for an alternative liberal fiction. The main binary in American politics now may not be between left and right, but between fiction and reality. At some point, fictions must be revealed as no more than fictions — and they must be switched off.

In this view, Mr. Biden is the kill switch. He promised to remove Mr. Trump and switch the channel to something less risky.

After the election, a verdict is being widely shared: Mr. Trump may leave, but Trumpism is here to stay. This may be true, but it won’t be in the way people think.

What survived the election was not Trumpism as a policy platform but the fantasy politics of the last four years. Those are as powerful and addictive as ever, but they will look very different once the current executive producer has left the job.

The return to reality is but one stage in developing new fantasies. It is a way to wipe clean the canvas before departing again in search of new adventures. The search could well be resumed on the left, where there are also many powerful instincts to fight against the limits imposed by reality.

****

I think this is so powerful and so correct... especially the closing warning; Trumpism is here to stay... but it might not LOOK or SOUND anything like Trump in the future. Trumpism, at its most simple level, is the willingness to gain political powers by giving people permission to live in an illusion-- to deny the painful and difficult to deal with realities that surround them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Chris Christie was first to declare that a U.S. President preferred fantasy to reality but it was 2016 referring to Obama.

That aside, it seems like the first 15% of Trump's Presidency was about crowd sizes which is rather unfortunate since he only got one term.

 

[lilelvis]

Thats fake news

 

[Jack V Savage]

Chris Christie was first to declare that a U.S. President preferred fantasy to reality but it was 2016 referring to Obama.

That aside, it seems like the first 15% of Trump's Presidency was about crowd sizes which is rather unfortunate since he only got one term.

It's deeper than Trump. A plurality of Republicans are creationists, birthers, and climate-change deniers (not the exact same plurality--three different but probably overlapping ones). Haven't seen polling numbers, but among politicians, it's still a mainstream GOP belief that tax cuts for rich people increase revenue. And then there's QAnon, Russia deniers, COVID deniers, etc. The right in America is all in on fantasy over objective reality.

 

[asdffdsa]

Don't have 30 minutes. See google trends. The relative increase in fake news is tiny compared to any meme. It has been a thing for a long time.

 

[Natural Order]

"Come from" in that first sentence is tricky. Originated by the right; appropriated by the far left, where it became a fad; and now back to the right. The implications of it are rightist, though.

You don't think there are heavy left leaning implications as it relates to curriculum mandates using the philosophy in public education systems?
Lack of success/failure. Risk/reward. Ambition, drive....all things deemed aggressive and in conflict with the ideals of the lowest common denominator, growth mindset and a postmodern framework. Garbage ethics and lazy techniqu to be instilling in children. A reduction in capability....nothing remotely progressive. Armchair psychologists LITTER the left and many of them daylight as public school teachers.

And to keep the left/right tempers nuanced for the partisans in here, don't worry, the right are too stupid to even have armchair psychologists!

To me the things I see happening in education systems are of far greater concern than 60 million hillbillies who are generally too lazy to leave their town. They're long gone from tracks of coherent thought, and arguably harmless outside of their voting ability.

 

[lilelvis]

Don't have 30 minutes. See google trends. The relative increase in fake news is tiny compared to any meme. It has been a thing for a long time.

100+ years...

 

[forum poster]

Check out r/conservative. about 98% think the election was rigged and Trump is going to be president still.

 

[HOLA]

You don't think there are heavy left leaning implications as it relates to curriculum mandates using the philosophy in public education systems?
Lack of success/failure. Risk/reward. Ambition, drive....all things deemed aggressive and in conflict with the ideals of the lowest common denominator, growth mindset and a postmodern framework. Garbage ethics and lazy techniqu to be instilling in children. A reduction in capability....nothing remotely progressive. Armchair psychologists LITTER the left and many of them daylight as public school teachers.

And to keep the left/right tempers nuanced for the partisans in here, don't worry, the right are too stupid to even have armchair psychologists!

To me the things I see happening in education systems are of far greater concern than 60 million hillbillies who are generally too lazy to leave their town. They're long gone from tracks of coherent thought, and arguably harmless outside of their voting ability.

Your posts remind me of a rant I read from a Philosophy professor on Reddit once:

I've been teaching philosophy at the university and college level for a decade. I was trained in the 'analytic' school, the tradition of Frege and Russell, which prizes logical clarity, precision in argument, and respect of science. My survey courses are biased toward that tradition, but any history of philosophy course has to cover Marx, existentialism, post-modernism and feminist philosophy.

This has never been a problem. The students are interested and engaged, critical but incisive. They don't dismiss ideas they don't like, but grapple with the underlying problems. My short section on, say, Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex elicited roughly the same kind of discussion that Hume on causation would.

But in the past few months internet outrage merchants have made my job much harder. The very idea that someone could even propose the idea that there is a conceptual difference between sex and gender leads to angry denunciations entirely based on the irresponsible misrepresentations of these online anger-mongers. Some students in their exams write that these ideas are "entitled liberal bullshit," actual quote, rather than simply describe an idea they disagree with in neutral terms. And it's not like I'm out there defending every dumb thing ever posted on Tumblr! It's Simone de fucking Beauvoir!

It's not the disagreement. That I'm used to dealing with; it's the bread and butter of philosophy. No, it's the anger, hostility and complete fabrications.

They come in with the most bizarre idea of what 'post-modernism' is, and to even get to a real discussion of actual texts it takes half the time to just deprogram some of them. It's a minority of students, but it's affected my teaching style, because now I feel defensive about presenting ideas that I've taught without controversy for years.

