Social Politics / The American Scene

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

I didn’t think so.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

I am still very interested in what you have to say to this. Something? Nothing at all?

Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

[ThinkOfOne]

…

I am still very interested in what you have to say to this. Something? Nothing at all?

Why would anyone be interested in what you have to say when you start your responses with the likes of the following?

Non-ironically, but typically if also depressingly, you are (to coin a popular phrase) “talking out of your asshole” as many are inclined to do. I had a paranoid thought that you Chat GPTd your response!
The world is getting frightening!

Even if one were to overlook the above, your posts have been low quality at best. Even worse, you seem oblivious to this fact.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…

I am still very interested in what you have to say to this. Something? Nothing at all?

Why would anyone be interested in what you have to say when you start your responses with the likes of the following?

Non-ironically, but typically if also depressingly, you are (to coin a popular phrase) “talking out of your asshole” as many are inclined to do. I had a paranoid thought that you Chat GPTd your response!
The world is getting frightening!

Even if one were to overlook the above, your posts have been low quality at best. Even worse, you seem oblivious to this fact.

Take it like a man — and get to the core of what you indicate you are here to communicate. Hop over every obstacle. Don’t be side-tracked!

Here it is again:

Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

Quoting you:

Why would anyone be interested in what you have to say when you start your responses with the likes of the following?

Put me aside! It’s about you now.

[ThinkOfOne]

I am still very interested in what you have to say to this. Something? Nothing at all?

Why would anyone be interested in what you have to say when you start your responses with the likes of the following?

Non-ironically, but typically if also depressingly, you are (to coin a popular phrase) “talking out of your asshole” as many are inclined to do. I had a paranoid thought that you Chat GPTd your response!
The world is getting frightening!

Even if one were to overlook the above, your posts have been low quality at best. Even worse, you seem oblivious to this fact.

Take it like a man — and get to the core of what you indicate you are here to communicate. Hop over every obstacle. Don’t be side-tracked!

Here it is again:

Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

Quoting you:

Why would anyone be interested in what you have to say when you start your responses with the likes of the following?

Put me aside! It’s about you now.

It's as if you have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a young teen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's as if you have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a young teen.

Be that as it may the entire world, the Universe, indeed THE COSMOS is waiting, as I am, to be instructed by you.

Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

[ThinkOfOne]

It's as if you have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a young teen.

Be that as it may the entire world, the Universe, indeed THE COSMOS is waiting, as I am, to be instructed by you.

Can you offer some concrete examples of how you have applied your interesting methods to examine topical political issues. Which ones? I am interested to be shown how it can be done. Are you asserting you have a developed skill, or are you speaking “purely theoretically” about a talent you are working on or imagine attainable?

And you wonder why so many think that there are a lot of stupid people in the US.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And you wonder why so many think that there are a lot of stupid people in the US.

I’m in Colombia.

I’m a personal friend of Juan Valdez. Well, his burro in any case.

(Lupita btw is her name).

[psycho]

It would be interesting I think to initiate a conversation on the topic What is going on in America today? I wonder how much preamble the question I am proposing requires? Yes, it is a topical and a political issue, but are not *philosophical perspectives* the best perspectives for analysis?

Perhaps it is possible to begin by referring to the recent, and interesting, firing of Tucker Carlson from his Fox News show. I would be curious to know if those who post here (am I right to believe that about 50% who write here are English and the other 50% American?) watch either Fox News or the Tucker Carlson show?

I am curious, obviously, how people here frame the civil and political conflict in the US. But doesn't the issues that are sources of conflict in America also have their correspondence in all of the European countries?

I try to read as widely as possible, from Antifa-like sites (Its Going Down for example) to those on the other fringe -- for example Unz Review, and of course the NYTs I read daily.

Here is an article now on the Unz Review website. Ron Unz is definitely an oddball but he has created what might be described as a weird hodge-podge of dissident (and sometimes even loopy) voices who are entirely excluded from the so-called mainstream. These include people and voices formally and entirely considered crimethink. So be warned.

Here is one that makes an effort to frame the Carlson firing as part of general *deplatforming*.

I would appreciate knowing what your sources of information are. Please post links as I'd like to examine them.

Although it is easy, naturally, to make blanket comments about American stupidity and all the rest, or how disgusting certain figures are, it might be best to avoid easy statements and try to keep things toned-down.

Frankly, there are some shows I've watched of TC on YouTube (I do not watch TV) that have impressed me to a significant degree. For example his *expose* on the 'vulture capitalism' of Paul Singer's investment group:

(What is Destroying Rural America).

