SATURDAY, MAY 11, 2024
Explains why Daniels did it: If you watch Red America's "cable news" channel, the god can do no wrong.
For the record, the god in question is former president Donald J. Trump. The program in question airs at 5 p.m.—and yes, that helps explain why the program is called The Five.
It's one of cable's most-watched TV shows! On Wednesday, at 5:22 p.m. here's part of what was said:
Stormy claims that she blacked out in this tryst with Trump, but she wasn’t on any drugs or alcohol. You blacked out without drugs or alcohol. Some of us call that sleeping.
Now, it could be that she really blacked out after having sex with Trump, which is a compliment. Truly, he screwed the brains out of her—that makes him a sex god.
You're right! That was the termagant, offering his reaction to the previous day's testimony by Stormy Daniels.
The fellow is 59 years old. We can't tell you how he got to be the way he is.
That said, his analysis wasn't finished at this point. Continuing, he offered this reaction to the trial to date:
What I love about the Dems, they asked for a circus and they got one. The problem is, they’re the ones getting beclowned. You know, everything that I’ve heard makes Trump more sympathetic, more likable.
Different people will react to news events in different ways. As a general matter, it won't be obvious that any one of those reactions cane be said to be "right."
Different people will report different reactions. Sometimes, though, such people will even start crafting novels—and as his oration continued, that's what the termagant did:
Stormy called it an imbalance of power. Well, duh. That’s why you met him!
If he were a mechanic, if he was a high school teacher, you wouldn’t have run up and slept with him. It was all about the power. It was all about the imbalance. That’s how this transaction works when you’re a porn star!
"Sex god," Jesse Watters now said. "Sex god," the termagant replied.
In that final passage, the termagant had taken the news and had used it to sketch the outlines of a novel. He was telling us why the female lead had done the various things she did.
He had no obvious way of knowing if his deductions were accurate. He had no obvious way of knowing if the male and females leads actually did have sex.
That said, we humans are strongly wired to novelize—to create fully formed stories from which all elements of uncertainty have been removed.
We aren't inclined to let uncertainty stand. We tend to fill in the blind spots.
At any rate, the termagant dubbed Candidate Trump a sex god. Watters joined the fun.
These professional idiots are now the two biggest stars on Red America's Fox News Channel. It's our nation's most-watched "cable news" channel by far.
In his remarks that day, the termagant had created a novel—a story in which he was infallibly able to say why Daniels did what she did.
It could be that what the termagant said is basically accurate. On the other hand, it could be that what he said—that his portrait of Daniels' actions, reasoning and motivation—is just plain basically wrong.
The termagant performs on the Fox News Channel at 5 and 10 p.m. each weekday. We don't know how he got this way. He's 59 years old!
We think the world would be a better place he could somehow make himself better. That said, a larger volume of novelization was taking place last week.
The termagant wrote a novel on Fox. But on Blue America's cable channel, and in Blue America's major print organs, a large amount of novelization was also being churned.
It's the nature of the novel! If he or she so chooses, the omniscient narrator can tell us readers why the various characters did the various things they did.
Nothing has to be left to chance—and we humans tend to prefer completed tales. Dating back to Plato's The Apology of Socrates, it's been said that we humans are sometimes disinclined to tolerate the lack of perfect knowledge.
The termagant sketched a braindead novel about the exploits of a god. Fellow panelists shut up and laughed. There was no challenge to what he said. On cable, it just isn't done.
That said, within Blue America's various orgs, reaction to Daniels' testimony also involved a great deal of novelization. At times, it almost had the feel of Blue American Pundits Gone Wild!
The termagant was performing omniscience—but our own stars were doing it too.
Starting Monday: Novelizations R Us
Gutfeld chooses to believe what Stormy Daniels said under oath at Trump's trial. Somerby does not:
ReplyDelete"He had no obvious way of knowing if his deductions were accurate. He had no obvious way of knowing if the male and females leads actually did have sex."
One obvious way of knowing if "his deductions" were accurate is to listen to the testimony of Stormy Daniels. She was an eyewitness and participant. She provided details and described in full what happened.
Gutfeld believed her to the point of trying to spin her testimony as reflecting well on Trump, making him a sex god. Somerby is in denial. Somerby has no reason to disbelieve Stormy Daniels, other than he doesn't want her to be telling the truth. Gutfeld has decided to embellish the truth. Both are saying what they say in support of Trump and he doesn't deserve it.
Some people don't believe Stormy Daniels, others think Biden has harmed U.S. interests while aiding major industrial competitors in China and India.
DeleteSome think you are a troll. I defended you and claimed you were a sex god.
DeleteI am a sex god, yes, but I'm not a good policy analyst.
DeleteSome folks call him Von Shitzhispantz, some call him a sex God, what difference does it make?
DeleteSome people like novels because they like to read instead of engorging themselves on cable "news" programs.
DeleteReal men bow down to their cult leaders, like Gutfeld to Trump.
DeleteSociety no longer has any use for such "real men", and they are mad as hell about that and are trying their best to cope.
ReplyDelete"At any rate, the termagant dubbed Candidate Trump a sex god. Watters joined the fun. These professional idiots..."
You know, Bob, both of their quotes that you provided here sound perfectly reasonable. What exactly made you so upset?
Termagant is the word for a shrewish woman. Gutfeld is male. Somerby may be confused about that though.
DeleteDavid Shapiro has died.
ReplyDeleteMay he rest in peace. Here's the famous image of David:
Deletehttps://www.instagram.com/studiostanallen/p/C6m3adGO7xc/
Farewell, Dave.
Delete"It could be that what the termagant said is basically accurate. On the other hand, it could be that what he said—that his portrait of Daniels' actions, reasoning and motivation—is just plain basically wrong."
ReplyDeleteThe ability to ascribe intentions, motives, feelings to others is part of what separates humans from apes and other animals. It is called "theory of mind" and it emerges in young children by age 3. What do others know, what do they want, what do they think and feel? The ability to predict this makes us more successful in surviving and better able to relate to and interact with other people, and we ARE social creatures.
This ability is normal, not a mistake in reasoning as Somerby claims. We test our theories about other people's thoughts against their behavior and their own reactions to us. We then modify them as we get new info. But this is not story-telling or fantasy. It is educated guessing that enables us to function better with others, and it is considered abnormal to be unable to do it.
Somerby doesn't know anything about psychology. It would have benefitted him more to have taken some psychology courses at Harvard, instead of failing Wittgenstein 101.
"In psychology, theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them. A theory of mind includes the knowledge that others' beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts may be different from one's own."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind#:~:text=In%20psychology%2C%20theory%20of%20mind,be%20different%20from%20one's%20own.
