ChatterBank2 mins ago
Are 'compulsive Believers' More Dangerous...
.. than 'compulsive liars'?
Is this piece complete nonsense and an insult to suggest that people are so easily brainwashed?
https:/
Is this piece complete nonsense and an insult to suggest that people are so easily brainwashed?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vortex. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Approximately half of the US electorate are not just sick of self-serving, ineffectual politicians who, despite what they say pre-election, make no attempt to address their concerns"
Not half.
Not even close to half.
However, an awful lot of people have been seduced into thinking that simplistic, broad stroke policies will make their countries a better place.
That's not how it works. Change comes when there is an overwhelming consensus. That's the ONLY way that change happens.
What we have with Brexit and Trump is a 50/50 division.
Thatcher and Reagan were able to effect change because they had clear mandates from the people.
With Brexit and Trump, we have clear division.
This will be the story of the next decade. The U.S. and U.K. are more divided than at any time I can remember.
Would you not say this is the case?
Not half.
Not even close to half.
However, an awful lot of people have been seduced into thinking that simplistic, broad stroke policies will make their countries a better place.
That's not how it works. Change comes when there is an overwhelming consensus. That's the ONLY way that change happens.
What we have with Brexit and Trump is a 50/50 division.
Thatcher and Reagan were able to effect change because they had clear mandates from the people.
With Brexit and Trump, we have clear division.
This will be the story of the next decade. The U.S. and U.K. are more divided than at any time I can remember.
Would you not say this is the case?
I didn't answer properly...what I meant was that the politically illiterate don't represent half of the Americans who voted for Trump.
Certainly you will get politically illiterate voters who side with the Republicans, and the same who voted Democrat. But I think it's a bit reductive to paint the whole lot as dumbasses.
Certainly you will get politically illiterate voters who side with the Republicans, and the same who voted Democrat. But I think it's a bit reductive to paint the whole lot as dumbasses.
I think that the grain of truth is that, of course, any leader, author or politician can’t get anywhere unless they can muster support. I wouldn’t call these people “politically illiterate” or “compulsive believers” though...I think that’s too simplistic a definition....
I think that ZM has a huge point about the nature of modern news dissemination. I have experienced it myself with two totally untrue stories about dogs....one was that microchips gave dogs cancer and the other was that giving dogs ice made them bloat. Intensive internet hunting took both of these stories back to ONE vector for each but, because of the breadth of the spread and the differing reports, the image that was projected was one of a widely held, scientifically verified fact.
Secondly it occurs to me to wonder what has caused so much alienation and disaffection in society?
I think that ZM has a huge point about the nature of modern news dissemination. I have experienced it myself with two totally untrue stories about dogs....one was that microchips gave dogs cancer and the other was that giving dogs ice made them bloat. Intensive internet hunting took both of these stories back to ONE vector for each but, because of the breadth of the spread and the differing reports, the image that was projected was one of a widely held, scientifically verified fact.
Secondly it occurs to me to wonder what has caused so much alienation and disaffection in society?
I think you are right SP, although I'm not sure that you get the same reaction from many other people on here, that resolutely remain fans of Trump, no matter what he does.
I have been interested in politics my complete adult life, and I cannot recall a previous occasion when a new American President had so much opposition, not just at home, but all over the world.
There was a bit of fuss when Obama broke the mould, by being the first black President, but that was from the KKK and others of their ilk. Trump is not trying to build bridges but build walls instead, and it doesn't bode well for the next 4 years.
I have been interested in politics my complete adult life, and I cannot recall a previous occasion when a new American President had so much opposition, not just at home, but all over the world.
There was a bit of fuss when Obama broke the mould, by being the first black President, but that was from the KKK and others of their ilk. Trump is not trying to build bridges but build walls instead, and it doesn't bode well for the next 4 years.
'wonder what has caused so much alienation and disaffection in society?'
There's no doubt that immigration and terrorism are top of the list. The problem is no one has a prictical answer. No one. So we just end up with politicians such as Trump and Farage, making unfounded promises and appearing like the Cavalry in a bad Western coming to save us. It's the people who believe them who are dangerous and that's the grain of truth.
There's no doubt that immigration and terrorism are top of the list. The problem is no one has a prictical answer. No one. So we just end up with politicians such as Trump and Farage, making unfounded promises and appearing like the Cavalry in a bad Western coming to save us. It's the people who believe them who are dangerous and that's the grain of truth.
naomi24
See my follow-up.