And his speech at the Heritage Foundation I thought was quite good.

My own view is that it is better for all concerned to understand what is going on rather than simply to criticize or support one faction or another. Seeing clearly is often quite different from having a specific position or taking a side.

Humans are a biological species with some variations.

We are an animal species whose social regulation developed when the groups did not exceed a few dozen.

In my impression the two biggest neurotypical variations are what people know as conservatives and liberals.

One can notice that:

- A part of the population considers that another part of the population is the factor that impedes economic, cultural, moral well-being, etc. of that society.

- A part of the population believes that it is the duty of the state and the rest of the population to look after individuals who get few resources.

Also that:

- A part of the population has a low sensitivity threshold to bear disgust.

- A part of the population has a higher threshold to bear disgust.

And in the same way, that:

- A part of the population is highly tribal and only feels empathy for those who are clearly distinguished as belonging to their group.

- A part of the population instinctively seeks to join groups that contain genetic variations different from their group.


The economic and political power of our society is centered in a very small part of the population.

This small group uses the necessary tools to take advantage of the differences between neurotypical variations of individuals in society and produce a greater concentration of wealth and political power.

Tucker is just a tool.

What happens in every society, since there have been human societies, is incredibly simple. The pursuit of wealth and political power.

In the USA, one can notice what the dynamics are when a group reaches a certain degree of concentration of wealth and political power that leads to accelerated concentration while the population begins to show signs of panic and social dissolution.

But this comment is only a speculative exercise.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This small group uses the necessary tools to take advantage of the differences between neurotypical variations of individuals in society and produce a greater concentration of wealth and political power.

Tucker is just a tool.

Interesting. The Intercept has this to say.

[psycho]

The Intercept has this to say.

It's just shadow theater. One can see the levers roughly moving the silhouettes.

Tucker has the subtlety of lead. He exposes his ass with every move.

He is irrelevant. The plans he is a part of are devastating.

[seeds]

This small group uses the necessary tools to take advantage of the differences between neurotypical variations of individuals in society and produce a greater concentration of wealth and political power.

Tucker is just a tool.

Interesting. The Intercept has this to say.

The "American Scene" is basically comprised of a large group of humans who are oblivious of the fact that they are reaping the necrotizing returns of the negative karma they have been sowing across the planet over the preceding decades in the form of imperialistic treacheries.

And part of that obliviousness is seen in how some humans speak adoringly about the equivalent of "pustules" that have risen to the surface of the festering and malignant cancer of American politics.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Intercept has this to say.

It's just shadow theater. One can see the levers roughly moving the silhouettes.

Tucker has the subtlety of lead. He exposes his ass with every move.

He is irrelevant. The plans he is a part of are devastating.

I am not completely on-board with your too stark, too reductive analysis, but what I can say is that the Intercept is making some good points about complicity of interests.

There is a great deal more to the phenomenon of Tucker Carlson and he must be seen in the larger context of the phenomenon of Donald Trump -- and that is not an easy. I have not yet encountered anyone who can talk non-hysterically about Donald Trump.

It may well be that Carlson is a very very compromised mouthpiece, but there are many things he does talk about that no one else will. And he reaches those people who feel the same.

How to talk *fairly and rationally* about these things is my desired object, but there in no one available who can take a non-biased, removed stance.

[psycho]

The Intercept has this to say.

It's just shadow theater. One can see the levers roughly moving the silhouettes.

Tucker has the subtlety of lead. He exposes his ass with every move.

He is irrelevant. The plans he is a part of are devastating.

I am not completely on-board with your too stark, too reductive analysis, but what I can say is that the Intercept is making some good points about complicity of interests.

There is a great deal more to the phenomenon of Tucker Carlson and he must be seen in the larger context of the phenomenon of Donald Trump -- and that is not an easy. I have not yet encountered anyone who can talk non-hysterically about Donald Trump.

It may well be that Carlson is a very very compromised mouthpiece, but there are many things he does talk about that no one else will. And he reaches those people who feel the same.

How to talk *fairly and rationally* about these things is my desired object, but there in no one available who can take a non-biased, removed stance.

"What They don't tell you is that..." is an excellent tool.

In my opinion there are two blind spots in the social intelligence of humans.

- What the majority thinks must have a greater probability of being true.

- What calms me down must be good.

This combination of criteria allows charismatic psychopaths to rise to power.

But this is just my opinion!

[Alexis Jacobi]

This combination of criteria allows charismatic psychopaths to rise to power.

But the reference is to one in particular?