Peterson is on the record saying Women's Studies departments and the Neo-Marxists are out to literally destroy western civilization and I have to patiently explain to them that, no, these people are my friends and colleagues, their research is generally very boring and unobjectionable, and you need to stop feeding yourself on this virtual reality that systematically cherry-picks things that perpetuates this neurological addiction to anger and belief vindication--every new upvoted confirmation of the faith a fresh dopamine high if how bad they are.

I just want to do my week on Foucault/Baudrillard/de Beauvoir without having to figure out how to get these kids out of what is basically a cult based on stupid youtube videos.

Honestly, the hostility and derailment makes me miss my young-earth creationist students.

edit: 'impossible' is hyperbole, I'm just frustrated and letting off steam.

 

[MusclesMarinara]

This is an interesting point. At one point in time there was simply news. We watched a children with our parents. It was the same story on every station and you could accept it as fact (as much as one can accept any fact). Some where in the past years that fractured and news became more and more biased. Whether it has peaked or nor I do no know, but it is definitely the worst I've every seen. I don't think Trump nor the progressive left help this matter. The uncertainty surround Covid only serves to complicate the matter.
However it is time for the mainstream media to step up and present a balanced story from all sides. It should be their duty to the people.

On the other hand social media should be what it is. let it sit as a sounding board for what every thoughts an individual may have.

 

[Natural Order]

Your posts remind me of a rant I read from a Philosophy professor on Reddit once:

I've been teaching philosophy at the university and college level for a decade. I was trained in the 'analytic' school, the tradition of Frege and Russell, which prizes logical clarity, precision in argument, and respect of science. My survey courses are biased toward that tradition, but any history of philosophy course has to cover Marx, existentialism, post-modernism and feminist philosophy.

This has never been a problem. The students are interested and engaged, critical but incisive. They don't dismiss ideas they don't like, but grapple with the underlying problems. My short section on, say, Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex elicited roughly the same kind of discussion that Hume on causation would.

But in the past few months internet outrage merchants have made my job much harder. The very idea that someone could even propose the idea that there is a conceptual difference between sex and gender leads to angry denunciations entirely based on the irresponsible misrepresentations of these online anger-mongers. Some students in their exams write that these ideas are "entitled liberal bullshit," actual quote, rather than simply describe an idea they disagree with in neutral terms. And it's not like I'm out there defending every dumb thing ever posted on Tumblr! It's Simone de fucking Beauvoir!

It's not the disagreement. That I'm used to dealing with; it's the bread and butter of philosophy. No, it's the anger, hostility and complete fabrications.

They come in with the most bizarre idea of what 'post-modernism' is, and to even get to a real discussion of actual texts it takes half the time to just deprogram some of them. It's a minority of students, but it's affected my teaching style, because now I feel defensive about presenting ideas that I've taught without controversy for years.

Peterson is on the record saying Women's Studies departments and the Neo-Marxists are out to literally destroy western civilization and I have to patiently explain to them that, no, these people are my friends and colleagues, their research is generally very boring and unobjectionable, and you need to stop feeding yourself on this virtual reality that systematically cherry-picks things that perpetuates this neurological addiction to anger and belief vindication--every new upvoted confirmation of the faith a fresh dopamine high if how bad they are.

I just want to do my week on Foucault/Baudrillard/de Beauvoir without having to figure out how to get these kids out of what is basically a cult based on stupid youtube videos.

Honestly, the hostility and derailment makes me miss my young-earth creationist students.

edit: 'impossible' is hyperbole, I'm just frustrated and letting off steam.

Good read and likely some relevant observations from the author.

Unfortunately my stance is that 90% of people espousing the philosophy don't know they're doing it and even as is, it isn't from a place of malice. This is why I'm barely in unison with a guy like Peterson, as mentioned earlier.

This is a methodology of thinking and a reduction of capacity based on inherent understanding of reductio ad absurdum and is doing nothing but wasting time and playing games when we don't have time to play games.

There is no boogeyman bro. It's natural retardation of the lower intellect.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don't think there are heavy left leaning implications as it relates to curriculum mandates using the philosophy in public education systems?

I think that the idea that objective reality exists and that we can follow steps to approximate knowledge of it is inherently corrosive to claims to authority and hierarchy, and threatening to tradition. And that attacking that idea opens the door for truth to ultimately be decided by appeals to power, which is inherently rightist.

Lack of success/failure. Risk/reward. Ambition, drive....all things deemed aggressive and in conflict with the ideals of the lowest common denominator, growth mindset and a postmodern framework. Garbage ethics and lazy techniqu to be instilling in children. A reduction in capability....nothing remotely progressive. Armchair psychologists LITTER the left and many of them daylight as public school teachers.

And to keep the left/right tempers nuanced for the partisans in here, don't worry, the right are too stupid to even have armchair psychologists!

To me the things I see happening in education systems are of far greater concern than 60 million hillbillies who are generally too lazy to leave their town. They're long gone from tracks of coherent thought, and arguably harmless outside of their voting ability.

For the first part, see above. Also, I went to school, and I now have an 11-year-old, and I don't see that stuff. Growth mindset is specifically encouraged. Just today, I overheard her teacher on the Zoom meeting talking about the importance of doing stuff you don't want to do.

As for the last paragraph here, I wouldn't discount the significance of voting. And there's also wasted potential.

 

[jrams]

It's deeper than "echo chambers." It's not that people only hear stuff they agree with, it's that the right has evolved an ideology to guard against reality (deep state, liberal media, liberal academia, etc.). It exists on the left fringe (look at the "media hates Bernie" people), but it's dominant on the right.

The "Supreme Court is coming to take your healthcare away, we must pack the courts" isn't a fringe left opinion, looks to be demonstrably false, and was breed in echo chambers on the left.

Echo chambers where things become an existential threat isn't a left or right thing.