Bruce Wayne : Criminals aren't complicated, Alfred. Just have to figure out what he's after.
Alfred Pennyworth : With respect Master Wayne, perhaps this is a man that you don't fully understand, either. A long time ago, I was in Burma. My friends and I were working for the local government. They were trying to buy the loyalty of tribal leaders by bribing them with precious stones. But their caravans were being raided in a forest north of Rangoon by a bandit. So, we went looking for the stones. But in six months, we never met anybody who traded with him. One day, I saw a child playing with a ruby the size of a tangerine. The bandit had been throwing them away.
BW : So why steal them?
AP : Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
So, how do you deal with such man?
BW : The bandit, in the forest in Burma, did you catch him?
AP : Yes.
BW : How?
AP : We burned the forest down.
For a good analysis for why both the far right and the far left are unhappy (more so than in other ages, at least), there's this article on neoreaction, which became vogue to talk about in 2013 before the present dominant political trends: "Shedding Light on the Dark Enlightenment" by Rick Searle at the Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/searle20131202)
Calling it a "need for chaos" further alienates those whose very alienation is the cause of the phenomenon on display. Better to use more neutral language that doesn't inflame the population being observed or bias those doing the observation into further perpetuating an "us vs them" mentality.
How is seeking the maximum amount of possible change, regardless of its nature and to no specific end not a "need for chaos?"
Someone who doesn't know what they want, other than to spite the system, basically describes the Joker.
Hard not to sympathize with this perspective when:
- The people running the country lie us into an unending, ruinous war with help from the establishment media, and no one is held to account.
- The people running the country demolish the economy with unsustainable debt-driven speculation, and no one is held to account.
- The people running the country openly associate with a convicted trafficker of children, who conveniently dies in prison before naming any names and while the cameras were "inoperable" and the guards asleep and his cellmate transferred out at just the right moment, and (just wait for it!) no one is held to account.
"Let them all burn" may not be the right answer, but at the very highest levels our political and social institutions are rotten to the core.
Haven't read the actual paper, but does anyone know what response percentages one would expect from a "normal" population?
Edit: after re-reading that part of the article I'm not sure anymore. I can't tell if the questions were phrased to imply a serious destructive desire or if "burn it down" was passable as "I'm discontent with life". Might have to read the paper itself to clarify.
Edit: actually, I won't delete my comment, but I really don't want to be the guy that skims a * Vice article and comments like he's thought of something the author's of the underlying haven't. I remain sceptical, but acknowledge that 'whaddoiknow'.
Then I got disillusioned again, and went punk/metal. Megadeth's "Addicted To Chaos" was my favorite song for a while. Plus Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Butthole Surfers, Judas Priest, Turbonegro, Marilyn Manson, etc. But still, I did a PhD and played in academica for a while, so I was arguably just posing.
Now, it's not so much that I have NFC. I'm just not at all optimistic about the future. But not like it was during the 60s-80s, when nuclear holocaust seemed all too likely. Now it's mostly the slow slide into an ~unlivable climate. And all the social breakdowns that will come with that. And given that I'll be dead, it's not such a big deal, personally.
For me it’s mostly the way that he openly lies, even about recorded things he’s previously said, is disturbing and that he takes the already toxic political rhetoric of the last decade to the next level.
The thing that always gets me is that even though Trump presented himself as this tear-down-the-establishment, drain-the-swamp kind of guy, it always seemed pretty likely that he'd just replace the political establishment with people in the business/finance establishment, which is essentially the same thing to many/most of the people who this platform resonated with. And, well... that's exactly what he's done, aside from the other expected outcomes of inflaming racial/gender/etc. divides; ignorantly bumbling his way through economic, trade, and foreign policy; and lying his way through every day in office. What is it about that which still lends him support? Is it still just the chaos? Because he's not actually fixing anything for most of his supporters; the elites are still just as elite as ever, and at best it's status quo, but in many cases things are worse.
Put another way: it just seems unlikely to me that all the "burn it to the ground" supporters expected or are happy with the fact that burning it all down also causes them more suffering, too; more suffering than the establishment has been hit with. And yet, here we are.
Nihilism isn't the answer, but neither is demanding a particular kind of we're-all-professionals kabuki without any real change. Flipping over tables is at least something.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9106983
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187236
Not that we haven't departed too far from that future, but now we have the added problem of revived extremist tribalism and chauvinism of every type.
Otherwise, just like his highly entertaining books, he often offers up incisive commentary on society. Whether or not you always agree with it, it always makes for an interesting read.
