tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
Locked
tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
 
|
context: near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive. In an attempt to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat Trump was not only counter-productive, but extremely stupid. I also expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of deplorables." glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion. How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes first? davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
Biden is much more authentically a person of faith than Trump is. I'm not sure the Trumpers are capable of perceiving that. --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:47 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Ah yes, the views of the racists and traitorous confederates.. From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]> context: near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive.
In an attempt to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat Trump was not only counter-productive, but
extremely stupid. I also expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of deplorables." glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion.
How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes first? davew - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
That sounds like irony (doh). What are you actually saying, Marcus? --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:54 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
Trump made a direct appeal to racists and other people of backward sensibilities in this country and it worked. The challenge is not to pacify them, play politics with them, or find a way to forgive them. The challenge is to make it
abundantly clear what they are about and isolate them. This may mean deepening the divisions and burning some bridges along the way. Clear enough? From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> That sounds like irony (doh). What are you actually saying, Marcus? --- On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:54 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
I think the way to start is to identify the intention/purpose of the rhetoric/strategy. My tack, what I want to argue about, is that the rhetoric/strategy you identify is *not* "to defeat Trump". And that's why you think it's a stupid strategy, because you've identified a fictitious objective. The actual objective is to two-fold: 1) to demonstrate the extent to which Trump supporters are offensive to everything liberal democracy is and 2) to push the moderates further left.
Hillary is an interesting example because she's not very far left (if she's even left at all). Her "basket of deplorables" comment lands, I think, squarely in (1). And I think we can classify most of the candidate rhetoric this way. For the most part, the moderates still talk about "my friends across the aisle" ... though I admit that's getting more rare. Day by day, those on the right show themselves to be anti-democracy, many show themselves to be pro-authority. To a large extent, my guess is that many lefties think Biden isn't much different from Trump, policy wise. So, the objective isn't to defeat Trump. It's to push the entire electorate left. And I think the strategy is working. Personally, as I argued in 2016, if Trump is re-elected, he'll *further* demonstrate how offensive and anti-democratic he and his supporters are. So, my strategy would be to re-elect him so everyone can see just how bad it can get. Maybe *then* we'll be motivated to go back and reconsider what we're trying to do. So, I'm almost ambivalent to whether Trump is re-elected. And I'll continue ridiculing his idiot supporters. As to SteveG's windmill tilting hermeneutic capitulation to theists, the ridicule strategy is working there, too. And we don't even need to work very hard at that. Our progress in coming to grips with the large and intricate universe demonstrates, daily, how stupid it is to believe in overly simple things like the Christian God. Now, more subtle conceptions of "gods" like that of pantheism, the Tao, or Buddha are not so easy to make look silly ... maybe because those concepts simply aren't silly. And a Jesuit conception of the Catholic Trinity is, arguably, similar. But it takes almost zero work to show how silly the Fundamentalists are. So, again, the strategy is working, as measured against the actual objective. On 6/12/20 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote: > context: > > near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive. In an attempt to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat Trump was not only counter-productive, but *extremely stupid*. I also expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of deplorables." > > glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion. > > How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes first? - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Much better. Most of my family are Confederate descendants. Some are progressive liberals, some are committed Christians and Trump supporters. I tend to avoid the latter. On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 4:10 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
