Donald Trump

[FlemishDuck]

Very often 'Science' is simply political

No, science is based on Empirical evidence.

 

[Dax777]

I love the objections posted by some funded Trump propaganda account simply for "not getting it".

"But miss Biles, dont you see its only a word trump uses to warn you about immigration and blabla" (long propaganda post that gets irrelevant fast to attack democrats, as usual)

The funny thing is, pretty much everyone understands that Trump likes to coin terms for the purpose of political rhetoric, and that this term "black jobs" was meant to win votes trough a xenophobc narrative. But it backfires, massively.

And Trumpsters dont get it.

Because its a matter of emphatic devide. They dont understand why black people dont like the term, because they cant emphasize with the challenges they deal with in life or the historical background that forms many of their perceptions.

And thats is not at all so surprising. Trump contrasts a lot with them as he is pretty much a archetype of entitlement. And so Trumpers even hardly understand "why it was wrong". ;D

I'm always amused by these types of analysis. Because you'd never find an equitable in depth analysis of worse things said by Liberals.

Trump thinks Black jobs will be impacted the most by illegal immigration. He is right. Low wage jobs of whixh a higher proportion of black workers rely on will be most impacted by illegal immigration.

I personally think it is those who don't have skin in the game that don't get it. I'm not surprised a rich and famous black athlete doesn't get it.

Anyway, to each their own.

 

[FlemishDuck]

They are not opposed to science. They are opposed to those who use science as a cuddle when it suits them but ignore it when it doesn't.

My impression is that more and more people are indeed turning anti-intellectual because they perceive that intellectual tricks are used against their interrest, which is a logical consequence of predatory economic techniques.

 

[Dax777]

No, science is based on Empirical evidence.

Exactly! But the way it is trotted out by some often distorts the truth for political and ideological gains.

I mean there are too many obvious examples around for so many to continue to fail to see it.

 

[Dax777]

Swiss style direct democracy FTW

its not perfect, but it seems to work pretty damn good for the Swiss...

The Swiss have an advantage America doesn't have

 

[FlemishDuck]

I'm always amused by these types of analysis. Because you'd never find an equitable in depth analysis of worse things said by Liberals.

Why should i, to anticipate on your whataboutism?

Trump thinks Black jobs will be impacted the most by illegal immigration. He is right. Low wage jobs of whixh a higher proportion of black workers rely on will be most impacted by illegal immigration.

The funny thing is, i think this assertion is what makes the term "black jobs" in part very poorly chosen, because it seems to be practically synonymous with "lesser jobs" in this context or even the one you use it, and as a consequence that only reveals the social inequality in the US. But for a white man to say it, it might appear that he finds it normal that that lesser jobs are for blacks.

Its also quite funny that the matter of job loss is never looked it from the angle of the employers. What if they stop firing people to replace them with cheap illigal immigrant labor? Anyway thats a bit of a tangent.

 

[Mr Fraser]

I'm always amused by these types of analysis. Because you'd never find an equitable in depth analysis of worse things said by Liberals.

Trump thinks Black jobs will be impacted the most by illegal immigration. He is right. Low wage jobs of whixh a higher proportion of black workers rely on will be most impacted by illegal immigration.

I personally think it is those who don't have skin in the game that don't get it. I'm not surprised a rich and famous black athlete doesn't get it.

Anyway, to each their own.

Why are black people in low paid jobs? One drop rule. Comments please. Many "black" people have "white" ancestry

 

[FlemishDuck]

Exactly! But the way it is trotted out by some often distorts the truth for political and ideological gains.

I mean there are too many obvious examples around for so many to continue to fail to see it.

I would think the issues would more concern such fields like law and bussiness psychology.

For example, i know a fair bit of civil law, and i have had occasions where that was well within my interrest, but its an advantage i have from having read a lot which others might not have. Smart people are often unreasonably rewarded by the system and simple people unfairly or inhumanely disadvantaged. Those who are smart and have few moral qualms will often use their intellect to exploit the simple minded, with all the scams going around these days its more so than ever. That creates distrust for all to clever sounding angles of persuasion to a particular effect.

Psychology, as a field, should arguably focus towards improving mental health in society. But the ironic thing is that due to "where the money comes from" psychologists are far more often employed within tasks that are aimed at economic or political manipulation.

So to put it mildly, there is a lot of "hostile intellectualism" out there for which one needs to protect himself from, and those who are not very skilled at this will come to far more distrust or hate intellectual arguments than some "call to break the status quo by force".

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

This is a self patronizing definition. People are not anti intellect. They just don't think it is the be all and end all. They are not intellectual, as most of those who disagree philosophically with the self styled "intellectuals" are themselves intellectuals. They just disagree with the self anointed types.

They are not opposed to science. They are opposed to those who use science as a cuddle when it suits them but ignore it when it doesn't.

But the above definition is very smart, it tries to ridicule the very thing it in fact is sometimes. Very often 'Science' is simply political or else how does one explain the proliferation of many genders and changing sexes? What's the science of that?

Im essence, they are opposed to faux-intellectualism Often exhibited by those who mistake their ideological preferences for intellectual superiority.

To repeat what a libertarian intellectual once said "your indoctrination is not a sign intellectual superiority."

Be really honest now, have you actually read any of the scientific literature on this?

I’m not talking about blog posts, I’m talking about peer reviewed papers and studies from proper medical bodies. Doctors who know what they’re talking about and have decades of experience?

Because I hear this a lot. I’m not the one out here claiming to know about things I don’t. I readily admit my knowledge is weak, and so I defer to people who dedicate their lives to study. Yet you seem to be making some kind of absolute claim that you know the answer and therefore can confidently assert it is all 100% nonsense.

So who is the one supposedly flexing some form of superior intellect here? Because it looks like it’s you from my angle.

 

[FlemishDuck]

The Swiss have an advantage America doesn't have

You could copy their constitution and it would probably actually work fairly well for the US. Thing is that US states already have a form of semi direct democracy it just doesnt extend to the federal level, but then Swiss Cantons are in principle not so different from US states.

Decentralization could perhaps be good for the US, leave states to go a more unique political course, decrease the power of the federal government and go towards a more con-federalist system. Sorta "let each has its own place", bible belters have states where things are more going their way, same goes for more democratic voting states.