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
Seriously - taking down Confederate monuments is not sanitizing history. History would be sanitized if the Confederacy and the Civil War were removed from history textbooks and courses, and if there was no reference to the Confederacy or its leaders (or statues to them) in actual museums, etc., etc. Taking down Confederate monuments is a practical recognition of the fact that generally speaking nations do not honour those who commit treason.
 
revsdd said:
Seriously - taking down Confederate monuments is not sanitizing history. History would be sanitized if the Confederacy and the Civil War were removed from history textbooks and courses, and if there was no reference to the Confederacy or its leaders (or statues to them) in actual museums, etc., etc. Taking down Confederate monuments is a practical recognition of the fact that generally speaking nations do not honour those who commit treason.
Click to expand...
Thats the materialist way of looking at it, yeah...
And a certain modern political way of looking at it...
(Good thing neither of us get to decide but rather the American people do)
The winning side actually did a good job in not doing typically what winning sides historically have done to thr losing sides in civil wars: slaughter and systematically get revenge on them.
The US is very exceptional.
 
Last edited:
The Russian invaded Afghanistan. The U.S. used that as a lever against Russia. It sent CIA operatives to help the Afghanistan rebels - the ones who are now the Taliban. It armed them, paid them, and trained them in terrorist methods. In short, the U.S. created the Taliban armies that they are now fighting in Afghanistan.
I worked against the Russians who pulled out. And it has also worked against the U.S. which has tried to push in.
@Kimmio - a coup is a coup. No matter what one thinks of Trump, a coup destroys democracy. Only rarely does it recreate one. An army coup would represent the the very wealthy who have been running the U.S. for many years. And that would leave the U.S. not on inch ahead.

In Canadian news, there was a tornado in the city of Lachute just north of Montreal. I know the area well. I summer cottaged there most of my life. And I've never heard of a tornado in any part of Quebec in all of history.

Boy. We're lucky climate change isn't happening.
 
oh - re winning sides in civil wars - They don't typically slaughter the losing side. That depends on the nature of the conflict, and on the danger of renewed rebellion. There was no possibility of South resuming the fight. The greatest slaughter over the years as been of African-Americans - who weren't the loser.
 
Graeme Decarie said:
I've never heard of a tornado in any part of Quebec in all of history.

Boy. We're lucky climate change isn't happening.
Click to expand...

Climate change is definitely happening. However, there have been lots of tornadoes in Quebec. Some have caused significant damage and even deaths. Just a quick list I found on Wikipedia:

July 16, 1870
June 6, 1888
August 16, 1888
June 14, 1892
June 11, 1939
July 19, 1949
July 24, 1975
June 27, 1978
August 9, 1980
April 14, 1982
July 15, 1984
May 20, 1985
June 18, 1985
July 6, 1985
June 16, 1986
June 24, 1986
July 15, 1986
May 28, 1987
June 8, 1987
July 26, 1987
November 16, 1989
August 27, 1991
July 9, 1994
August 4, 1994
July 4, 1997
August 11, 1998
May 8, 1999
July 6, 1999
June 22, 2000
July 18, 2000
June 19, 2001
July 1, 2001
July 4, 2001
July 10, 2001
August 4, 2001
August 9, 2001
June 11, 2003
July 8, 2003
July 31, 2004
July 17, 2006
July 25, 2006
August 1, 2006
July 10, 2008
May 1, 2009
July 11, 2009
July 27, 2009
July 29, 2009
August 4, 2009
August 21, 2009
June 28, 2010
July 17, 2010
June 23, 2011
July 20, 2011
August 6, 2011
September 4, 2011
May 25, 2012
June 8, 2012
August 30, 2012
September 8, 2012
October 31, 2012
June 1, 2013
July 10, 2013
August 13, 2013
August 16, 2013
May 26, 2014
June 30, 2014
July 9, 2014
July 31, 2014
August 3, 2015
June 2, 2016
June 20, 2016
July 4, 2016
July 18, 2016
June 18, 2017
August 5, 2017

And:
August 22, 2017 in Lachute.
 
No. There's thinking outside the box, and there's succumbing to (or approving of) mind programming.

I'm thinking outside the box trying to refute Adam's arguments because I think he parasitic.
 
Northwind said:
Interesting article. I like the way he uses the idea of hallucination here. It is obvious he is not using it in the true mental health manner. That being said, maybe he is. I'm reminded of Don Miguel Ruiz in "The Four Agreements" where he says we are all dreaming. We don't see reality, only our perception of reality.

"My hypothesis is that the political side that is out of power is the one that hallucinates the most – and needs to – in order to keep their worldview intact"
​
That's a valid hypothesis.

I do not like the president and he does scare me. Does that mean he is what our hallucinations suggest? While I don't agree with this article fully, it is certainly food for thought. I'm also sure he would have a similar article if the Dems were in power.
Click to expand...
It's not valid imo, considering Trump promoted the Birtherism hysteria and there's a good portion of his base who still believe the hysteria.

And in 2012 - Adams supported Romney and called him a Master Persuader - called him on the many lies the fact checkers caught, compared to Obama's debates - but felt that was perfectly okay because it just means he's persuasive. Adams is a weasel. Moral and ethical integrity are not important values to Adams - persuasiveness is.
 
Last edited:
I called the rat patrol this morning because I saw a varmint. Turns out it was a muskrat. Gotta keep Alberta rat free.

I had both my feminist daughters watch the Red Pill. They both said it was good.

Men should be allowed to hold opinions too.
 
Kimmio said:
No. There's thinking outside the box, and there's succumbing to (or approving of) mind programming.
Click to expand...

Bull.

I really do not want to get sucked into another argument. I will say, and be more specific, that I agree with his hypothesis "that the political side that is out of power is the one that hallucinates the most – and needs to – in order to keep their worldview intact"

I do not like the president and he does scare me. Does that mean he is what our hallucinations suggest? While I don't agree with this article fully, it is certainly food for thought. I'm also sure he would have a similar article if the Dems were in power.. I am not succumbing to mind programming. I totally agree with his statement that whoever is on the losing side will "hallucinate". There is a lot of fear mongering and polarization out there. It is important to think critically, and to not dismiss someone just because they happen to have a different view from our own.

Kimmio said:
It's not valid imo, considering Trump promoted the Birtherism hysteria and there's a good portion of his base who still believe the hysteria.
Click to expand...

And he was on the "losing side" when Obama was in, so was "hallucinating" in order to keep his worldview intact.
 
Northwind said:
Bull.

I really do not want to get sucked into another argument. I will say, and be more specific, that I agree with his hypothesis "that the political side that is out of power is the one that hallucinates the most – and needs to – in order to keep their worldview intact"

I do not like the president and he does scare me. Does that mean he is what our hallucinations suggest? While I don't agree with this article fully, it is certainly food for thought. I'm also sure he would have a similar article if the Dems were in power.. I am not succumbing to mind programming. I totally agree with his statement that whoever is on the losing side will "hallucinate". There is a lot of fear mongering and polarization out there. It is important to think critically, and to not dismiss someone just because they happen to have a different view from our own.



And he was on the "losing side" when Obama was in, so was "hallucinating" in order to keep his worldview intact.
Click to expand...
Scott Adams is a mind manipulating misogynist who can always say he doesn't support a harmful ideology by weaselling out and saying that he is just using his genius technique to observe how master persuaders work - not actually supporting them. It's weaselling because by doing that he can support and promote them, with plausible deniability. And he invariably supports the master persuaders in doing so regardless of ethics or morality. Scott Adams behaves more like a cult guru than a scientist with a rational method. Which may be why Trump supporters gravitate to him too. His method is to get people to question their rationality, even their sanity by setting up mental traps like "mass hysteria bubble" and "confirmation bias". And to say that people are hallucinating Trump's frauds is gas lighting.

Trump was not hallucinating to keep his world view in tact. He was deliberately using his celebrity to delude people, and to foment racism. And they're still deluded, many of them, about Obama's validity, even as an American. There are still birthers and Trump and his sychophants keep flip flipping on that to control the narrative but not stick to the truth. By saying that the losing side is hallucinating - Scott invalidates valid concerns about Trump's corrupt MO. Then again, Scott doesn't care about that. He celebrates "persuasion" over morality and so do his followers.

He's also won over mysoginists - to use his techniques for reasserting power over women in society that they feel women's equality has stolen from them as their natural birthright. And that combined with the racism that he's propping up by carefully making people think he isn't really - they're hysterical after all - is why everyone who supports him on his blog supports Trump. There are a few critics that come on - but he has his sychophants programmed - they pile on and tell them they are in the bubble too.
 
Last edited:
@Northwind you brought up domestic abuse recently... If the "losing side" is always hallucinating, are abused women just imagining it? No. You even said that that aspect of the conversation reminded you of when the cops show up to a domestic abuse call the abuser often comes across as calm and rational while the victim is beside themselves, seeming more "crazy". That's what gaslighters do. That's what Scott Adams is doing. Crazy making.

If the losing side is always hallucinating - were the Jews hallucinating when they saw something turning horribly wrong but nobody would believe them, and when social elites kept themselves away from the problem like it wasn't happening? Who was in a mass hysteria bubble then? If the losing side was hallucinating does that make hollocaust deniers the rational ones? I don't think so...and there are plenty of those in the neo-nazi Alt-right.

If the losing side is always hallucinating does that mean poverty, oppression, marginalization of minorities and misogyny don't exist? There are those on the Alt-right who believe that too - because their privelege blocks them from seeing it.

And finally if the losing side is hallucinating - Adams is saying they're all mentally ill. Which is an insult to mentally ill - as if they're just write offs with no valid thoughts and concerns - and any and all who are on the "losing side" seeing the injustice. Adams doesn't care, once again, about injustice, about morality - he prizes persuasion as a virtue.
 
Last edited:
It's not even the same as in the case of the abuse example. It also has nothing to do with mental illness. What I interpreted him as saying, was that people catastrophize the other side, and make it seem worse than it is. He is not (or at least I am interpreting it this way) saying the other side is innocent. Frankly people don't like losing. Politics is a blood sport and it doesn't feel or look good to lose. American politics is especially good at demonizing the opponent. He is naming that essentially.

When we don't like the person in power, we attribute more negative to him/her, or see negative in any little thing they do. It is wise to look at what they are doing with a more critical eye, rather than automatically seeing racism or whatever in their behaviour. We may not like the president. That does not mean EVERYTHING he does is racist/sexist or whatever. He might even have a good idea or two.
 
We should not insult the mentally deficient ... for if you look about (environmentally) we're all in the same a'bote ... approximately yours but not quiet due to separation by denial of siblinghood ...

Tis the vessel of fuels as was a good novel back some years ago ... regarding the human insanity ... this the pyres and fires ... as heated humus ... po' gruel?
 
Northwind said:
It's not even the same as in the case of the abuse example. It also has nothing to do with mental illness. What I interpreted him as saying, was that people catastrophize the other side, and make it seem worse than it is. He is not (or at least I am interpreting it this way) saying the other side is innocent. Frankly people don't like losing. Politics is a blood sport and it doesn't feel or look good to lose. American politics is especially good at demonizing the opponent. He is naming that essentially.

When we don't like the person in power, we attribute more negative to him/her, or see negative in any little thing they do. It is wise to look at what they are doing with a more critical eye, rather than automatically seeing racism or whatever in their behaviour. We may not like the president. That does not mean EVERYTHING he does is racist/sexist or whatever. He might even have a good idea or two.
Click to expand...

Negative/positive sways ...?????? Thus aD 'mistic wobble ... and the clouds stray ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top