Frank Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I suspected what your argument might be and I am in agreement, with two caveats. Objective 1) is achieved only to the extent that all or most Trump supporters are as you describe. Objective 2) not only pushes moderates leftward but simultaneously pushes the Left-Radical-Fringe off the precipice. The strategy can, I think, remain unproductive/counterproductive vis-a-vis these two objectives, but probably would no longer merit the adjective "stupid." Personally, I think that any meaningful change will require not only "showing just how bad it can get" but reducing the temple to rubble. (Where's Sampson when we need him?) Apocalypse Now! The only problem is how to make sure that those that "led" us to this state of affairs, and the bureaucracies that maintain that state, are the first one's culled by the pandemics, the jihads, and the environmental collapses. davew On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, at 4:11 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote: > I think the way to start is to identify the intention/purpose of the > rhetoric/strategy. My tack, what I want to argue about, is that the > rhetoric/strategy you identify is *not* "to defeat Trump". And that's > why you think it's a stupid strategy, because you've identified a > fictitious objective. The actual objective is to two-fold: 1) to > demonstrate the extent to which Trump supporters are offensive to > everything liberal democracy is and 2) to push the moderates further > left. > > Hillary is an interesting example because she's not very far left (if > she's even left at all). Her "basket of deplorables" comment lands, I > think, squarely in (1). And I think we can classify most of the > candidate rhetoric this way. For the most part, the moderates still > talk about "my friends across the aisle" ... though I admit that's > getting more rare. Day by day, those on the right show themselves to be > anti-democracy, many show themselves to be pro-authority. > > To a large extent, my guess is that many lefties think Biden isn't much > different from Trump, policy wise. So, the objective isn't to defeat > Trump. It's to push the entire electorate left. And I think the > strategy is working. Personally, as I argued in 2016, if Trump is > re-elected, he'll *further* demonstrate how offensive and > anti-democratic he and his supporters are. So, my strategy would be to > re-elect him so everyone can see just how bad it can get. Maybe *then* > we'll be motivated to go back and reconsider what we're trying to do. > So, I'm almost ambivalent to whether Trump is re-elected. And I'll > continue ridiculing his idiot supporters. > > As to SteveG's windmill tilting hermeneutic capitulation to theists, > the ridicule strategy is working there, too. And we don't even need to > work very hard at that. Our progress in coming to grips with the large > and intricate universe demonstrates, daily, how stupid it is to believe > in overly simple things like the Christian God. Now, more subtle > conceptions of "gods" like that of pantheism, the Tao, or Buddha are > not so easy to make look silly ... maybe because those concepts simply > aren't silly. And a Jesuit conception of the Catholic Trinity is, > arguably, similar. But it takes almost zero work to show how silly the > Fundamentalists are. So, again, the strategy is working, as measured > against the actual objective. > > > On 6/12/20 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote: > > context: > > > > near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive. In an attempt to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat Trump was not only counter-productive, but *extremely stupid*. I also expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of deplorables." > > > > glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion. > > > > How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes first? > > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
Hm. I'm not sure objective (1) requires them to *be* as I describe (anti-democratic and/or pro-authority), only that their special pleading be silenced or drowned out. The constant hedging (EricC's "I'm not *that* kind of racist" ... or "what *I* mean when *I* fly the confederate flag is blahblahblah") of the deplorable apologist is weak enough to fall apart over time. So, e.g. things like the Heterodox Academy, which enable the right wing while rhetorically distancing themselves from the right wing, don't have to be well-classified as anti-democratic or pro-authority to still crumble. At some point, everyone realizes the lady doth protest too much.
As for pushing the fringe off the precipice, we'd have to argue a bit about hidden assumptions. Is there a precipice? If movement left is *progress*, then we may approach, but by definition never arrive at, a singularity. And if movement left is progress, why would anyone be against it in the first place? On 6/12/20 4:02 PM, Prof David West wrote: > I suspected what your argument might be and I am in agreement, with two caveats. > > Objective 1) is achieved only to the extent that *all or most* Trump supporters are as you describe. > > Objective 2) not only pushes moderates leftward but simultaneously pushes the Left-Radical-Fringe off the precipice. > > The strategy can, I think, remain unproductive/counterproductive vis-a-vis these two objectives, but probably would no longer merit the adjective "stupid." > > Personally, I think that any meaningful change will require not only "showing just how bad it can get" but reducing the temple to rubble. (Where's Sampson when we need him?) Apocalypse Now! The only problem is how to make sure that those that "led" us to this state of affairs, and the bureaucracies that maintain that state, are the first one's culled by the pandemics, the jihads, and the environmental collapses. - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Yes, Marcus, very clear. Helpful. Thanks. n Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels Trump made a direct appeal to racists and other people of backward sensibilities in this country and it worked. The challenge is not to pacify them, play politics with them, or find a way to forgive them. The challenge is to make it abundantly clear what they are about and isolate them. This may mean deepening the divisions and burning some bridges along the way. Clear enough? From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> That sounds like irony (doh). What are you actually saying, Marcus? --- On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 3:54 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
Re: tactics and strategy - from vFRIAM 6/12 - attention glen
|
|
In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2
Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them..... merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. -- Machiavelli... 517 years ago ----------- Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. Department of Justice - Personnel Psychologist American University - Adjunct Instructor On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 5:51 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |