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

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It's not the intentions of the individual. It's the forces behind a movement.

I would argue that it is the hypnotist manipulator teaching people to follow the new status quo - and he is not speaking from any moral perspective on a fairer world - just, how to "win" power games. He has nothing to 'say' ... He has something to 'do', and that is to "persuade", to manipulate minds with his tactics and, in doing so, model the new and 'improved' "I know you are but what am I?" game (have you ever read his tweets to people who try to debate him? That's exactly what he does. And his flippancy makes him impervious). He is serving the agenda of the alt-right propagandizers - they make up most of his fan base now. He retweets Cernovich. The majority are Trump supporters. But, he will easily fool people into thinking he's exposing the "truth" because he is compelling people to play the persuasion game - where right or wrong is irrelevant and only winning matters - and social justice is for whimps. He's not someone who I think deserves the attention he gets.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I disagree. It can be a chance to challenge them and think critically about the issues. Obviously some ideologies are so out there that it is hard to support them having a stage.

In the late 80's there was a professor at UWO in London, Ontario who studied his theory that different races had different physical attributes which made them smarter or not. I think he put Asians on the top, whites in the middle and blacks in the bottom. Of course that was highly controversial. People did not want him to get any airtime. David Suzuki had a debate with him on TV. The professor's views were seen as the ridiculous theories they were. He has slidden into oblivion. I'm afraid that today, with universities being "safe zones" afraid of triggering people or airing ANY controversy, this would not happen. Of that happened, he'd probably strengthen his views behind the scenes and find support. He would then risk becoming more legitimate than he deserves.

Universities especially, should have a variety of view and be willing to challenge the status quo.

The difference is, that person was an outlier. Not a state-sponsored propagandizer.

 

[Northwind]

The difference is, that person was an outlier. Not a state-sponsored propagandizer.

How are they state sponsored? Why can't people like Ann Coulter speak at U of T or similar? Even if we don't like her views?

 

[Northwind]

I would argue that it is the hypnotist manipulator teaching people to follow the new status quo - and he is not speaking from any moral perspective on a fairer world - just, how to "win" power games.

I don't believe he is speaking from any moral perspective nor that he cares about a fairer world. I don't know much about the man. He is showing that there are ways to shape the narrative. There are other sources saying the same thing. Just because he might be slimey, doesn't mean he has nothing of use to say. We cannot shut down people we don't like just because we don't like them.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

How are they state sponsored? Why can't people like Ann Coulter speak at U of T or similar? Even if we don't like her views?

They are now because they are forces driving the U.S. state agenda.

The alt-right media are, effectively, state media without being paid by the state. But that is the agenda they're working for. If you look at the algorithms in the Berkman Klein, Harvard study - it shows how Breitbart is a media hub that has manipulated attention on the right away from centrist views and pushes the right further to the fringe - but the far right fringe is in the White House! We're not hallucinating that. And Bannon has - it's worth repeating - served on the National Security council, made God knows what contacts - and is now back at Breitbart and has just declared himself, on 60 minutes, a wingman for Trump. They're hiding in plain sight - but Scott Adams will have you believe there's nothing alarming about that, that's a hallucination.

It would be like allowing nazi sympathizers to speak at the beginning of Hitler's rule - because that's only fair, in the interest of free speech for everybody. Perhaps there were liberal minded middle class, including Jews, who felt that way at first - before nazi support metastasized, before its real agenda was exposed. But this time we can see it right in front of our eyes and Bannon and even Putin can tell us enough.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I might feel differently about these speakers in different times - it's contextual.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I don't simply "dislike" Scott Adams. I think he's a dangerous charlatan. His jargon about hallucinations and virtue signalling and whatever other pseudo psychology he pushes on people is "red pilling" - hypnotizing - people more than it is actually educating them. I don't think it's a coincidence that his supporters are also largely alt-right Trump supporters. The only way to learn from Scott Adams is to look at his behaviour and tactics from the outside and not be drawn inside. From that, I learned he's dangerous. Almost as dangerous as Trump - because they share a following. The same way an extreme religious charlatan is dangerous - except he targets "logic" minded atheists who are more prone to be swayed, or persuaded by what appears to be reason (while under his spell). He is not stupid, but I do think he's dangerous.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I'd recommend reading all about Steve Bannon, and the leading "players" (radioactive trolls) of the alt-right movement - and the New Right in Europe - Putin and the Russian agenda - and everything that you can learn about this movement and this administration and its agenda, information that is already available - with a critical eye - and how everything has coalesced. Because no matter how good his intentions (and I do agree with much of what he said) - one professor's pronouncements about free speech - from his academic perspective - don't really give a very full picture of what's going on.