Who's writing the bills, the budgets and the RFPs?
Politics are fairly decoupled from actual policy at this point, the policy is marching ahead with your beige boxes while the politics express a desire to change that but no ability to do so.
No, it isn't. It literally isn't anything. It wasn't even anything when Jesus did it, because he did it, and then the people he did it to had him nailed to a tree and they kept on doing business.
You can look to the left and look to the right
But you will live in danger tonight
When the enemy comes he will never be heard
He'll blow your mind and not say a word.
Blinding lights--flashing colors
Sleepless nights...
If the man with the power
Can't keep it under control
Some heads are gonna roll
...
The power-mad freaks who are ruling the earth
Will show how little they think you're worth
With animal lust they'll devour your life
And slice your word to bits like a knife
One last day burning hell fire
You're blown away...
If the man with the power
Can't keep it under control
Some heads are gonna roll
...The system is corrupt because the checks and balances that used to be there were dismantled (or slowly erroded in some cases).
The non-stop materialism-consumerism and lust for money that defined USA after WW2 (especially in the 80s-90s) can be seen as a way to control-appease (or distract) the population at large so that the power players could continue their orgy uninterrupted. But even consumerism and cheap entertainment is now coming apart. You can see it everywhere around you. The masses are reaching a boiling point and fireworks are to be expected.
As another counterpoint, Bernie Sanders consistently attracts a large share of the vote while explicitly advocating for socialism. It's very possible he would have been the Democratic candidate for POTUS in 2016 if the DNC had not kneecapped his campaign.
You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain.
Thematically consistent, you might say.
It's pretty hard to not vote for the same people when anyone that doesn't fit the proper mold isn't handicapped through the nomination process.
I'd post some supporting links, but for every article I could post supporting my thesis someone could easily post one that denies it. Articles and discussions on such topics are rarely substantially based on facts, the whole thing is largely propaganda.
The best commentary I've heard on the subject of nomination shenanigans in both parties has been from Dan Carlin (of Hardcore History fame) on his lesser known podcast "Common Sense with Dan Carlin". He knows a thing or two about history and politics, and he is fairly disgusted with the entire political system in the US.
However, it's also certainly not the case that there were no criminal acts of fraud committed by Wall St execs during the 2000s bubble. Dick Fuld's Repo 105 scam is a great example: https://www.epsilontheory.com/repo-105/
I haven't heard about Dick Fuld, I'll read your link, thanks.
Current plan is to vote for him in 2020. Worst case I will abstain from voting for President.
The economy is still on fire as much as it's ever been in the midwest. Can't complain there.
The trade war is unfortunate, but the alternative is to bend over and take it from China. Everyone agrees that they don't play fair. So the options are to do something about it, or to just let them keep on. My family has a manufacturing background, so all the offshoring is sort of personal.
The racial crap isn't nearly as much of an issue as the media likes to make it. It makes for good ratings, though.
---
Basically I'm hedging my bets on at worst I think the government should be robust enough not to be brought down by one bad leader. And if it is, then maybe we deserved to fall. Plus from my perspective he's not doing all that bad.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and say yes to both questions, under the circumstances.
> ignorantly bumbling his way through economic, trade, and foreign policy
I disagree with this characterization, but can certainly understand how someone could come to this conclusion.
> Put another way: it just seems unlikely to me that all the "burn it to the ground" supporters expected or are happy with the fact that burning it all down also causes them more suffering, too; more suffering than the establishment has been hit with. And yet, here we are.
I suspect the way they evaluate the situation is dramatically different than yours. There are a handful of people who are actually looking into what's behind the seemingly paradoxical (and coordinated) behavior of a large number of people around the world rather than just wagging their finger, but unfortunately hardly anyone seems interested in what they've found.
One such person is Jonathan Haidt:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt
http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/home.html
https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-what-makes-...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jonathan+haidt
Two others I'd recommend looking into are:
Mark Blyth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Blyth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0 Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mark+Blyth
Thomas Frank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Frank
https://www.tcfrank.com/essays.php
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Thomas+Frank+po...
But I don't see how voting for Trump advances conservative voters any further in shifting the moral framework to one they would prefer. I see trump mostly as amoral if anything.
Or is the point, as the study suggests, to burn down the system? To dismantle morally offensive programs/legislation? Am I missing something?
1: I.e. that it's not just about how we treat each other, but also supposed to act as an organizing principle for society. 2: loyalty, respect for authority purity
I think the mistake liberals make when looking at Trump, is they think he must be viewed by his supporters the same way they looked at Obama.
