General anti-Trump sentiment from SA'ns

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,855
Interesting how you assumed I have even been to Breitbart more than once out of curiosity....... WHY would I bother to regularly read up on the inaneties of american events on a regular basis? ..... I really don't care half as much as you.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,318
So basically we care out of entertainment? That's not good enough.
I don't think it has anything to do with entertainment per se.

People live according to a narrative. Narratives build social movements. Entertainment is just one sort of narrative.

Before America invaded Iraq in 2003, it spent months building a narrative via media bombardment to manufacture the consent necessary to launch the assault. Why should today's politics be any different?

As for the culture war, Trump is merely an american symptom of the building pushback that's becoming unstoppable all over the west on a grass roots level.... people are fed up with leftism being pushed down their throats and every protest becomes a possible flashpoint for rioting especially with the ironically fascistic antifa. Even the french are getting in on it now and germany or sweden I think almost had active vigilante death squads at one point.

No over-focussing on Trump is a stupid mistake if you are serious about any of this.
I agree that Trump isn't the hurricane, but that doesn't mean he's not sitting in the eye of the hurricane. Narratives typically contain a protagonist, that's just the way human psychology is.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
11,683
^ It was your culture war post really... Still, you seem to be saying you have read Andrew's site (only once and out of curiosity)... Perhaps you're more a Drudge, Daily Caller, Pundit kinda guy?

EDIT: Gingerbeardman, this is obviously for rambo919
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,855
I agree that Trump isn't the hurricane, but that doesn't mean he's not sitting in the eye of the hurricane. Narratives typically contain a protagonist, that's just the way human psychology is.
Yeah I'm kinda the exception to the rule, I try to not have any ideologies or narratives at all where possible. Most of either are political weapons used against their own believers.

Like I said he is A symptom but not really half as important as people try to force him to be. His role as a protagonist is more important to the left that attempt to denigrate the right through him than it is to the right itself..... similar to the role that Obama played except the left participated equally in it that time. This is all smoke and mirrors with the real forces and/or players far behind the scenes where it's safe and profitable.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
11,683
Oh dear, then I’ve empowered you.

They’re big on your culture wars because liberals thing.

Fair warning ‘tho, they’re a gateway drug to Qanon bats**tery.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,318
Yeah I'm kinda the exception to the rule, I try to not have any ideologies or narratives at all where possible. Most of either are political weapons used against their own believers.
There are no exceptions, unless you are so brain damaged as to be unable to understand words. You have a story running in the back of your head that contains more or less the story of your life and where you think you are headed and what your goals are and so forth. Whether you choose to consciously analyse that process is your decision, but don't make the mistake of thinking it isn't there just because you're determined to ignore it.

Like I said he is A symptom but not really half as important as people try to force him to be. His role as a protagonist is more important to the left that attempt to denigrate the right through him than it is to the right itself..... similar to the role that Obama played except the left participated equally in it that time. This is all smoke and mirrors with the real forces and/or players far behind the scenes where it's safe and profitable.
You appear to be shifting the goalposts. Do you really mean to tell me that you think that culture isn't a real force?

I agree with you that Trump isn't the only player. Others have learned to play the game his way, and its pretty effective:


Right now Trump is the only one I can think of who is doing this in English, though.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,855
No shifting goalposts, culture is a passive force, the problem are the active forces. You are simply not able to understand how someone else (like me) does not allow such forces to dictate all his thinking perhaps? Narratives are artificial and needs constant upkeep, truth is not.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,318
No shifting goalposts, culture is a passive force, the problem are the active forces.
No it's not. It's an active force and has been deployed as such time and time again throughout history. You do not have the luxury of ignoring the activeness of culture in a culture war, sorry.

You are simply not able to understand how someone else (like me) does not allow such forces to dictate all his thinking perhaps? Narratives are artificial and needs constant upkeep, truth is not.
Now that is where you are 100% wrong. The belief that truth takes care of itself is exactly a cultural narrative (largely established in the Axial Age), and it only works if everyone buys into the narrative. But not everyone does, in large part because of the postmodern assault on "truth" as a concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,855
The idea that truth is subjective is a narrative. The fact that truth is objective and does not care about how it's perceived is not a narrative.... like truth it simply is. Anything currently with a "post" connected to it is usually a elaborate deception or corruption. If you want to claim that objective truth is a narrative you have already been brainwashed.

The active reshaping of culture is different from the culture itself. The culture is passive and the forces implementing their will on it to reshape it is active. Saying culture is active is like saying boiling water is active, the water itself stays passive it has no will of it's own.

Differently put, it's not the gun that's the problem it's the finger pulling the trigger. If guns kill people spoons create obese people. Any other view is a deception for some kind of gain.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,318
The idea that truth is subjective is a narrative. The fact that truth is objective and does not care about how it's perceived is not a narrative.... like truth it simply is.
And yet in 2000+ years no one has been able to establish a single certain objective truth. You can hold to the idea of the objective truth as an article of faith, and I wouldn't begrudge you for doing so, but nevertheless it is a narrative (namely the narrative of realism).

Anything currently with a "post" connected to it is usually a elaborate deception or corruption. If you want to claim that objective truth is a narrative you have already been brainwashed.
No, I will claim that your claim to objective truth is a narrative. And then I will demonstrate the subjectivity lurking in every last truth claim you attempt to make. You see, the problem you have is that every single statement you attempt to utter is informed by a frame that contextualises the meaning of the statement. It is impossible to divorce a statement entirely from the framework that gives it meaning, and to date nobody has managed to construct an objective framework of subjectivity itself. And since, technically speaking, you are a subject, the very act of attempting to construct such a framework ultimately boils down into an act/statement of self-negation, and all I have to do to undermine your position is to draw attention to your own subjectivity, which you can only get rid of through self-annihilation.

The active reshaping of culture is different from the culture itself. The culture is passive and the forces implementing their will on it to reshape it is active. Saying culture is active is like saying boiling water is active, the water itself stays passive it has no will of it's own.
No, saying that culture is active is saying that particular agents are fully aware of the power available to those who wield cultural narratives and explicitly manipulate people using those narratives, which is the situation we find ourselves today because of identity politics.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
10,823
And yet in 2000+ years no one has been able to establish a single certain objective truth. You can hold to the idea of the objective truth as an article of faith, and I wouldn't begrudge you for doing so, but nevertheless it is a narrative
That's not really true. Reality and therefore truth is objective even though we view and interpret it through our own subjective senses. So a person like rambo can theoretically be conscious and enlightened enough to understand the narratives at play and put himself outside of that if he has enough controls over his emotions. It's difficult and people aren't really good at it but it is possible.

Gravity is a certain objectively truth.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,318
That's not really true. Reality and therefore truth is objective even though we view and interpret it through our own subjective senses.
Or alternatively "truth" is simply a tool within the language structure you use to interpret the information coming through your subjective senses. Implicit within your claim is the idea that it is possible for a human to describe reality as it really is, and that notion constitutes a narrative.

So a person like rambo can theoretically be conscious and enlightened enough to understand the narratives at play and put himself outside of that if he has enough controls over his emotions. It's difficult and people aren't really good at it but it is possible.
Theory is just another word for what we can imagine. Why do you imagine that your imaginings have any bearing on reality when in fact our imaginings are necessarily the source of illusions if you are any sort of subscriber to realism?

Gravity is a certain objectively truth.
No, to claim that gravity is a "certain objectively truth" (certainly objective truth?), you need to be able to describe what gravity in fact is. And you can't do that. The best that you can do is to observe the motions of things and then develop a formula that describes that motion. The map is not the territory.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
10,823
Or alternatively "truth" is simply a tool within the language structure you use to interpret the information coming through your subjective senses. Implicit within your claim is the idea that it is possible for a human to describe reality as it really is, and that notion constitutes a narrative.


Theory is just another word for what we can imagine. Why do you imagine that your imaginings have any bearing on reality when in fact our imaginings are necessarily the source of illusions if you are any sort of subscriber to realism?


No, to claim that gravity is a "certain objectively truth" (certainly objective truth?), you need to be able to describe what gravity in fact is. And you can't do that. The best that you can do is to observe the motions of things and then develop a formula that describes that motion. The map is not the territory.
You are unnecessarily trying to overcomplicate things by being too clever.
 

rambo919

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
1,855
Differently put unless you can effectively explain something to a child you probably don't completely understand it yourself.

Call it a narrative if you want but my point of view is there is objective truth and everything else is a narrative. Of course it's possible that no one actually understands objective truth properly but some are closer to others, usually those people like me can easily enough discard any given narrative once it becomes clear how flawed it is. Of course I don't have a complete mental framework of this I just know that in any given room I walk into I usually disagree with virtually everyone..... putting me outside of almost all common ideological fights.

Or maybe I'm a odd PC that keeps mingling with NPC's and that skews my pov.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,318
Differently put unless you can effectively explain something to a child you probably don't completely understand it yourself.
Lol. And exactly why should I care about such a ridiculous standard?

Call it a narrative if you want but my point of view is there is objective truth and everything else is a narrative.
I will, because it is. Imagine thinking that the objective truth doesn't tell the story of the universe...

Of course it's possible that no one actually understands objective truth properly but some are closer to others, usually those people like me can easily enough discard any given narrative once it becomes clear how flawed it is. Of course I don't have a complete mental framework of this I just know that in any given room I walk into I usually disagree with virtually everyone..... putting me outside of almost all common ideological fights.
"I disagree with everyone, therefore my narrative isn't a narrative" isn't a very convincing argument.

But this rabbit hole regarding objectivity is anyway a waste of time considering the thread we're in. There's just no way to objectify politics and to remove the personal motivations of the people involved. The idea that any one of us could objectively determine which emotions or biases are legitimate is preposterous.

This was published today, you might find some benefit in reading it:
https://quillette.com/2019/01/16/on-the-value-of-truth/

Finally, Nietzsche famously observed that the value of truth and rationality has far too often been overestimated. Nietzsche claimed that many people will never be able to get far beyond the false or banal opinions of the “herd” because they are either intellectually or psychologically incapable of facing the truth of reality as it is. There is little of interest to be said about the first kind of person, who is simply intellectually incapable of understanding the truth of the world. More interesting is Nietzsche’s observation that even the intelligent, who are capable of the thinking necessary to see the world as it is, will nonetheless find ways to delude themselves. As an atheist, Nietzsche often pointed to religious belief as a paramount example. Take Kant, for instance, who, as I mentioned earlier, preached about our moral obligation to tell the truth. Nietzsche condemns Kant for developing very powerful arguments against the existence of God, but then insisting that one must believe regardless because it is necessary to stabilize our moral beliefs. Or contrast the liberal argument that we all possess an innate dignity and worth with the scientific observation that we are just complex forms of matter in motion. These two positions seem mutually exclusive, yet many hold to both concurrently. For Nietzsche, this willingness to accept untruths about reality to preserve our moral beliefs (especially when they flattered our sense of self-importance), is a paradigmatic instance of being unwilling to face the truth that we exist within a meaningless world.

Nietzsche goes on to observe that this tells us a great deal about the human relationship to truth. Very few of us can actually deal with too much truth, so we rarely enquire too deeply into the justifications for our beliefs. And in some respects this may be socially useful. An intelligent and truly honest person would feel compelled to have true justifications for all of their myriad beliefs, and would soon find themselves staring into an abyss of questions which would never end. Take the example of trying to justify why we prefer to live rather than to not exist. Many of our moral dictums are predicated on a belief that life is preferable to death. But if asked to justify this position, many of us would likely struggle to give some uncontroversial answer as to why life has any value in and of itself. We would probably end up appealing to cultural norms, pointing to evolutionary drives built into our genetic makeup, or simply expressing a subjective preference for being alive over not existing. These are likely enough for practical human purposes, but they are hardly a “true” answer to why life has any value in and of itself.
I'd say these two paragraphs are the most pertinent ones. I mean, if you disagree with Nietzsche, that might be a fun conversation to have, but basically Nietzsche and his idea of the Will to Power is what drives many political ideologies in contemporary politics, particularly the postmodern ones that eschew the idea of objectivity or truth.
 
Top