It is true that free speech was what allowed civil rights to make gains. It was also what "gamed" Trump into the presidency - none of the checks and balances we thought would prevent this, worked to keep it from happening. And free speech is now being used as a tool, a weapon, from the highest halls of power to advance a far right male dominant white nationalist agenda. So, context is important.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Because we have limits on free speech, I think people who want to advance a hateful or white nationalist agenda would not be able to push that agenda up to the halls of power here. It just would not be given legitimacy the way it has in the U.S. White nationalist lobbyists do not have a voice here - whereas they may once have had one - their suppression was diversity and equality's gain - and I think they are very aware of this, and so should we be. Our checks and balances are stronger and limits on free speech is one of them. There is such a thing as "too far" here. And, arguably, when it comes right down to reality, in the interest of equality, diversity and preserving civility, that has probably worked out better for us here - to have limits in order to protect others who have legitimate reason to be concerned about the rise of hate.

 

[Luce NDs]

It's not the intentions of the individual. It's the forces behind a movement.

Ah ... but isn't the control of the forces what avarice is all about ... and thus the conflict goes on without ends being seen? Such is the cognizance of eternal when stuff is beyond the life of the limited (mortal beans)?

Thus the introvert must be drawn out as an abstract vertical ... crossing the layout line of fear and anger into chaos and Joies ... really an abstract construct ... like a Myers-Briggs profile ... but only in silhouette as we're not there yet ... the shadow is still out there ... until High Noon! Then it switches sides just for cognizance of the other position and one can close their I'z and abstract ... just imagine equanimity ... dead calm? From here inspiration rises ... a mire dream of dirt to be turned? The physical side of abstract passion .. a' Rose at war ... or a pinky called Mars probing a' sol?

There may be a network of abstract in a double nephesh and a loaf about the penne ... that sank in ... the Magi of laid out thoughts ... they must be raised about the sheet ... well my love isn't that just a' gnome'd thought? They may smell when exposed to strong energies ... wild forces ... thus opposition remains ...

 

[Luce NDs]

Do civil rites transgress the power of will ... especially when willing to do things that might be called irresponsible?

Then there are those scattered sol ... that believe they are in control of everything ... a cognizance encompassing the oddest Magi ... when space causes us to go where it flows as a domain attachment ... where we're stuck until falling out to the point of grace ... tis a given ... and then we can look at thos chaotic domain from out there ... Exclusion Prin. supporting Out 've Bodean perspective and thus our sin of being here is excused ... then you're gone ... as literary concept fore gone ... ultimately complex, unreal to realist!

Do isolated opinion's go against responsibility for the sibling stuff? That's my lessor brother ... a mire Shadow of his former self ... kind of like a twin in 2D projection ... lai doubt!

La Maze approach eth ... and the mother may curse the father for past desires ... receiver in the gamma separator events ... divining?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Kimmio, how would you feel about a "hypnotist/manipulator" on what you perceived as the "right" side?

Is your dismay at the technique (and, with Rev Lindsay, I am a great believer in mindfulness meditation and hypnosis) being conflated with your dismay at the goal or intention? I think Scott Adams is doing some useful work in highlighting some of these techniques and bringing them in the open, for all to see, (and use?).

 

[Northwind]

Some interesting thoughts: Twitter founder: Trump presidency is product of short attention spans

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Kimmio, how would you feel about a "hypnotist/manipulator" on what you perceived as the "right" side?

Is your dismay at the technique (and, with Rev Lindsay, I am a great believer in mindfulness meditation and hypnosis) being conflated with your dismay at the goal or intention? I think Scott Adams is doing some useful work in highlighting some of these techniques and bringing them in the open, for all to see, (and use?).

But he's not. He's not doing it for any greater good - quite possibly his motivations are the opposite... 'Because' most of his supporters "using" his techniques are alt-right Trump supporters. I think the intention to bring about positive change would have to be evident before I would not call him a charlatan. Or anyone with a mind manipulating technique - approach with caution, evaluate, as best you can, the spirit/ intention/ motivation and values of the person teaching it. Or else, you might be getting played.

What do you think of Joel Olsteen for example?

 

[Northwind]

No one is saying Scott Adams is doing it for the greater good. It is also not just alt-right or similar who use the techniques. Any ad campaign uses some of them to get us to buy certain products. Politicians use them to get elected. Schools of social work have one narrative and business schools have another. Arguably, both use components of his technique whether they know it or not.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

No one is saying Scott Adams is doing it for the greater good. It is also not just alt-right or similar who use the techniques. Any ad campaign uses some of them to get us to buy certain products. Politicians use them to get elected. Schools of social work have one narrative and business schools have another. Arguably, both use components of his technique whether they know it or not.

Motivations, intentions and end goals, and character need to be considered.

There are too many charlatans out there with egos/ alter egos whose motivations are suspect.

I was reminded of this...Tom Cruise as Frank TJ Mackie - "Seduce and Destroy", in Magnolia - before his catharsis. (NSFW) foreshadowing for today's MRA's, for real. He's foreshadowing some of the real characters that exist now - in the alt-right.

Or, thinking about Wayne Dyer's lectures and books on the power of intention - like the intention of kindness - things that help self and others using similar techniques. They're coming from a better place vs. Scott Adam's power of persuasion. But Adams would write that off as virtue signalling - because what he's teaching/ hypnotizing people into is empty, and virtue is somehow supposed to be belittled.

 

[Northwind]

So if the person's motivations fit with yours, they're okay?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So if the person's motivations fit with yours, they're okay?

Yeah. And even if they don't but I have limits. Are you okay with brainwashing people to support Trump and a white nationalist agenda? I'm not. I guess I don't agree with selling persuasion/ manipulation for persuasion's sake. It's empty, and there something nefarious about it. And with his past statements about women and rape - I am not going to give much consideration to what he's selling.

Do you believe good and evil have equal merit? I don't. Evil is by nature destructive. And there's an evil afoot in the world like we haven't seen in over 70 years. Do you never sense when there's an inherent evil in an idea or motivation?

 

[Northwind]

Are you okay with brainwashing people to support Trump and a white nationalist agenda?

I never said anything about supporting brainwashing to support anyone. Frankly the "white nationalist agenda" is not as all encompassing as you would suggest. Letting it get some airtime, shows that more people are against that than for it.

To be clear, what I said is that the techniques that Scott Adams outlines are used by all sides. Anytime we are trying to put forth a narrative, we are using at least some of those techniques. We buy products because of those techniques. They are not inherently good or bad. They are techniques.

Do you believe good and evil have equal merit?

How does this question relate to the discussion? Good and evil exist.

Do you never sense when there's an inherent evil in an idea or motivation?

This question feels like a trap this morning.

I am exposed to all kinds of beliefs because of the province in which I live, and because of my work. We cannot silence certain speech totally. I personally do not want to live in a bubble of people who think as I do. In fact, it's not an option for me at this point anyway. I have learned more from people on the other end of the spectrum than I am. I would rather find common ground somehow, and go from there. Of course, that is more challenging, and arguably not possible with some. Who knows though when it will work. There was a man who was a former neo-Nazi. His views were changed by the people quietly protesting what he and his group were saying. If he had been shut down, he would have felt more justified with his beliefs that white men have no power anymore.

 

[Luce NDs]

God ND the devil are in the detailing ... snip, snip ...