Human Nature

[Sheldon]

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.

I don't think the author was claiming that no one ever found Trump funny, only that as far as the author was concerned he'd never said anything remotely witty, or funny. I have to confess, I've never watched, nor would I be likely to watch, a trump rally, at east not at length, frankly I'd rather drink my own piss. 

Though I am not saying I agree exactly with everything the author wrote, the general tone of criticisms resonate I must say. To me, Trump is a bully, and I despise that. And while he seems to have passion, he seems to lack compassion. Is he even capable of empathy? When I have seen him try this, it just seems creepy to me.

[Alan V]

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.

...

Being something of an Anglophile already, I can't help but feel even more in common with these British perspectives than with those of many of my fellow Americans.

However, it isn't just the fault of Americans per se, but with our evolved human nature.  Trump is a supernormal stimulus, and Americans are psychologically naive.  In a way, I am letting people off the hook by saying that.

[Belacqua]

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.

...

Being something of an Anglophile already, I can't help but feel even more in common with these British perspectives than with those of many of my fellow Americans.

However, it isn't just the fault of Americans per se, but with our evolved human nature.  Trump is a supernormal stimulus, and Americans are psychologically naive.  In a way, I am letting people off the hook by saying that.

The quote from Nate White is a good example of the polarization that I've been talking about. People go to extremes, and think that because Trump is terrible (he is) then Obama must in some way be the opposite of that. 

This is like the risible claim that Obama's only scandal while in office was wearing a tan suit. 

I think that the women and children killed by the 24,287 bombs Obama dropped during his last year in office might not attribute to him those same wonderful qualities. (The figure is undoubtedly low, since there were also clandestine operations.) 

https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-many-bombs-...-drop-2016

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ama-legacy

In my opinion, 24,287 acknowledged bombs in one year do not rise to the level of compassion, subtlety, or sensitivity. 

Trump is so bad that I guess the only way we can keep any hope alive for democracy is to make ourselves blind to the truth about the other team. Yet it is possible that they are both bad. 

The good news, I guess, is that you aren't really as cynical and hopeless as you say, if you still think that electing Dems is going to improve anything.

Mr. White doesn't address Boris Johnson's level of sophistication.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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."

Spot on.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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. 

It says a lot about many Americans that they view this lowbrow approach as "real".

[Thumpalumpacus]

Being something of an Anglophile already, I can't help but feel even more in common with these British perspectives than with those of many of my fellow Americans.

However, it isn't just the fault of Americans per se, but with our evolved human nature.  Trump is a supernormal stimulus, and Americans are psychologically naive.  In a way, I am letting people off the hook by saying that.

The quote from Nate White is a good example of the polarization that I've been talking about. People go to extremes, and think that because Trump is terrible (he is) then Obama must in some way be the opposite of that. 

This is like the risible claim that Obama's only scandal while in office was wearing a tan suit. 

I think that the women and children killed by the 24,287 bombs Obama dropped during his last year in office might not attribute to him those same wonderful qualities. (The figure is undoubtedly low, since there were also clandestine operations.) 

https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-many-bombs-...-drop-2016

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ama-legacy

In my opinion, 24,287 acknowledged bombs in one year do not rise to the level of compassion, subtlety, or sensitivity. 

Trump is so bad that I guess the only way we can keep any hope alive for democracy is to make ourselves blind to the truth about the other team. Yet it is possible that they are both bad. 

The good news, I guess, is that you aren't really as cynical and hopeless as you say, if you still think that electing Dems is going to improve anything.

Mr. White doesn't address Boris Johnson's level of sophistication.

It's weird how in a thread about human nature you've managed to steer this into a Trump-vs-Obama thing.

Well, no, it's not weird. You're just trumpeting whataboutism without acknowledging it.

[Deesse23]

The quote from Nate White is a good example of the polarization that I've been talking about. People go to extremes, and think that because Trump is terrible (he is) then Obama must in some way be the opposite of that. 

This is like the risible claim that Obama's only scandal while in office was wearing a tan suit. 

I think that the women and children killed by the 24,287 bombs Obama dropped during his last year in office might not attribute to him those same wonderful qualities. (The figure is undoubtedly low, since there were also clandestine operations.) 

https://www.cfr.org/blog/how-many-bombs-...-drop-2016

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...ama-legacy

In my opinion, 24,287 acknowledged bombs in one year do not rise to the level of compassion, subtlety, or sensitivity. 

Trump is so bad that I guess the only way we can keep any hope alive for democracy is to make ourselves blind to the truth about the other team. Yet it is possible that they are both bad. 

The good news, I guess, is that you aren't really as cynical and hopeless as you say, if you still think that electing Dems is going to improve anything.

Mr. White doesn't address Boris Johnson's level of sophistication.

It's weird how in a thread about human nature you've managed to steer this into a Trump-vs-Obama thing.

Well, no, it's not weird. You're just trumpeting whataboutism without acknowledging it.

He just admitted that he thinks all politicians are liars/criminals. He is a victim of the 21st century of bullshit and propaganda.

The smart ones just figured that your can't sell your lie /crime straight away, if it's too absurd. No you first have to convince the gullible that ALL people/politicians are liars. THEN you sell your lie.

It's a variant of: ...drag then down to your level and beat them with experience.

.. And Bel fell for that script. Line, hook and sinker

[Sheldon]

Being something of an Anglophile already, I can't help but feel even more in common with these British perspectives than with those of many of my fellow Americans.

However, it isn't just the fault of Americans per se, but with our evolved human nature.  Trump is a supernormal stimulus, and Americans are psychologically naive.  In a way, I am letting people off the hook by saying that.

The quote from Nate White is a good example of the polarization that I've been talking about. People go to extremes, and think that because Trump is terrible (he is) then Obama must in some way be the opposite of that. 

Except the author said nothing of the sort, or even implied it. Only listed qualities, that he felt one man possessed. and the other lacked. He made no comment on what Obama did with those qualities, you seem to be the one who is indulging in endless whataboutism. 

This is like the risible claim that Obama's only scandal while in office was wearing a tan suit. 

No it really is not, and your endless attempts to insert Obama into a thread about Trump, suggests you are trying to defend Trump with whataboutism. Even if they were to find the rotting corpse of Maddie McCann in Obama's basement, it doesn't change what Trump is, or what he is doing. You need to try and stop looking at this in a bipartisan way. Trump is a level of greedy crass ineptitude, and vile bigotry that is deserving of critical comment all on its own. 

I think that the women and children killed by the 24,287 bombs Obama dropped during his last year in office might not attribute to him those same wonderful qualities. 

Groovy, and what has this to with Trump? Maybe the questionable legality of Obama's policy on drone use deserves a thread of its own? Rather than being use as whataboutism here? 

Trump is so bad that I guess the only way we can keep any hope alive for democracy is to make ourselves blind to the truth about the other team. Yet it is possible that they are both bad. 

It's bizarre the way you project straw men claims onto others, as if any level of nuanced or subtle understanding, is something only you possess. It's just bizarre to keep referencing Obama in a thread about Trump, as if one can only hate what Trump does or is, if one thinks Obama was faultless. 

The good news, I guess, is that you aren't really as cynical and hopeless as you say, if you still think that electing Dems is going to improve anything.

And there it is, as if this thread is all about bi-partisan politics, and not about what a ghastly individual Trump is, and why he is totally unsuited for any sort of public office. If you want to post about that, isn't there a thread dedicated to the GOP, where such bipartisan comparisons seem apropos?

FWIW, the best chance of checking the abuse of power, and the onward assault on democracy, and march towards autocracy by Senator Palpatine, is to elect as many Democrats as possible in the midterms. Even if some of them think gun control is more important, than controlling what women do with their own bodies.

[Ivan Denisovich]

It's weird how in a thread about human nature you've managed to steer this into a Trump-vs-Obama thing.

Well, no, it's not weird. You're just trumpeting whataboutism without acknowledging it.

He just admitted that he thinks all politicians are liars/criminals. He is a victim of the 21st century of bullshit and propaganda.

The smart ones just figured that your can't sell your lie /crime straight away, if it's too absurd. No you first have to convince the gullible that ALL people/politicians are liars. THEN you sell your lie.

It's a variant of: ...drag then down to your level and beat them with experience.

.. And Bel fell for that script. Line, hook and sinker

To be fair majority of politicians are liars (at least in Poland). This is why such strategy finds so easy purchase among people. Far right greatest strength is in deplorable state of mainstream politics.

[Belacqua]

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.

Remember Richard Dawkins? He used to be popular with atheists on line. 

He has come out as a transphobe and a fan of Elon Musk. So there's at least one atheist in the world who is not on our team.

In general I just think it's a bad idea to emphasize the us vs. them mentality. In-group vs. out-group, that kind of thing. It leads to overly-easy judgments, and partisanship, like "my team is better than their team, and they would all be better if they were more like me." That's not the way to get peace love and understanding. 

It may well be human nature to divide things up that way, but it's something we can guard against in our thinking. Each individual and each issue has to be taken on its individual merits.