Obama is someone they looked up to on a personal, moral level.
Trump is, as you said, amoral. He goes where the political winds and his instinct take him.
I think people would feel much more at ease at least with the whole unstable, incompetent leader thing if they bothered to read Art of the Deal (written in 1987), in which he lays out how he views the world basically word for word in line with what he said during his 2016 campaign.
He may be unorthodox, but he is consistent.
Would I want to be his friend? Probably not. But that's not the role he applied for.
That doesn't make their assessment of the situation wrong. It just makes it very inconvenient for government workers (whose jobs depend on said engagement) and people who want to virtue signal from afar. They feel like the policies, that by necessity are cheapest-possible-forced-help-from-10000-feet policies are more of an obstacle than help. Frankly, I can come up with more than a few cases where this was entirely right.
Of course, it also doesn't make their assessment of the situation right. Those same policies help people on a large scale as well.
However I would like to point out that there is a lot of research that less intrusive, and more unconditional help certainly seems to be more effective in quite a few places. A few random examples:
1) https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/sep/14/less...
2) Even in what seems like black and white cases. To take one really extreme example. NOT helping kids who get abused by parents ... turns out to be more effective than helping them https://sci-hub.tw/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
(and there's a famous study from the 90s that claims that giving troubled kids free membership to a sports club near them is far more effective than anything psychiatry/social work/... can do for them, and certainly more effective than prison. Not even checking if they actually attend)
It's interesting that his opponents are the only ones that hear these "dog whistles".
Didn't really figure he'd win, but my dad had died earlier in the year, and I figured he would have voted Trump, so I did it for him.
Wasn't really a "burn it to the ground" thing in a literal sense. Basically what the end of the video clip says: "It's going to be a big Fuck You to the establishment. And it will feel good."
And it did.
I'm not conservative, just FYI, so I find it interesting to discuss differences with thoughtful conservatives which you seem to be.
If conservatives value loyalty/respect for authority more than so called 'liberals', then aren't you afraid that the conservative agenda carried out to it's logical conclusion might descend into authoritarianism/theocracy?
(You didn't state that you held these views or preferences, but I just assumed them in the interest of getting my question out quicker. Correct me if I am wrong.)
If both parties are just in favor of keeping the powerful in power, then I will personally side with the party that explicitly says so.
Regarding "logical conclusions", I think the key is that the goal isn't to carry it out to its extreme, but to counter-balance the pull from the other side. Sure it feels good to have momentum, but no one should be surprised when the tides turn back the other way for a while.
The goal is to find dynamic balances between opposing ideals. In order to do that, you need to try to pull past where you think the correct middle ground is. I think that's true for both sides.
A thought I had extending my previous Trump / Obama comparison, is that if you compare it to the David vs Goliath story, I think people viewed Obama as David. I.e. the unsuspecting hero that comes out of nowhere to save the people. Trump is more of a Goliath character. Did people expect Goliath to be nuanced and articulate and thoughtful? No. They just wanted him to be a big tough bastard that would go beat up on the enemy.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem with politics in the public sphere is that we've been conditioned (deliberately, or just naturally) to think about politics along a very small number of very specific (and non-comprehensive) dimensions, and through these dimensions reality is communicated to the public (in good faith, or not, in a competent and professional manner, or not), through various media forms. (And then most subsequent discussions take place at this level (at best), with rare outliers like this one where you respectfully discuss the deeper dimensions).
And then at election time, we force them to further crush it down into one dimension with precisely two choices (chosen via an incredibly low-dimensional and flawed nomination process): Republican or Democrat. But when they make that boolean choice, the mind is secretly operating at this much higher dimensional representation of reality (based on models that are, to varying degrees: factually incorrect or null (with auto-estimate enabled by default), and they cast their vote.
Most people "logically" think their decision (and those of others) is based upon the projected dimensional reality we live in (~Overton Window), but the actual reason underlying evaluation is way more complex, and invisible to us.
That probably makes no sense, but what I mean is very similar to the argument about "How is the internet still obsessed with Myers-Briggs" the other day: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20887213
Myers Briggs is an attempt at "a" representation of reality. Many people reject it for obvious reasons, but then they'll sometimes turn around and insist in a different thread (with a new topic) that "Republican" or "Hillary Supporter" or "pro-rights" political stances are pretty damn accurate representations of reality, and can accurately predict behavior in a (subconscious) high-dimensional model (~mind reading).