TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Graeme Decarie said:
If something better tries, remember - the armed forces and the police and all the apparatus of the state are under the control of the very, very wealthy. They have killed millions, created poverty for millions, and they're not likely to back off now.

This has been going on for a long time. And there is little sign the American people have even begun to think of what has to be achieved.
Click to expand...
"We the people" is still just a dream in America. But things could change overnight, all it takes is enough people to wake up.
 
Oh, I think that substantially more than half of Americans are doing some serious introspection on how Trump even managed to get close to being elected, let alone actually elected. It's a learning period in history and I think after the confusion is all untangled, it'll get better.
 
This is good. Things turned out well and peacefully in Vancouver, BC (and pretty well overall down in Boston). And the far right protesters were massively outnumbered by counter-protesters. 4000 counter protesters! Last night I read that 700 counter protesters, was the estimated number who would attend. It was a few of the far right who got arrested or escorted away by police after a minor scuffle. No injuries or vandalism reported.

Love is better.

'Love is better': Thousands rally against far-right demonstration planned in Vancouver
 
Last edited:
Northwind said:
This is interesting. Particularly how he thinks T does his thing. Please elaborate.
Click to expand...



Hang on!

He applies what he calls Hypotheses or Filters to situations and sees what happens.

One of his Hypotheses or Filters is the Moist Robot Hypothesis*, which posits that we human beings don't really have free will in the sense of being able to make decisions without any contraints and that most of our decisions are unconsciously made that we justify after the fact (we make up a narrative to explain why) why we made the decision. He posits that human beings are very irrational.

He then has something he calls the Master Persuader Hypothesis which simply posits that there have been, are, and will be people who are very good at recognizing this fact of human beings and are very good at using that. They know how to persuade.

He posits that these people know that to persuade someone, there is a "ranking" of sorts from most effective to least effective ways to persuade people. Where people are emotionally invested, the most effective way of persuading (to convince the persuadee to make a decision) is by using Identity (things like "Canadian" or "Woman" and such). Next down is Analogy which he thinks is ok in ability. Then comes reason. Right at the bottom is Definition of a word (Is this woman really a true Liberal?)

(He thinks (using these hypothses again) that we make our decisions with rationality when we have no or very little emotional investment.)

So he takes a situation and then looks at them using different Filters/Hypotheses and sees what they could account for.

So using the Master Persuader Hypothesis he posits that Obama has a bit of Master Persuader to him. He posits that Trump is one of the most talented Master Persuaders he has ever seen. He says he noticed some similarities in certain behaviours, vocal mannerisms, etc that made him suspect Trump knew hypnotism. That made Scott pay attention to him further. He predicted Trump's win when most everyone else was predicting Hillary.

So he would take a look at a situation say like Trump talking aboot the Mexican Wall and try to think up possible explanations based on the data he has. What does the Trump is Crazy filter account for? What happens when he applies the Trump is Racist to that situation? Is he using a common Negotiation technique to lock the concept into people's minds (using the Master Persuader Hypothesis)?

He writes his blog as both entertainment, a way of trying to find out aboot the world (he is very open to discussion and is tech savvy...he wanted clarification one time on potential issues he saw with the way Climate Change was communicated by scientists, so he wrote some tweets and did some cartoons and scientists responded...) and as a way, in this case with persuasion, to help people. And he was willing to take the millions of dollars in lost revenue to do so. Which he experienced just for being curious and trying to come up with explanations of method.

If you want to read for yourself to get a better idea, you can start here where he curates a whole shwack of his posts in his blog on this subject. Saves you from having to go through his whole blog lol Scott Adams' Blog

I hope that helped a bit.

*he gives examples of how people have and can use this for their own use, like when one is feeling down, go and exercise, or learning how certain foods can affect one's mental state or even body posture can change one's outlook. Also see Embodied Cognition.
 
revsdd said:
Helpful summary from a CBC news article a few years ago:

The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. It applies when the victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done, and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property.

In Canada it’s also a crime to incite hatred. Under Section 318 of the Criminal Code, it is a criminal act to "advocate or promote genocide" — to call for, support, encourage or argue for the killing of members of a group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Section 319 deals with publicly stirring up or inciting hatred against an identifiable group based on colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. It is illegal to communicate hatred in a public place by telephone, broadcast or through other audio or visual means, but the same section protects people from being charged with a hate crime if their statements are truthful or the expression of a religious opinion.

The mischief section, 430, covers hate-motivated mischief and religious property. It provides for harsher sentences than mischief involving other property.

Prior to 2003, Canada’s Criminal Code protected people on the basis of race, religion, ethnic origin, colour, gender and disability. On April 29, 2004, the federal government passed Bill C-250 to amend the Criminal Code, adding penalties for inciting hatred against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

'The section of the code on sentencing (718.2) encourages judges to consider whether the crime was motivated by hate of the victim's race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or any other similar factor.

Under Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act it is a "discriminatory practice" to send hate messages via telecommunications equipment, including the internet.
Click to expand...
Ty for this clearness, m'dear
 
Kimmio said:
Yes. Like a diary. Like a private place to vent. Like including it in a fictional novel or movie or other artistic expression (which are intended to be viewed) happens all the time and don't think should be censored. But why would they put it in an Internet blog, online, if they didn't want anyone at all to read it?

