Why Facts Don't Trump the President (Full Program)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Facts are overrated. Sure, they are the concrete foundation of narratives and they should be defended when the president of the United States and his team make false claims. But the obsession with facts can be taken too far at the expense of other deeper means of communication.
George Lakoff says if progressives want to learn from the election of Donald Trump they need to change what they study in college, how they think about facts as adults, understand framing and learn to repeat, repeat, repeat. Robert Rosenthal joins us from The Center For Investigative Reporting to help us understand the importance of facts in reporting.
Join a conversation to learn how you can revise the way you think and talk in this new political world in order to be heard.
climateone.org/...
You know why this isn't getting any views? It's because you made it political.
Who was it that contemplated a will that drives nature without freedom?
Who says that we must learn to understand nature from ourselves, not ourselves from nature due to psychology being being the queen of the sciences ? Wouldn't this just make environmental survival a mere consequence of power, due to a subjective aspect in nature? I speak of no capitalist but Friedrich Wilhelm Nietszche himself, a will that subjects nature by force and not freedom is ontological manipulation. So my question to anyone here is simple, how can one be environmental without being universal?
The "lightning round" thing is a useless gimmick
❤😂😅😮😊🎉
It's not so much that many on the left think that if you just give people the facts that they will accept them. It's that this is how it _should_ be. Your opinion, even in the walled garden of your own mind, shouldn't controvert facts. I have instincts towards things that are incorrect. For example, I love it when some right-wing asshat gets shut down. Instinctually, I have no issue if David Duke or Glenn Beck have no free speech rights. I don't pay attention to either, I wouldn't even know that they were gone from the cacophony that comes from the right. The thing is that _intellectually_ I also know that this is unfair and legislating their speech away doesn't lead to a society that I want to live in. Businesses have no obligation to them. No one needs to _give_ them a microphone or soapbox, but they should have a legal right to say whatever. This is how it _should_ work. My instincts are that they say nothing of value, so fuck 'em, but the fact of living in a society that unfairly legislates speech being undesirable mitigates this.
To give an example from the right showing the opposite, take the simple demonstrable fact of evolution. We know that speciation happens, that wolves and dogs have common ancestors, that going back further wolves and dogs and cats do also, and that going back even further all primates, and eventually you can infer that all life had a common ancestor or close to it. This is an inconvenient fact for conservatives, so, they just ignore it. The problem that I have with Lakoff here, and with people like Jonathan Haidt who takes a similar approach to articulating left/right differences, is that one side is just overwhelmingly _wrong_ here. It hurts liberal sensitivities to just categorically denounce an opposing view. We always like to consider other perspectives. If Kaitlyn Jenner wants to be called Kaitlyn and referred to as “her,” meh, no skin off my back. I simply don’t care. I don’t want to be perceived as moralistic. The thing is though, that when it comes to something like climate change or many of the things where the left and right differ, we _need_ to be moralistic. We need to condemn these ideas about society, regardless of where they are grounded in the right-wingers’ psyches, It’s great to better understand where climate denial, science denial, draconian social views come from, but _they’re still wrong._ What Lakoff describes as “Strict Father Morality” is simply might makes right. The reason that the father figure in this analogy gets to make the rules is because he has the power to punish. This is not an alternate way of looking at the world. This is a nightmarishly wrong way of looking at the world.
Haidt is like a flea compared to Lakoff, he is more of a right-wing hack. Lakoff is a scientist, Haidt is an operative.
The only disagreement that I would have is that Haidt's research is important. How he interprets and spins is completely biased in favor of the right, and that is why they write him checks to continue doing research.
Lakoff's ideas about why conservatives are conservative I think are spot on. We just have to add that this is a nightmarish society for everyone but the elites.
-- this is a nightmarish society for everyone but the elites.
I can agree with you, but even so, I think in some way it does the elites no good either. They are sick in their souls, you can hear it Trump or any of them. At some point they will become aware of their deadly sins, or maybe they will live their lives totally outside the real world.