I was saying that I don't believe that half of Trump voters were politically illiterate.
And 'whatever' doesn't really acknowledge the fact that America and the U.K. is split down the middle.
Note that whenever a public vote is won conclusively, or by a landslide, opposition is initially muted.
However, when voting results in a 50/50 split - the losing side 'never let it go'.
Remember when President Obama was elected? Do you recall how the American Right decided that he was ineligible to be POTUS because he was born abroad?
That went on for eight years.
The movement even had a name.
'Birthers'.
So it happens both ways really.
See my follow-up.
I was saying that I don't believe that half of Trump voters were politically illiterate.
And 'whatever' doesn't really acknowledge the fact that America and the U.K. is split down the middle.
Note that whenever a public vote is won conclusively, or by a landslide, opposition is initially muted.
However, when voting results in a 50/50 split - the losing side 'never let it go'.
Remember when President Obama was elected? Do you recall how the American Right decided that he was ineligible to be POTUS because he was born abroad?
That went on for eight years.
The movement even had a name.
'Birthers'.
So it happens both ways really.
The press has always been biased. And Governments have always controlled the news.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.
No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.
All that isn't entirely new, we have had it for 25 years. The difference now is that the POTUS is an amateur politician. And he is making some very amateurish mistakes.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.
No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.
All that isn't entirely new, we have had it for 25 years. The difference now is that the POTUS is an amateur politician. And he is making some very amateurish mistakes.
"The press has always been biased. And Governments have always controlled the news.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.
No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.”
I think most people do have the capacity to interpret and judge, its more that they don’t understand that there is a need to use it ALL THE TIME.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.
No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.”
I think most people do have the capacity to interpret and judge, its more that they don’t understand that there is a need to use it ALL THE TIME.
It might be said that there's a lot of compulsive believing going on in this thread, in both directions.
Trump's victory has a great deal less to do with discontent with the system than people believe. After all, in case you had forgotten, he was the candidate for the Republican Party. Does anyone seriously believe that after eight years of a Democrat president that this didn't help lift him up to the presidency? Or, put another way, that he would have done as well running as an Independent? Nonsense. And yet his supporters and his opposition both tend to ignore that. Trump didn't win from a standing start (and, in fact, didn't win at all in the popular vote, a fact that doesn't take away from his victory but is still relevant to contextualise it).
So we have people who supported Trump assuming that 63 million-odd Americans also do, as in support and agree with Trump the man, rather than Trump the Republican not-Clinton not-Democratic presidential candidate. And we have people who opposed him making the same assumptions, and fearing for the state of modern politics that there are so many racist misogynist basterds in the US right now.
No matter how you approach it, believing that Trump is popular or supported be a majority is both a compulsive, wrong and dangerous belief. So yes -- the article's core argument is in a sense correct. Shame it was so badly-written, and a little too focused on the compulsive belief of Trump's supporters in favour of his opposition.
Trump's victory has a great deal less to do with discontent with the system than people believe. After all, in case you had forgotten, he was the candidate for the Republican Party. Does anyone seriously believe that after eight years of a Democrat president that this didn't help lift him up to the presidency? Or, put another way, that he would have done as well running as an Independent? Nonsense. And yet his supporters and his opposition both tend to ignore that. Trump didn't win from a standing start (and, in fact, didn't win at all in the popular vote, a fact that doesn't take away from his victory but is still relevant to contextualise it).
So we have people who supported Trump assuming that 63 million-odd Americans also do, as in support and agree with Trump the man, rather than Trump the Republican not-Clinton not-Democratic presidential candidate. And we have people who opposed him making the same assumptions, and fearing for the state of modern politics that there are so many racist misogynist basterds in the US right now.
No matter how you approach it, believing that Trump is popular or supported be a majority is both a compulsive, wrong and dangerous belief. So yes -- the article's core argument is in a sense correct. Shame it was so badly-written, and a little too focused on the compulsive belief of Trump's supporters in favour of his opposition.
I think it played a far bigger part than people care to admit -- and yes, it is troubling. A man who has no business sitting in the Oval Office was nevertheless put there, not necessarily because he had support but because there was only one other viable option. Democracy is broken if the people have no real freedom of choice.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.