Clarify (without hateful words) what type of hateful speech is actually illegal already in Canada? My understanding is that using racist slurs and misogynist slurs directed at a person or group of persons in a public space as far as I know is already illegal. Add perceived threats too - then it especially is. I don't understand why that's just not common sense and why people just don't do it. Then it wouldn't have to be censored. If you just let the hate speech fly it raises ire, hateful ideas spread like cancer - and can have real world consequences.
Click to expand...
Ok.
Same question: "Do you think that someone should be allowed to write hateful things (note not illegal things)..."

but instead of a private blog that no one else can see, rather in their own blog that they don't promote but rather people can visit?
 
Kimmio said:
I see a glimmer of light in the dark - as Geofee suggests. People are waking up and learning - especially about what we don't want to happen - and trying to unravel what's going on now, too see it more clearly. The Trump administration in chaos could be the beginning of something better? It could go either way - but why not for the better?
Click to expand...
We are.
Doing really well
Thanks to certain worldviews, Belief Systems, ideas
Being very good for human flourishing
More than 5 billion experiments
Going on all the time
True Diversity
 
Don't know if the to do in Vancouver was similar 2 event in Charlottesville...
There r issues with capitalism l
There r issues with Islam
There r issues with illegal immigrants
These issues r best dealt with BS plural that focus on Truth and not with the ultimate goal being Power or Transfer of Wealth by Force or Identity Politics...
Etc.
I am glad tho to hear that only a teeny miniscule number were arrested and that it seemed peaceful and not everyone's speech was drowned out by angry haters...

Wish I couldve been there...
 
Inannawhimsey said:
Ok.
Same question: "Do you think that someone should be allowed to write hateful things (note not illegal things)..."

but instead of a private blog that no one else can see, rather in their own blog that they don't promote but rather people can visit?
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. As long as it's not illegal things. But some people s**t post/ troll whatever, to purposely see how far they can push the limits, right?...why?...when it's racist/ sexist/ ableist and really pushing offensive boundaries - I will not feel "safe" in those spaces or trust those people.

Basically, I think the Pepe and Kekistan symbols and stuff look ironic and funny so they can "say" we're racists and sexists and we think it's hilarious because we are but we'll deny it - I mean, how threatening is a cartoon frog, right? (Plausible deniability) We're not with those serious badasses over there with blatant nazi references - they cross the line - even though we're here to 'Unite the Right'", etc.

So, some of the spaces where people "s**t post" all those memes are fertile ground for spreading hate without it immediately being obvious - sometimes not even to the people doing it. They're just being lemmings - not thinking - but hopefully will snap out of it and turn the other way.

And Scott Adams has a right to have his blog but I still think he's a Machiavellian weasel disguised as a nerd. Just like some of the alt-right are disguised as counter culture - which used to mean progressive - hipsters, but they're really far right jerks. It's a confusing time.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
Well, yeah. As long as it's not illegal things. But some people s**t post/ troll whatever, to purposely see how far they can push the limits, right?...why?...when it's racist/ sexist/ ableist and really pushing offensive boundaries - I will not feel "safe" in those spaces or trust those people.

Basically, I think the Pepe and Kekistan symbols and stuff look ironic and funny so they can "say" we're racists and sexists and we think it's hilarious. We're not with those serious badasses over there with blatant nazi references - they cross the line - even though we're here to 'Unite the Right'", etc. so, some of the spaces where people "s**t post" all those memes are fertile ground for spreading hate without it immediately being obvious - sometimes not even to the people doing it. They're just being sheep - not thinking - but hopefully will snap out of it and turn the other way.

And Scott Adams has a right to have his blog but I still think he's a Machiavellian weasel disguised as a nerd. Just like some of the alt-right are disguised as counter culture - which used to mean progressive - hipsters, but they're really far right jerks. It's a confusing time.
Click to expand...
Ok
Same question: "Do you think that someone should be allowed to write hateful things (note not illegal things)..."

but instead of a private blog that no one else can see, rather a bulliten board (if u dont know what a bulliten board us, very similar to WC2 in format) where anyone can visit with the knowledge of what kind of board it is?
 
Where are you trying to take this?

Are you talking about - Reddit? Or 4Chan? Places like that? And what sort of 'hateful' things - in reference to what general concepts that are hateful?
 
Inannawhimsey said:
I am not trying to pretake it anywhere. I am asking honest, curious questions of you. That's one way how we find out aboot each other. I am not trying to moralize u here or go for a mic drop gotcha moment...
Click to expand...
You are manipulative...I sense you applying some technique to me.

Just spit it out in full. What do you think should be allowed that you don't think I would be comfortable with? And then, tell me why I have the problem and if I take your advise I can fix it.
 
Kimmio said:
Ok then back atcha.

You are methodical and crafty - you are subtle in "persuading" - but you do it.

You sound like you're just asking curious questions but it's more than that.

I've come up against this a few times with you.
Click to expand...
You have the legal right to call me or somebody on some board somewhere an elitist urban bigot...for example. You have the legal right to s**t post or be trollish or name call, within legal limits - you have a right to self expression - that doesn't mean that every site has to be anything goes, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top