Human Nature

[Fireball]

Well, that's at least one thing we're not lying to ourselves about.

[Angrboda]

Bel sticks with his schtick...passive-aggressive slams at atheists (the majority of members of this forum) followed by the expected "I Read a Book" entry.

I don't mind criticisms as long as I can understand how they are accurate.  His equating Democrats and Republicans as equally hateful seems like a false equivalence to me.  MAGA Republicans go out of their way to demonize liberals, and often slander people in the process.  "Waste and fraud" accusations seem directed at Democratic initiatives.  Same with atheists versus theists.  I don't know of any atheists who believe theists are going to burn in hell forever.

"Give a dog a bad name and hang it," sounds like authoritarianism to me.  Calling it "winning" is just propaganda from my perspective.  It begs the question.

I rather suspect any differences between the left and right are due to environmental pressures. With groups with whom we sympathize, such as black people, we're more willing to see them as products of their environment when we note any failings such as academic scores or crime or whatever. When it's a group we dislike we tend to view it as something inherent in the individual, as a moral failing. This recalls the way that people with mental illness were stigmatized, that they were seen as being the product of moral failings. I think in some sense the situation is both getting worse and getting better with respect to religion. On the one hand we stigmatize religion from the birds eye view, pointing out widespread abuse, corruption, and so on. Yet more people these days are inclined to view religious individuals as individuals, to hate the sin but love the sinner. It seems like there is a disconnect there. Perhaps it's like Valk said in general. Individuals are neither good or bad, but humanity as a whole is stupid.

[Alan V]

"Give a dog a bad name and hang it," sounds like authoritarianism to me.  Calling it "winning" is just propaganda from my perspective.  It begs the question.

I don't understand what this means. I am the one who is opposed to authoritarianism, because I don't think any political authority can be trusted. 

I think it's correct to say that too many of the exchanges we see on line are attempts to win. Good faith discussions which attempt to persuade are different. 

I was unclear, since I was referring to Trump's rhetorical tricks. He is a demagogue.

Trump tries to evade judicial oversight, due process, and congressional debate, since he really believes he knows best. That is authoritarianism, and it also begs the question because those tactics avoid any real test.

[Deesse23]

I am the one who is opposed to authoritarianism, because I don't think any political authority can be trusted.

[Belacqua]

Trump tries to evade judicial oversight, due process, and congressional debate, since he really believes he knows best.  That is authoritarianism, and it also begs the question because those tactics avoid any real test.

I certainly agree. No one should evade those things. 

If he signed an act allowing indefinite detention of individuals, including U.S. citizens, without charge or trial, we would oppose that. 

But he doesn't have to, because Obama already did in 2011. 

See, I oppose all these things, and don't give Democrats a pass. We should be wary.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/pres...n-bill-law

[Alan V]

From my own personal experiences, I would say that atheists are more honest and straightforward than other people.  That might affect how well we socialize.  It certainly does for me.

From my personal experience, atheists like to think themselves more honest and straightforward than other people.

Whether they are is an open question that is not readily resolved by the rather partial accounting that we get online.

In terms of how we identify, I think there are real advantages to understanding that humanity shared a common evolution, with its various pluses and minuses, over believing we are God's favored community in some respect (religion, race, nation, or whatever).

[Sheldon]

And I don't think this is Trump's doing. In fact I think it's the opposite -- I think that a large part of Trump's popularity comes from the fact that he talks the way the rest of us do. He's "direct" and "tells it like it is." He doesn't bother with courtesy, he just says what he thinks. And even anti-Trump people see those things as good. Vulgarity is seen as a sign of sincerity. If we disagree, we get nasty. Nastiness is encouraged, as long as the target is someone who falls outside of our locally approved ideology. 

I literally don't know anyone IRL who talks the way Trump does, which I take to mean "lies all the time."  Facts are still facts, no matter how many times someone denies them.  Honesty must include the attempt to be accurate.  Trump doesn't even try, and apparently never admits he is wrong or takes corrections.

Saw this a while back, and I think the author nailed it for me.

"Why some British people do not like Donald Trump?” 

Nate White:

"A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump."

[zebo-the-fat]

I literally don't know anyone IRL who talks the way Trump does, which I take to mean "lies all the time."  Facts are still facts, no matter how many times someone denies them.  Honesty must include the attempt to be accurate.  Trump doesn't even try, and apparently never admits he is wrong or takes corrections.

Saw this a while back, and I think the author nailed it for me.

"Why some British people do not like Donald Trump?” 

Nate White:

"A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed. So for us, the stark contrast does rather throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief.

Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I don’t say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it’s a fact. He doesn’t even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty.

Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he doesn’t just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and knee-jerk nastiness.

There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance or depth. It’s all surface. Some Americans might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we don’t. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He’s not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He’s more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege.

And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down.

So the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a third – of Americans look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that:

• Americans are supposed to be nicer than us, and mostly are.
• You don’t need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man.

This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty bloody hard to miss. After all, it’s impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. He makes Nixon look trustworthy and George W look smart. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump."

Yes! all of that and more!

[Sheldon]

I literally don't know anyone IRL who talks the way Trump does, which I take to mean "lies all the time."  Facts are still facts, no matter how many times someone denies them.  Honesty must include the attempt to be accurate.  Trump doesn't even try, and apparently never admits he is wrong or takes corrections.

Oh well yeah, if you're defining "talks like Trump" as "constantly lies." I don't know anybody like that either. 

What I meant was that if he doesn't like a reporter he just says "You're fake news." In his debate with Hillary, he basically won when he made a snarky zinger as a comeback. That's what people like. 

We talk to WIN, not to have a conversation.

Labelling facts as fake news, is of course lying, and as the author above points out, it's a petty churlish reaction whenever he hears anything he doesn't like. "Snarky zinger", he was just his usual shallow crass bullying self, I can't claim to know whether people like that, I imagine some do, but then there is no shortage sadly, of bigots, who revel in such displays. 

The last part amply sums up why I will always consider "Senator Palpatine", to be a loser, to the core, he can only ever feel good when he's making someone else feel bad, such behaviour defines the words cowardly, and bully for me.

[Angrboda]

I'd have to disagree about Trump. One of the things that make his rallies so successful is that he can be very funny. His humor may not appeal to some, but that's due to ideological differences.