My only question is that I agree with you, and I think many others would as well, so why can't they do anything about it? I have to wonder if there is some kind of surveillance that removes people as threats very soon in their lives. Like how they keep a permanent record of kids in school, where does it go and who does what to it. Do they track people through their lives and make sure they do not get the time, resources, skills or exposure to change anything?
No, that seems a little too conspiratorial for me. You can see very complex patterns of behavior in insects and animals that don't have anything directing them. It's purely instinctual.
I think human beings also act in coordinated patterns without direction. Take for example all the evangelical christians who voted for Trump who should be anathema to them. He's affecting them on some subconscious level, and then they rationalize why they have positive feelings for him. I think some people, some groups of people, instinctively get rid of people who are dangerous to them, ostracize them, jail them, whatever. I don't think that it happens consciously and I don't think that the people doing it understand why they do it.
+No Way Interesting thoughts. If I understood correctly you mean that the conservatives are "stubborn" in comparison to the left. When a concept (like evolution) is presented with supporting fact and the receiver had already decided not to accept the concept (based on their spiritual beliefs) and they should not controvert facts (sure you saw "..show me the evidence" interview with Wendy Wright and RD)
Are you implying that at a birds eye view conservatives are the people who needs an attitude change? and leftists are always right since it is based on science and progressiveness?
Are you implying that the world politics (or atleast USA and Canada) eventually have to be progressive with the society and the individual being "dynamic" (the living), ever changing values ?
Is your tone that conservative political idelogy or values has no benefit to the individual or the society?
I would like to have a conversation (in this thread) and learn
I'd like to think the typical Trump delusional is like this guy at 4:40 , Gary E. Malasian, old, mean-spirited and about to die. He project his own lifelong whininess about his personal defeats onto the politics of academia which does nothing but hurt other people based on something that doesn't even do anything for him personally. I've had the same feelings about politics in the groups I've sometimes worked with myself, but nothing would make me give up my altruism and desire to have a better world. That guy is a bitter, evil loser that was easily taken advantage of by the Republicans, and there are a lot of them, and the Republican message gets better at snagging them.
His reasoning is incoherent, as he says the American people have too much time, too much money and too much freedom? What does that even mean, and especially how is it inline with what the Republicans' message is? This is the kind of person who you can talk to for years and it is all wasted breath, he just wants to be miserable, and for everyone else to be too, especially those who he things are beneath him ... gays, blacks and women.
And then I have to wonder what he thinks of Trump now, and why?
If he voted for Trump based on what he said he'd do ... well, he has done the opposite and is on a trajectory to be the complete opposite of what he said policy-wise. If he voted for Trump for her character ... what is that about ... I'd love to hear an honest straight from the guy explanation of what people see in Trump's character.
Not at all to say that all Democrats are morally superior at all, there are a lot of Democrats who just want socialist policies because they are lazy or cannot survive in the world as it is, but I keep looking for some right-winger to spill their guts and honestly say what is is about such ugliness that energizes them so and makes them so insulting, rude and aggressive?
It seems to me that Republicans like this guy feel they don't get anything from the current Democatic party, and I can really understand that. It does seem Democrats are purposefully trying to drive the more moderates away, like the Democratic leadership is hired like a worker in a company that is going to go overseas, to train their replacements before they get fired. I feel that comes from outside the Democratic party and it is a legitimate grievance - but to think that the Repubicans are the answer, is an act of confusion, desperation and obliviousity - if that is a word.
What is needed is what Bernie said, a revolution, because the establishment of both parties are working for the same goal - to overturn the system to remove the public space. Gary up there needs to suck it up and concentrate on what is really going on instead of being emotionally manipulated by lies.
+justgivemethetruth Hello I am here to learn and trying to make conversation with interesting comments.
When you say "revolution" how , and what?
and is it so bad that we need a revolution?
can you list the top 10 problems a citizen faces?
Thanks