Anonymouse 11:13am, I’m sure Bob takes to heart the high-handed lecture, but his problem is with FNC’s intersection of news, opinion, AND satire/humor.
DeleteI think Gutfeld’s line about Stormy’s black out is hilarious.and his statement as to Daniel’s complaint about a power imbalance is “on the money”.
Somerby isn’t comfortable with a loss of boundaries. He’s only expressed that about million times.You might need your ears checked.
I can hear the Daily Howler just fine.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:41am, take your fingers out of your ears before you say that.
DeleteI never stick my fingers in my ears. You may need some help with your hygiene. I'm here to help you.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:05pm, metaphorically you stick cotton bales in your ears and post pre-written lectures that have little to do with the day’s blog.
DeleteYou want a metaphor? Here's a metaphor:
DeleteThe agent nourished us with atomic yarn.
Gutfeld didn't say anything brilliant about that power imbalance. It is inherent in Trump's height and weight, the fact that they were in Trump's room alone, the bodyguard at the door, his promise to consider her for The Apprentice, his offer of dinner (which never materialized, why?), his presumptuous clothing, his assumption that they would have sex (because she's a porn star?) without asking her, and his failure to use a condom (without asking).
DeleteAnother way of saying there was a power imbalance is that he felt entitled to do all of this regardless of her preferences (which he did not ask about) because of his social status. When you pile all of this up together, it is additive and makes it harder for her to speak up and object to any of it. That is called being overwhelmed.
Given the huge number of sycophants, cult admirers and devotees Trump has accumulated, why is it unbelievable that Stormy Daniels might feel that way about him. Somerby perhaps assumes she has partisan motives, but it may be more likely she was a non-voter and not particularly political, given her background and childhood in the South.
Those of us who do not admire Trump wouldn't have gone to his room under any circumstances, don't watch the Apprentice, know to insist on condoms, and wouldn't admire him or care what he thought of us. Somerby famously asks us all to put ourselves in the Others position. He refuses to do it himself, when it comes to what Stormy Daniels says she experienced.
Is it surprising that Gutfeld has a greater capacity for empathy than Somerby, even if he jokes about it? Not to me.
Anonymouse 1:31pm, Bob chided Greg Gutfeld for his assumptions about Daniels, so you can quit your routine of trying to instill the opposite notion in the minds of his readers.
DeleteAs has been argued, on a personal level, we can all make decisions as to the uncertainty/probability quotient of Daniels’ and Trump’s claims.
That even applies to Bob.
No one has said Somerby has no right to his opinion. Just that his opinion is wrong because he doesn't consider Daniels' sworn statement to be evidence. A juror wouldn't be allowed to throw out or disregard evidence at whim. They can decide whether a person's statement is true or not, but need to have reasons -- beyond "Stormy is a bimbo".
DeleteYou demonstrate to us here, every day, how unwavering but misplaced faith in a person like Trump or Somerby can lead to distorted thinking. It isn't cute any more.
"We aren't inclined to let uncertainty stand. We tend to fill in the blind spots." Wife looks out the kitchen window and theorizes on what the neighbors are up to. I tell her to keep her stories to herself. The latest was when the for sale sign went up they were moving to get closer to her work, better for kids schooling. Turns out the guy was fucking around and getting a divorce. That was my first guess, but I keep random thoughts to myself. Except on TDH.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:14pm, no, Greg Gutfeld threw out Stormey’s (a media member) statement and Bob castigated him for it.
DeleteYou are again trying to instill false narratives into the minds of TDH readers.
The jury doesn’t automatically ascribe to Stormy’s statement merely because it is a sworn one, They allow the trial to proceed and then make a determination when the prosecution rests.
What do you mean by "Stormey's (a media member) statement"? By the way, she spells her name Stormy (no e). You are correct that the verdict comes at the end, but you have no idea what jury members are thinking or believing during the trial's proceedings.
DeleteA sworn statement has more credibility than something someone told the media or wrote in a book because lying under oath constitutes perjury which is punishable by jail time. With more at stake for the person being questioned, it is fair to assume they would be less likely to lie and thus the statement contents are more believable.
This is why Trump's lawyers will not let him testify as a witness. He is too likely to lie and place himself in greater legal jeopardy. Plus lawyers take an oath that their will not knowingly allow a client to commit perjury by lying on the stand, so their own licenses are at stake too. They can be disbarred, which means they can no longer practice as a lawyer. The fact that Trump will not testify can be held against him, since he said he was willing and yet will not be giving testimony. That will hurt his case, but lying under oath is against the law.
Anonymouse 6:13pm, everyone knows the what sworn testimony entails
DeletePeople swear to things in a court of law when they are guilty as hell. They stand by their testimony to the grave.
It’s not incumbent that Bob or anyone else take sworn testimony as being unassailable truth.
Now you add the word “unassailable” when no one said it. The defense cross examines a sworn witness to undermine what they said. It is certainly assailable. If someone is lying, the defense needs to show it. If there is proof someone lied under oath, they can be charged with perjury by the DA after the trial concludes.
DeleteTrump tells blatant, easily falsifiable lies. He will destroy his case if he tries to testify and likely be charged with perjury. His lawyers know that. Stormy has said things that have been partially corroborated. Jurors will wonder why Trump isn’t telling his side of things, but he can’t because he will lie.
"But on Blue America's cable channel, and in Blue America's major print organs, a large amount of novelization was also being churned."
ReplyDeleteIt isn't novelization to believe what Stormy Daniels has said over the years.
11:16 Some people say Biden's sanctions on Russian energy haven't hurt Russia at all but have actually helped China and India. Others say Trump doesn't use condoms because they would become evidence of a tryst, like Monica's dress stain. Maybe you think something in the middle of that.
DeleteSomerby claims to be a liberal who supports Biden, so he won't be happy with the stories you are making up to smear Biden.
DeleteAny doctor will tell you that men should use condoms in Trump's situation. Asking for a sexual history isn't enough to protect people from STDs. You have done a public service by bringing up that point, but you will still burn in hell for supporting Trump over Biden.
Last I heard, India is not an enemy of the USA. Anything we do as a nation has some impact on the rest of the world, perhaps unintended. The huge tariff Biden wants to impose on EVs from China shows he is not trying to help them but supports our car industry.
DeleteIt's a good point. Trump may have rubbed okra cream on his penis before having sex with the star of "Porking With Pride 2" that night. (It can also be used a prophylactic to prevent the semen from entering her vagina.)
DeleteIronically, that is a metaphor for how Ukrainian forces are thinly stretched and still lack sufficient weapons and soldiers to defend against the Russian aggression despite the billions we just sent them.
@11:45 Gloating about the effectiveness of the Republican plot to deny Ukrainian aid in Congress is not a good look at a supposed liberal blog like Somerby's. If Russia were winning in Ukraine, Putin wouldn't be having so much trouble at home.
DeleteIndia's not an enemy, but it's not a friend, either.
DeleteChina is the boyfriend.
DeleteSomerby still claims to be a liberal even after Ukrainian troops withdrew from three eastern villages in late April, and Ukraine's top commander has said the situation at the front had worsened.
DeleteRussia has been making territorial gains in the region, while Ukraine's forces are depleted and running low on weapons and ammunition. But Somerby doesn't seem to want to discuss any of this, at least not directly.
China is nasty, but we shouldn't seek conflict with it.
DeleteYes, China is nasty, because it started 200 armed conflicts since 1945, and built 800 military bases all over the world.
Delete"A brief history of wars launched by U.S. after World War II
DeleteSource: XinhuaEditor: huaxia2022-09-02 15:20:15
BEIJING, Sept. 2 (Xinhua) -- Incomplete statistics showed that from the end of World War II to 2001, among the 248 armed conflicts that occurred in 153 regions of the world, 201 were initiated by the United States."
Is it a coincidence that this statement about how many wars have been started comes from a Chinese propaganda source?
Is it not correct? Or, should the number be classified? What's your point?
DeleteOf course it is not correct. It is propaganda (otherwise known as disinformation).
DeleteWouldn't it be a red flag to you if a statement began "Incomplete statistics showed..."? And failed to define what constitutes a war compared to an "armed conflict"?
Meanwhile, this is pretty interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China
If they counted 248 armed conflicts since 1945, what difference does it make "what constitutes a war compared to an armed conflict"? None whatsoever.
DeleteAnd "incomplete statistics showed" tells me that it's at least 248 armed conflicts. Possibly more.
Here is the same list going back to the beginning, for the US:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
This includes the wars we have been "involved in" not those "started by" the US (a much more limited subset). It shows 25 military interventions since WWII (5 since 2000).
How can that number be so different from the conflicts identified by the Chinese source?
No, incomplete statistics means that some were left out. But we don't know which were omitted.
DeleteThe original statement said wars, not armed conflicts. These are very different. Assuming that a count of armed conflicts justifies that statement about wars is deceptive and wrong.
Your Bible has, for example, the Vietnam War as one, with "Location: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos". I don't think anyone would deny that it was actually 3 wars.
Delete"The original statement said wars, not armed conflicts."
No. The original statement @12:26 PM says "200 armed conflicts."
Russia is kicking so much Ukranian ass the poor orcs are reduced to charging the line in golf carts, motorcycles, and 1950's era tanks. Sad.little Russian orcs, 500,000 taken off the battlefield by Ukraine. Young Russian men with the means fleeing their country. Reduced to filling the ranks with convicted murderers.
Delete@3:02 PM
DeleteIs it you, Baghdad Bob?
Gazprom just posted a $7 billion loss. The sanctions are working, Russia is in rubbles (not rubles).
DeleteWhy aren't you in the trenches, Baghdad Bob?
DeleteI'm Baghdad Bob in Ukraine, and Russia overran the capital in three days as planned two years ago.. Or maybe they had their asses handed to them. Hee, hee.
DeletePlanned by whom, Baghdad Bob? By your momma?
DeleteThere are some new charges against Trump, suggesting that his campaign paid off women who brought accusations against them of sexual harrassment, using essentially the same methods as with Stormy Daniels.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-campaign-hid-settlements-with-women-new-complaint-says
"A sex discrimination lawsuit against Donald Trump’s campaign has triggered new accusations that Trump’s lawyers have intentionally covered up settlement payments to women, in violation of federal law.
On Friday, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, demanding an investigation into the alleged cover-up. The complaint cites new allegations from 2016 Trump campaign aide A.J. Delgado, which she lodged in a sworn court declaration earlier this week as part of her ongoing discrimination suit against Trump’s political operation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Delgado’s filing presented evidence of top Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz openly admitting that the campaign wanted to use a law firm to cover up a potential settlement payout in 2017. The arrangement, as Delgado described it, appears specifically designed to evade the consequences of federal disclosure laws that require campaigns to publicly report the identities of payment recipients."
It isn't clear what Somerby thinks would be gained if Stormy Daniels were shown to have made up her tryst with Trump. The payments were real, whether her story was correct or not. Attacking Daniels doesn't make any of those documents go away, or the testimony of the various other witnesses.
ReplyDeleteMy theory about Somerby is that something about Stormy's accusations is triggering his own distrust of women in general and evoking a knee-jerk negative reaction.
Needs mentioned more that if Trump just admitted to Stormy sexy time, she would not have been called to testify.
DeleteI suppose that if it were shown that Daniels was making it all up, then Trump would be a victim of blackmail. It would be quite a bit more difficult to make the case that falsification of business records was done to hide another crime. All the charges would become misdemeanors. Trump would pay a small fine.
DeleteI think the McDougal payoff is more damning than the Daniels story. David Pecker paid McDougal as part of a scheme to protect the campaign.
Didn't she dream of telling this tale for years?
DeleteIt is one thing to argue that some details were fabricated and another to say that the meeting never took place. Daniels has a photo and corroboration by friends who she spoke with about it. Presumably Trump's body guard could be subpoenaed. Disappearing the entire event is not the same as questioning the credibility of details.
DeleteAnon 3:14
Delete"Disappearing the entire event is not the same as questioning the credibility of details."
Quite right! Yet Trump keeps asking his lawyers to tell both stories simultaneously.
“We humans are strongly wired to novelize—to create fully formed stories from which all elements of uncertainty have been removed. We aren’t inclined to let uncertainty stand.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a key Somerby teaching. And its proof can be seen in the certainty shown by Anons here every day. E.g., “We know Stormy is telling the truth!”
And how about this novel: Beginning in 2015, Putin began paying Somerby to pretend to be a liberal but to subtly reinforce right-wing talking points.
DeleteOr this one: Somerby is an incel who wants to steal and trade women.
I could go on.
But is this true? There are studies in psychology of people's distortion of reality and whether it helps or hurts us. It depends on the context. If someone lives with stories that diverge too much from reality, their decisions will be poor and they will not live effectively. That is why mental illness is bad for people.
DeleteOn the other hand, people tend to reason probabilistically (which means they take into account uncertainty), not make absolute judgments. So Somerby's claim that we push our judgments toward an unwarranted certainty is not supported by evidence from studies of judgment and decision making in the literature. We assign probabilities to outcomes and make decisions accordingly.
Somerby is in no position to be "teaching" when he doesn't understand himself how people think.
We evaluate "how likely is Stormy's story to be true?" and we evaluate the evidence pro and con -- which is what the anons have been doing here every day. I did that myself yesterday, pointing out how we can decide whether Stormy is telling the truth or not, after Somerby said there is no way of knowing. I pointed out that the jury will have to make that decision too and it will use the evidence presented at trial, which is nearly always incomplete and imperfect, and yet justice must be served.
Uncertainty can be dangerous to humans. If we approach a water hole and want to know if it is safe to drink there, we don't avoid it and suffer thirst and we do not rush in and encounter a predator. We investigate until the uncertainty is resolve one way or the other. In that sense, people do not let uncertainty stand. But we do not blindly choose a preferred belief and go with it, because that can be fatal when reality doesn't conform to our beliefs.
Somerby continually sells humanity short. YOUR willingness to blindly accept whatever he says will lead you astray too, if you believe the crap he shovels here so frequently.
@11:34 The evidence speaks to these hypotheses. If you have a better guess about why Somerby suddenly began posting right wing memes and talking points in 2015, please let us know. Insisting he is what he says, a Biden supporter who just happens to repeat large chunks of Fox broadcasts weekly and find his own party's candidate untenable, makes no sense as an explanation. But we all want to hear your better idea about why Somerby talks like a Republican and never ever says anything supportive of Democratic candidates, party platform or beliefs.
DeleteNote that no one has called Somerby an incel. But calling the trading and bartering of women human nature is something incels talk about on their blogs. And some of those guys are also big fans of The Iliad because of its manly wars, honor and love of aggression.
Anonymouse 11:40am, wouldn’t the factors of uncertainty and probability be the genesis for the legalese of something being “alleged”?
DeleteNext thing you know, Somerby is going to claim Bidenomics is failing American families and causing higher prices and economic pain.
DeleteYes. And that is why a trial presents evidence and defense, to reduce the uncertainty and reach a workable conclusion, called a verdict. According to Somerby, we would just assume guilt or innocence and skip the investigation, evaluation of evidence, deliberation and conclusion (not to mention appeal procedures). All of that is to deal with uncertainty. Somerby describes a rush to judgment that is not part of human functioning in most cultures. The pressure to resolve uncertainty is what motivates people to find out what is true, not to just blindly assume (as Somerby claims).
DeleteSomerby deals with uncertainty by stating both sides (usually just two, not all of the possibilities) and then claiming we cannot know, and then accepting whichever side he prefers (in this case, that Daniels is making up a story which implies Trump never met her in Tahoe as Trump claims). It appears that if the jury concludes that Trump is guilty of the charges, Somerby will still not believe Stormy Daniels. I suspect that Somerby is not resolving uncertainty at all, but acting on some prior beliefs about women telling lies, reinforcing a prejudice against sex-positive women, or supporting Trump for motives unknown to us (perhaps for the money). I don't think there is any amount of evidence that would satisfy Somerby, when it comes to believing Stormy Daniels, because there has already been a lot of evidence presented and he is working hard to exonerate Trump and smear Stormy. He has been calling her a grifter and con-artist for years, claims she approached Trump and demanded blackmail, etc. Without evidence.
Somerby is useless when it comes to addressing smears against Biden, even when they occur in the media instead of in troll comments. In fact, he participates in them -- he actively promoted the "Biden is too old meme" here, and then the "Israel is a monster and so is Biden for supporting it" meme. Now he is advancing the "Trump is being prosecuted for partisan reasons because this trial is too complex" meme.
DeleteAnonymouse 12:01pm, you just read a blog in which Bob takes Fox & Friends to task for statements that ignore Daniel’s claims in favor of Trump’s.
DeleteWhy would you pull out this piece on uncertainty/probability unless your intent is to instill in people’s minds, the opposite of what Bob has written? You are literally chiding Bob via an argument that is more suited to a defense of Gutfeld’s on-air expressions than it is to anything that Bob has said.
The Five to task. One of those f-titles.
DeleteSomerby's uncle was eaten by cannibals. Some empathy, please.
DeleteI am not chiding Bob, I am warning his readers. You seem impervious and that's OK. Believe what you want.
Delete1:16 - Such a noble and lonely task!
DeleteI own some libs. If not for me, they would've been roaming free out there in the world, annoying everyone to death.
DeleteThank you for admitting where you come from and what you think you are doing here. All doubt removed.
DeleteAnonymouse 1:16pm, no, you're distorting what Bob said in order to issue a false warning as to his thinking and motivations.
DeleteThat's your opinion Cecelia. Others may vary.
DeleteAnonymouse 2:28 pm, are you sure?
DeleteTaking anything anyone says at face value, particularly in the context of a political blog, is pure folly.
DeleteIt is pretty clear to anyone with two brain cells that Somerby is hiding behind a thin veil of claiming to be liberal in order to push a Republican agenda.
Dopes like Cecelia supposedly fall for it because they are ruled by emotions, by an undying urge to own the libs, an urge to feel superior in some way.
And, no, we humans are not wired to novelize, Somerby is ignorant of anything related to behavior science.
Anonymouse 3:20pm, no it’s not utterly clear that Bob is no longer a liberal and perhaps a paid agent because his trust in our political culture has waned thru the years.
DeleteThat sort of argument might have worked during the Salem Witch trials, but we now see this sort of irrationality as being a logical fallacy.
It isn't because his "trust has waned" but because he keeps repeating right wing memes and talking points. Democrats don't do that on purpose.
DeleteI'll bet dollars to donuts you have no idea what happened during the Salem Witch Trials, historically speaking.
Anonymouse 6:04pm, and I’d bet that you know what happened at the Salem Witch Trials because you were there.
DeleteAre Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger stealth double agent DNC operatives because they repeat “memes” about Trump and the RNC?
They aren’t pretending to be liberal.
DeleteAnonymouse 7:08pm, you charge Somerby as being a stealth conservative because he finds fault with the blue media and some people on the left.
DeleteCheney and Kinzinger do the same as to red media and Republicans. .
Are they stealth liberals?
Cheney and Kinzinger dislike Trump but they don’t go around supporting Dem memes and talking points.
DeleteThe Salem witches were innocent.
DeletePied Piper,
DeleteI support you going on...a Boeing-made jet.
ReplyDeleteMy supply of word-salads for spamming Somerby's blog is endless, and I am not ashamed to use them. I sniff my fingers. Somerby is no liberal.
I am Corby.
And yet your minimal comments never vary. Where is that famous supply you say you have?
DeleteAre you blind, Boris? Or stupid?
DeleteHe is coping.
DeleteCecelia, I am a sex god. I will fulfill your deepest longings.
ReplyDeleteCecelia isn't into racists
Delete“What Trump promised oil CEOs as he asked them to steer $1 billion to his campaign”
ReplyDelete“…At the dinner, he vowed to immediately reverse dozens of President Biden’s environmental rules and policies and stop new ones from being enacted…”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/
Donald, the populist.
"Dating back to Plato's The Apology of Socrates, it's been said that we humans are sometimes disinclined to tolerate the lack of perfect knowledge."
ReplyDeleteJust because a proposition "dates back" doesn't mean it is still current thinking. Aristotle, Plato, Socrates are all pre-scientific in their understanding of human behavior. Some their beliefs have survived but many have not. Part of the difficulty is that they only had access to their own subjective awareness and unsystematic observation of others. They didn't appreciate the limitations of their methods, and neither does Somerby.
‘Dating back to Plato's The Apology of Socrates, it's been said that we humans are sometimes disinclined to tolerate the lack of perfect knowledge."’
DeleteSo what modern day experiment has disproved the highly moderated and innocuous statement above?
There is a whole literature (a corpus or body of research consisting of hundreds of studies) investigating how people make decisions under uncertainty (lack of perfect knowledge). Back when Daniel Kahneman died and there was a discussion of why he got a Nobel Prize, I linked to his book with Amos Tversky, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1974). It summarizes how decision making is studied and explained factors important to how people make choices. Herbert A. Simon also got a Nobel Prize for studying how people combine and weight multiple sources of knowledge to make decisions (satisficing). Again, it is not a single experiment that disproves the idea that people are "disinclined to tolerate the lack of perfect knowledge" and Somerby's other statement that people push toward one choice or another because they cannot tolerate uncertainty. It is a bunch of studies.
DeleteIntolerance of Uncertainty is associated with anxiety disorders and is considered a negative trait, not part of normal human behavior. It is maladaptive and interferes with effective living. Somerby wishes to characterize the entire human race as having that trait, when research shows that it is dysfunctional and not normal for most people, contributes to negative moods, and is unhelpful to problem solving. To the extent that people do what enhances survival, most people are not intolerant of uncertainty but flexible, adaptable, and tolerant of the anxiety that comes with not knowing with certainty. That is the normative, healthy approach that provides benefits to humans when used.
"Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) is thought to lead to maladaptive behaviours and dysfunctional decision making, both in the clinical and healthy population. The seminal study reported by Luhmann and collaborators in 2011 [1] showed that IU was negatively associated with choosing a delayed, but more probable and valuable, reward over choosing an immediate, but less probable and valuable, reward. [People with greater anxiety (intolerance) force a conclusion prematurely to reduce anxiety.] These findings have been widely disseminated across the field of personality and individual differences because of their relevance for the understanding of the role of IU in the development and maintenance of anxiety-related disorders. "
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8462694/
"Widely disseminated" means that lots of researchers know this result (which is the opposite of what Somerby stated), but not Somerby because he is largely unfamiliar with psychology.
Anonymouse 1:56pm, what of anything that you have written is contrary to Bob’s “highly moderated and innocuous statement” about human beings being “somewhat disinclined to tolerate the lack of perfect knowledge.”
DeletePersonally, I’m highly disinclined towards your ridiculous attempts to attribute some extreme position to Bob and/or your other targets.
So, you are admitting that you didn't read or didn't understand what @1:56 wrote.
DeleteSomerby said the opposite of what the research shows. You asked for a cite and @1:56 gave you one. It is an extreme position and an incorrect position (no matter how "highly moderated") to say the opposite of what research shows about how people think. It is not "innocuous" to portray people as abnormal, as a rule. Abnormal means not normal and normal refers to what most people do, by definition. Somerby said something wrong and you won't accept it. That makes you an idiot.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe research doesn’t show that humans aren’t “at times” disinclined towards believing that they are certain and correct on some subject or another, and even when this surety is based upon nothing more than their gut instinct.
DeleteI doubt that premise and I doubt the experiment ever resulted in such a conclusion.
Somerby didn't say "at times" and he keeps ascribing these negative qualities to human nature. Your paraphrase of him makes no sense and isn't what he has said. I posted the study. Take it or leave it.
DeleteIt isn't as if right wingers weren't famous for denying science. If you aren't going to believe in climate change, why would you believe psychological science?
“Sometimes disinclined” isn’t a paraphrase, it’s what Bob said.
DeleteYou then claimed that a study proved that assertion from Bob as being false.
That’s crap. It’s silliness. It’s not illogical or unscientific to say that people are sometimes disinclined toward believing that they don’t have all the facts or even all the right gut instincts pertaining to certain subjects. You’re arguing that ans being unscientific even as you accuse me (and conservatives in general) of being disinclined toward any assumption of my own ignorance.
This is tedious because you’re not really making an argument, you’re merely dissing Bob under the guise of “science” when nothing he says disputes your recitations.
And I believe that climate change is real, so you can stick that little spitball back in your straw.
Somerby makes sweeping claims about human nature that are false, you are hanging your hat on some semantics and removing any consideration to the context of Somerby's claims and the implications of that context.
DeleteYour comments are just rants, emotional outbursts, you never make a coherent or credible point or counterpoint, this is yet another example of that.
I need to know how one holds both that climate change is real, and also backs a guy who razed any regulation he could, stuffed the Supreme Court with Leonard Leo nutjobs intent on emasculated the EPA, and just begged oil execs to give him a $Billion with the quid pro quo of gutting environmental regulations. Or maybe u r just full of it?
DeleteAnonymouse 3:45pm, in the instance under dispute Bob did not make “sweeping claims” as to anything.
DeleteYou have as to what he actually said. Nothing new there.
Anonymouse 3:51pm, I need to know why anonymices are so everlastingly self-referential to the point of being a cult.
Delete4:00 false.
DeleteSomerby says:
"we humans are strongly wired to novelize—to create fully formed stories from which all elements of uncertainty have been removed.
We aren't inclined to let uncertainty stand. We tend to fill in the blind spots."
Not only is this sweeping claim about humans false, but Somerby does not bother to provide any evidence other than an ancient text written by someone who had no real understanding of human nature, worse that text does not substantiate Somerby's false claim.
Anonymouse 4:23pm, would you designate the following as being a “sweeping claim”?
Delete“We humans are inclined to be comfortable with uncertainty. We tend to eschew assumptions as to what constitutes truth.”
Anons provide all the evidence you could ever need. How about the novel that Somerby is paid to seduce us poor, unsuspecting liberals?
DeleteConclusions based on evidence have more credibility than what Somerby pulls out of his ass. Papers explain the limits of generalizability for their studies. That’s how science works. Please explain that slowly to Pied Piper.
DeleteI am the high priest of the cult of the Anonymouse.
Delete5:34 - You represent the personification of no-nothing condescension. You’re going to explain “how science works”? Really?
DeleteYou probably mean “know nothing”. I am a scientist. Clearly someone has to explain such things to you.
DeleteYou’re right, “no-nothing” is hugely embarrassing.
DeleteSo, what’s your field, and what’s your degree, that gives you the privilege of your pretentions?
Oh, excuse me, “pretensions.”
DeleteAnd, BTW, Somerby has been documenting his theory of novelization with innumerable examples over 25 years or so.
DeleteI have a doctorate in cognitive science with a specialty in memory.
DeleteJust because Somerby has been misusing the term narrative and making up shit for 25 years with specious examples, doesn’t make him right. He makes no contact whatsoever with those who actually study narrative and cherrypicked examples are not evidence of anything.
DeleteAlso, nobody I know calls themselves a “scientist.” They say they are a zoologist, or a physicist, or a psychologist, or whatever.
Delete7:56 - Impressive.
DeleteWhy don’t you use a nym so I know who you are?
DeleteAnonymouse 7:07pm, no one else felt the need for you to claim (let alone explain) that you’re a scientist, and no one feels any need to believe it.
DeleteI mean, you might be pretentious, but it’s nice to have someone around with actual relevant expertise.
Delete8:15 is me.
DeleteCC - I believe him. If he is lying to impress people he will never meet or see, it would be too pitifully sad for me to even contemplate.
DeleteSo, Doctor, why don’t you use a nym so I can follow you? Maybe I could learn something.
There are quite a few people here you could learn from. I do. My nym is “anonymous,” in solidarity with other commenters here. In the age of death threats no one wants to be identifiable for no good reason other than correcting Somerby’s idiocies.
DeleteHe don’t no nothing if he’s a no-nothing, but he ain’t no no-nothing.
DeleteDoctor, you think I’m more at risk of death than you are because I use a nym? Maybe I can’t learn much from you.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:01pm, you’re worried about death threats when you could take the nym of “Curie” or “Rover”.
DeleteNo, you are not. There is a psychological effect from everyone being anonymous. It suppresses the pesky inclination to feel a common humanity toward other posters regardless of political party. Oh, you wouldn’t want that for TDH.
It’s frightening that you claim to be a scientist. Anonymices have called Bob every appellation but a murderer and have made terrible accusations against him as to his treatment of children and women. They routine launch into rants against half the country, and have called conservatives EVERY evil thing, including the devil.
Good lord. You persecute a freaking blogger, how would a client, subject, patient, fare in your hands if you knew their politics?
If your claim is true, this info is alarming and dismaying.
Here is an example, from Cecelia, of why I would not use a nym.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:28am, right. You’ll tell us your occupation so as to claim authority, but you're too afraid to take a nym such as “Not A Regular Jill” or “Beyoncé”.
DeleteUsing a name that is clear, concise, and right on, is the trick.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:07pm, exactly. Even anonymouse flying monkeys know Dr. Science is full of shite.
DeleteCC - It stumps me why Anons are so afraid of using nyms. They’re worried about death threats? There’s some pretty obvious horseshit for you. So why?
DeleteIt seems that their real fear is being attacked by other Anons. They see the abuse Anons heap upon your head and want to hide from that. They want the privilege of being able to hit and hide.
Oh, and how about the “solidarity with other Anons” bit? Like Dr. Memory is occupying the factory floor with other intrepid and beleaguered strikers.
DeleteThe goal is to make things look grim, impersonal, unfriendly, and to be unaccountable for what you say from one day to the next.
DeleteAs an anonymouse I stand in solidarity with Cecelia.
DeleteAnonymouse 11:48am, obviously I need to check my purse.
DeleteSomerby claims to be liberal but the US economy just experienced its worst quarterly performance since 2022, with higher inflation and lower growth. This impacts Americans' ability to provide for their families. Biden's high inflation and spending have hindered the Feds ability to lower interest rates. Biden's approval ratings on the economy were already low, and the recent data may further impact his ratings. Biden has limited options to address the situation, as he cannot rely on more spending through Congress. We just have to hope the failure of Bidenomics doesn't lead to stagflation.
ReplyDeleteCrickets from Somerby.
Inflation in June 2022 was 9.1
DeleteInflation in March 2023 was 3.7
Inflation in March 2024 was 3.5 <-- better not worse
That contradicts @1:52 on inflation. I wonder which other statements he made are incorrect?
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
Psst.
DeleteRaising taxes reduces spending, which lowers inflation.
Pass it on.
1:52
DeleteThe last GDP report argues the economy is no longer strong. First-quarter real GDP growth was 1.6%, below economists' expectations of 2.4%. This slower growth comes alongside higher inflation, with the Consumer Price Index rising 3.5% over the last year. This combination we are all feeling as we try to provide for our families. But let's just try to remember that Trump suppressed unfavorable stories about his private life and simultaneously disseminated negative stories about his opponents which and subsequently concealed through fraudulent activities related to the manipulation of Trump's business records and didn't wear a condom because of his hatred towards women who hate themselves.
Let's try to remember, Trump is a moron who tried to gaslight a viral pandemic like it was some common NY Times political reporter.
DeleteBiden's economy is stronger than most other presidents but @2:37 says it is no longer strong, because it is slightly less good than it was a few months ago. This, despite the soft landing Biden achieved after the disruption of covid. Biden's inflation rate this month is the same as George W. Bush's in 2000 (before 9/11 and the Iraq war). The pain most people are feeling is from the 8-9% rates in 2021, because prices don't go back down again. But they are not increasing under Biden and Biden is enacting consumer policies to help people financially.
DeleteBiden's economy is stronger than Trump's.
DeleteTrump was coasting on the coattails of Obama's economy. Trump had no major policies that had any significant positive impact on the economy.
Trump's contribution to the economy was to make the rich richer and everyone else poorer, through tax cuts for the rich and a reduction in regulations that protected citizens.
Biden has reversed that policy and now money is starting to flow the opposite way, from the rich to everyone else, stopping a 40 year old trend of the rich getting richer off the backs of everyone else.
1:52 hasn't a clue about economic indicators or what they mean.
Silk PJs.
ReplyDeleteSimon Rosenberg runs a blog called Hopium. He uses it to describe the good news about Biden's campaign. Today, he explains the difference between registered voters and likely voters and the importance of sample sizes in polling. He points out that in the polls using likely voter models and larger samples (thus more accurate), Biden is tied or ahead, including in the swing states of MI, WI, PA. A large sample size poll this week found Biden up by 6 in WI. And this is the trend over the past several weeks.
ReplyDeleteHe also reminds us that Trump is not winning because:
"For if they were winning, really winning, they would not have to invent false worlds, create false understandings and ask us to go live in there with them. If they were winning they would not have to cheat, try to overturn elections, have a corrupt right-wing judiciary delay trials, conduct fake investigations and lie in special counsel reports. If Trump was strong he would not have to paint his face, die his hair, wear girdles and diapers, get help from Putin, pay porn starts to keep quiet or get a clearly crazy dude with brain worms to run for President. Trump’s delusions, his bluster, all this is illiberalism are signs of a desperation, of weakness, of folks who are losing - it is all the very opposite of strength. Trump is a weak, pathetic and awful man not a strong man."
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/more-evidence-of-biden-strength-wlikely
How charming. And informative. I've never heard any of this before. I thought Trump was a strong man, but now I see how wrong I was.
DeleteTrump has a strong scent, it is referred to as Trump Stench.
DeleteTrump has issues with incontinence and regularly poops in his pants, so much that he wears diapers.
From the same issues, Trump also farts a lot and this worsens The Stench.
Trump at the trial keeps falling asleep and farting.
Trump has a small penis and is bad at sex.
Most men would crumble from embarrassment if they were such a stinking rotting mess like Trump, yet Trump is a strong man, he goes out every day to an empty area where there are no supporters and boldly lies, with a big smile on his face, as if he were holding in a fart, or poop.
So, Trump is a strong man after all? You're confusing me, Democrat scientists.
DeleteWhen you are done seething, you can try to cope.
DeleteYes, he is stong. And very handsome. Also wealthy. Send him your money.
DeleteHe has a strong stench, send him money to buy some deodorant.
DeleteTrump has a small penis, he needs money for penis enhancement surgery.
DeleteBut when exactly did you suck his penis last time? Maybe he already had an enhancement surgery since then.
DeleteRosenberg is an entrenched DNC operative. If he starts a blog that is in lockstep with current DNC messaging, you can be sure that it is propaganda. And that blog is pure propaganda. Not that there's anything wrong with it. But let's not get the impression it is anything other than an infomercial about Biden released by the DNC.
DeleteDNC, really? Has the Democrat party been losing the all-important retard vote? Because that seems to be the targeted audience.
DeleteThere are a lot of Democrats who replaced organized religion for a political party. You can see them consumed with intense religious fervor by painting politicians being seen as either saviors or devils, displaying intense intolerance, and rhetoric consumed with righteousness, and salvation.
DeleteThe overtly propagandistic essay from Rosenberg, linked above has many many examples of this. Eg: portraying the GOP as fundamentally opposed to the values of democracy and truth is a form of intolerance. Rosenberg also positions the Democratic perspective as morally superior, emphasizing truth, strength, and positive values, akin to a sense of moral righteousness often seen in religious contexts. And politicians are depicted in almost messianic terms, with Biden and the Democrats portrayed as saviors who uphold democracy and truth.
Rosenberg, as an arch propagandist, is probably doing this on purpose, playing to his audience of voluntarily excommunicated organized religion members who have transferred those religious needs to the Democratic political party.
It's fascinating!
Rosenberg’s goal is to whip up Dem enthusiasm not convert Magats. That is legitimate political activity. Propaganda is lying to people. He isn’t doinng that.
DeleteHe is lying to you without question. Not about everything though!
DeleteThis is a lie and propaganda. Not that there's anything wrong with it. We all just need to be aware of it.
DeleteDemocrats = growth, strength, progress, freedom
Republicans = recession, weakness, decline, dominion
This is "splitting", a propaganda technique used to simplify complex issues and create clear distinctions between "us" and "them. It's a lie and propaganda 101. I hope you can see that.
Delete"We keep winning, they keep losing. We are raising tons of money and they are not. We are united, they are divided, historically so. The Democratic Party is strong and together we are building the most powerful political machine we’ve ever had. They are a raging dumpster fire of a political party."
Rosenberg's essay is full of common propaganda techniques:
DeleteHe uses vague terms like “strength,” “freedom,” “truth,” and “success” to describe Biden and the Democrats, which are emotionally appealing but lack specific details.
He attempts to present himself and his views as aligned with the average American’s perspective, using inclusive language like “we” and “our” to create a sense of commonality with the readers.
He appeals to fear by warning of the dangers posed by Trump and the GOP, suggesting that they are trying to spread fear, cynicism, and nihilism, which could lead to the downfall of American democracy.
There's literally dozens of other examples.
Thank you for sharing this fascinating example of contemporary propaganda. It is an info war out there now. All day. Every day.
Deletepropaganda definition: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
DeleteNothing misleading or biased in Rosenberg's essay. Definitely partisan, but he (unlike Somerby) is not pretending to be anything else. The essay is largely emotional and not communicating information at all. It is promoting a point of view that says what Trump does and is cannot be called strong. It is opinion.
Rosenberg is entitled to his opinion, just as others are entitled to theirs. Calling Democrats words like "operatives" or "DNC bots" is misleading in the sense that individuals who are enthusiastic in their support Biden and Democratic policies are not hirelings working for money or empty of opinion and just promoting a dictated line, or AI. We Democrats are entitles to feel good about our candidate. To express enthusiasm for his accomplishments. To say that we will vote for him, and urge others to do so too, without being called names or smeared as paid trolls, when we are not.
If no one were enthusiastic in their support for Biden, that would be troubling for the campaign. Some attacks on Biden suggest that no one likes him. And yet right wingers here also complain when we do post comments saying we like him, will vote for him without hesitation, and abhor what Trump is and stands for. And when we are enthusiastic about Biden, it is not "propaganda" but political participation, something we have as much right to do here as anyone else. Especially since Somerby keeps pretending this is a liberal space and he supports Biden himself.
There's "nothing biased" in the essay but it is "definitely partisan"? There's "nothing biased" in the essay but it is "largely emotional and not communicating information at all"?
DeleteInteresting take. Also good to know what he wrote re. Biden's polling and Trump losing is an opinion that is largely emotional. You can say that again.
Rosenberg is an "operative". That is not misleading. It's his job to promote a dictated DNC line.
But thanks again, so much, for sharing this endlessly interesting blog called Hopium run by Simon Rosenberg. I am grateful to you for sharing it and wish you the best.
It is an opinion until the election results come in. It is a valid emotional response to be happy about two weeks of rising poll numbers in swing states. But polls aren’t votes.
DeleteTo my knowledge he doesn’t work for the DNC. I could be wrong but if so, point me to some proof of that. I see a myriad of opinions on the left, not a “dictated” DNC line. Being an actual Democrat perhaps I notice things you don’t, but I do not see anything wrong with a party promoting their nominee. The RNC would do it too, if they had any money left.
As I thought, he doesn’t work for the DNC. He is a political strategist who runs a think tank:
Delete“Simon Rosenberg (born October 23, 1963) is the founder of New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute, a liberal think tank and advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.”
I'm glad that you understand the blog is a promotional mechanism for the Democratic Party, not any kind of objective presentation. Please also understand, with its dichotomous view of good versus evil etc, it purposely contributes to polarization through misinformation - which doesn't really accord with democratic principles if you think about it. Also, remember that it oversimplifies complex policy issues which can lead to a lack of a comprehensive understanding of them. Ie. you will have to go elsewhere to understand issues fully. Hopium is an infomercial for the Democratic Party that is actively misinforming its readers and playing to their biases. It's very important to understand this and I'm glad you do. (I realize you wouldn't phrase it in that exact way ;))
DeleteBut Trump really is evil…
DeleteSomething is not an infomercial simply because the guy who writes it is a leftist political strategist. He is promoting ideals and policies, not a product.
https://journalists.medianet.com.au/DisplayAttachment.aspx?t=19773&file-type=thumb
DeleteTrump's outright contempt for Republican voters is something our media should emulate.
Delete5:29 PM What's this garbage about democrats replacing religion with politics? That's laughable by comparison with a party that veered hard right by worshiping at the throne of Rush Limbaugh and a series thereafter of similar hate spewing misanthropes. And later, "...it's very important that you understand...". I see, you get to play the condescending arbiter of what is important for those outside of your sphere to reflect upon. Here's a thought: school yourself before assuming that role here. Starting with editing out the ad hominem assertions that are embedded throughout your argument. It's very important that you recognize your flawed approach to arguing your case here. Very important. Here's another thought: don't be so foolish as to suggest In writing that there is a sub population of the " voluntarily excommunicated" that comprise your opposition. You don't do yourself any favors by playing the psychologist to a broad swath of the population, whose motivations are complex and do not adhere to your simplistic framing. That you would suggest this- in the context of calling another person a propagandist- is ironic.
DeleteYes, many Democrats, you may be one, have replaced religion with politics. I showed how with examples from the overtly propagandistic blog mentioned above that offers its readers religious appeals like moral righteousness etc. rather than traditional political appeals. It reads as a religious pamphlet from an early century. This is by design. We see this everywhere in partisan liberal politics ... a messianic zeal where the party itself brings them (you) meaning, purpose, comfort and hope and importantly, a sense connection and belonging that was ordinarily the job a religious institution. These are human needs that must be filled one way or another and once the church was taken out of the picture, people, maybe yourself even, turned to other institutions to meet these needs. In this case, political institutions, which is ultimately a titanic mistake as you will see in time. This transference of religious zeal may be unconscious on their (your) part. As a Democrat these are my people, not my opposition. The right has done it too, notable in the early aughts but still and probably always to some extent.
DeleteWhen you reread what I wrote you will see "... it's very important that you understand ..." refers to understanding the blog in question is not objective but instead DNC propaganda.
Thank you for your criticisms and advice about avoiding condescension, self-reflecting, improving argumentation, editing out ad hominem assertions, avoid oversimplifications, recognizing the complexity of people’s motivations, not playing the psychologist, recognizing irony and avoiding hypocrisy. These are all good points and well taken.
May the Force be with you.
DeleteLook, 4:50 AM, propaganda, zealotry, hate-mongering it's all there, no question about that.
But why is most of their propaganda so stupid, so idiotic? Can you imagine anyone so retarded as to take it seriously, as I tried to demonstrate @3:42 PM? I can't.
I suggest the main purpose is not to propagandize, but to pollute, to litter the online environment. To fill it up with garbage. Same as most of the comments on this blog.
6:27 that could be. It's very hard to believe the main troll here, formerly called Corby, is really serious about what they write. Because their reasoning is so completely stupid and crazy. I always thought that they may be writing from an insane asylum. Or maybe they are a young child with a computer creatively trolling.
DeleteBut, I think just like in any religion there are the true believers, the flock, and there are the clergy and elders that lead the congregants and to whom the congregants turn to for guidance. Just like in any religion also, reason and rationality are not a part of the equation. Filling these vital human needs of connection, moral reassurance and providing easy answers to ultimately unanswerable paradoxes is the name of the game which is why you see so much dogmatic ignorance.
But you could be right. It may be that it is entirely flooding the zone with garbage. I'm not sure. People are people. They're scared, confused, tribal and this is reinforced by elaborate propaganda like was shown above that is intended to divide by playing on those emotions.
I reckon, the one Cecelia calls "flying monkey" is typing from an asylum: the same set of idiotic one-liners every day, same time of day. Obsessive-compulsive. But yes, so is "Corby", only longer word-salads.
DeleteBut then, hey, come to think of it: Bob has a similarly repetitive routine.
9:29,
DeleteThat is one huge pile of horseshit you're peddling.
The Cult of Brandon is my religion.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:10am, anonymouse flying monkeys are a subspecies of anonymices.
DeleteSub average and subversive.
Say what you will about Cecelia, but she at least she never tries to be funny.
DeleteBob’s use of the world “novelization” to characterize MSNBC’s coverage is prissy, condescending and dishonest. Yes, they are presenting a “story” (never a dirty word, as I ever understood it, with reporting) and hit certain elements hard ( Trump’s lawyer going after Daniel’s with bizarre excess, for one example) but Bob never even attempts to characterize them as fiction. Feminist rhetoric about power imbalances does crop up, but they are trying to gage how the jury may view these events, just as Gutfeld tells us how he reacts (Bob seems to be appalled at first, but then seems to respect Gutfled’s “novel.” I wish Fox viewers could be a little better people too, just like Bob. But the truth is they are idiots, made a choice to become hateful slobs, and the best we can really do is outvote them.
ReplyDeleteI’m not wired to novelize. Hell, I’m not wired at all.
ReplyDeletei wouldn't worry about it. the bible is a mass of contradictions and absurdities. it's clearly an all-too-human product, not the product of a superior intelligence, let alone an all-knowing, all-wise, morally perfect one
ReplyDeleteHere is one to see
ReplyDeleteFor you I implore
It is filled with glee
Please click for more!
https://www.mrmethane.com/jar