The alt-right and the epistemological catastrophe.
- Thread starter Alfalfa
- Start date
Alfalfa
Well-Known Member
Of course if they want to identify the he/she is American then i will accept it (with an awkward face). In a grand scheme of things it is minor thing to worry about.
What if a white American identified just as an American. Would they still get your internal eye roll?
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "preserve" and "force". If Estonian remains the official language of Estonia, is required to fill out government paperwork, is a required subject at the elementary/secondary school levels, etc., than most of the immigrants will make efforts to learn Estonian, and their children will pick it up as easily as the children of native Estonians. Is that some level of "force"?
In the US, some people trace back their heritage to other countries through generations, others don't. I know all of my great-grandparents were immigrants from Italy, Germany, or Ireland, but it makes no difference in my life. There is no taboo, but sometimes disinterest.
Then again, for some groups of marginalized people, particularly black people, it's not possible to trace back your ancestors to another country, and that can raise a certain sore spot on that issue with some people (it varies from person to person).
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I say that in the links provided
NAOS
Well-Known Member
It’s more explicit now. That doesn’t mean it’s actually worse (if “better” or “worse” is measured by the actual psychodynamic processes of adopting a belief within a tribe and arming oneself with the rhetoric to defend that belief in the face of opposition).
Alfalfa
Well-Known Member
It is more explicit. But, at least in my experience, it's also more widespread. Due to how widespread the use of the internet has become. For example, 20 years ago, knowing a "conspiracy theorist" was an interesting anecdote. Today, I know enough that I can't keep straight who believes in what. Even 10 years ago, you had to travel to the fringes of the internet to discuss alien anal probing. Now, the likes of Alex Jones are dime a dozen. And each with a boatload of followers (which I'm sure overlap to an extent). The crisis has gone out of control.
So... many... links.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
It’s frustrating, for sure.
But at least we don’t have univocal, patriotic systems pointing a gun to our heads. As institutions begin to crumble, there are zones with great longitudes and latitudes for independent thinking. And there are still a few wildernesses out there where you could go live without troubling yourself much with these politics.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about Trump's supporters' approach to debate, so I'm here to explain some things.
The reason you can't debate with the Trumpers in the traditional rationalist way is not accidental. While the vast majority of ideologues (along with normal people) conform to their preferred side's talking points and arguments without a lot of reflection, those who create the talking points know exactly what they're doing. Someone like Dutch doesn't know what's going on. He's on 4chan and/or Reddit all day, and he parrots what he hears on those platforms, much like the vast majority of those platforms' users. Someone like Bannon, however, does.
The ultimate goal of the neo-nationalists is to end "modernity". In particular, the acceptance of multiculturalism and feminism in the modern West. To do so you can either attack the first principles of modern egalitarianism, like individual autonomy as the basic unit on which moral values are built. Or you can attack the tools that the modernists use; i.e. rational discourse and scientific empiricism.
The second point is the one relevant to this discussion. Neo-nationalists cannot win using the rationalist tools. So instead, they opt to attack rationality itself. If you want to claim that 5 times as many people attended Trump's inauguration or whatever, then you must follow that with dismissal of any contrary evidence. You can't go "let's see pictures and compare", because your argument is insincere, and a fact-based evaluation will result in its defeat. Therefore, you attack the messenger. "Oh did the mainstream media tell you this? lol, you're a sheep". Never, ever, address the fact at hand. Simply claim that all who disagree are simply in on the conspiracy. Scientists? They're all about keeping their careers and that grant money flowing. The media? All owned by the same evil globalists and work as truth gatekeepers.
Back before those people rose to power, they were more forthcoming about their tactics and what they're trying to do. A very mild example would be the aforementioned Bannon when asked, in 2015, about immigration and its obvious positive effects on the economy. He simply responded that if maximizing GDP means having so many East Asians in positions of power (in business), then GDP is not worth pursuing.
That's what they really think. But they cannot publicly take that stance (for now). So instead, they shout about fake news, the public schools, academia, or whatever source of information modern society has come to rely upon. As long as truth is in the eye of the beholder, then they cannot be wrong.
And here we are in the midst of an epistemological crisis. Nothing can be trusted. There are no truths. There are only agendas. So hey, forget what those "experts" told ya, and join our cause.
So remember this next time you're pulling your hair trying to get a simple fact across: they don't give a **** about your facts.
Thank you.
I don't personally agree with the premises in your OP. You use the term "they" rather glibly and casually to categorize people who support Trump in general. That itself is a reduced and dismissive claim. Lots of people supported Trump vs. Hilary Clinton, and for a variety of reasons. The circumstances under which Trump got elected were diverse and complex. Trump was largely an unknown when he ran for President. Few people could predict how he would formulate his cabinet or the degree to which he would carry out his claims prior to getting into office. He said he would take on the deep state, though few people even know what that really means. He said he would fight Obama-care, and he has. He said he would place a conservative Justice on the Supreme Court. He said he would fight illegal immigration. Etc.
What you seem to be objecting to in your post appears to be conservative voters' obstruction to 'social liberalism' or perhaps a belief system based on abject 'individualism'. In other words, your debate might be "conservatism" vs. "social liberalism," regardless of whose name and face is affixed to either side. This is the main issue that I see dividing the country ideologically.
What some liberals view as a movement towards "social progress," more conservative voters view as a movement towards "decadence and erosion of morality." In other words, there is a stark difference of opinion as to what the very definition of morality should be.
Before you make the claim that 'facts' are categorically on your side, why don't you take a few specific examples, and we'll see if that's really the case.
Very good post.
But please address, why do so many Trump supporters enjoy childish zingers like I mention in the second post compared even to other non-Trump supporting conservatives? Why does that type of asinine political equivalent of a poop joke play such a large role in their rhetoric?
Lyin' Ted, Pocahontas, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary. I mean these are grade school level taunts. This is stuff that has no place in civilized debate. This is WWE brought to D.C..
And then the lies. The lies that are exposed but somehow do not affect his credibility. The lies that he and his representatives get confronted with and they simply tell a different lie and never acknowledge that they ever even lied. I don't remember a President or the supporters of a President that had no shame in getting caught in flat out intentional lies, mistruths, fabrications and distortions. It ain't no thang to the Trump camp. Just lie, or mis-speak, or grossly misrepresent facts, then shrug it off like it was never your job to be honest in the first place? And then have a horde of idiots willing to accept that?
I don't get it. It is honestly mind boggling to me.
