From "Meet the Teen Who Discovered the Secret of Social Capital/Natalie Hampton turns the (lunch) tables on a social system that breeds bullies" (Psychology Today).
I'm sharing this story for what it ostensibly is but also because I had the weird twinge of a thought: Isn't this kind of how Trump became President?
ADDED: Another solution to the schoolkid's horror of sitting alone in the lunchroom: Hiding in the bathroom.
And here's a Reddit discussion of the problem where the top-rated answer is: "I used to bring a book with me or my sketchbook. After a while, I didn't even care if others would stare at me since I was preoccupied with something." Another solution there is: "look for the nerdy table. I used to sit at a table with a couple of nerdy friends and we always accepted anyone that walked up. We all had some form of social anxiety. Some of the guys barely talked and that was alright by us."
ALSO: I've created a new tag, "Trump and bullying," and I'm going back and adding it to old posts. There are, of course, many old posts that discuss the portrayal of Trump as a bully, but I've found at least one that matches the insight above. In a May 2017 post — "3 Civil War historians react to Trump's Andrew Jackson comments line by line" — I quoted a historian who said that "Historians have come to a consensus that slavery is the reason" for the Civil War. I said:
Experts rely on this word ["consensus"] so much these days. It makes me suspect that they intimidate and discipline each other into toeing a party line. Why don't these experts perform their expertise for the people when they are invited to speak in a general forum like the BBC? It's especially bad when you add moral opprobrium. Here, the message was, the experts all agree, so you should just adopt our conclusion, because it's what we say. But on top of that there's this dire warning: And if you don't accept our consensus, you're going to look like a racist. One of the reasons Trump won was because he offered the common people liberation from that kind of bullying from the elite.Boldface added.
१५२ टिप्पण्या:
"Isn't this kind of how Trump became President?"
Brilliant.
So Trump is saying "sit with us" to those left out of the left wing political power circle? I agree and appreciate the insight.
There is a theory, I forget where I saw it, that many poor and lower middle class people resent the credentialed, who lord it over them by way of bits of paper and envy the really rich who are out of reach but offer the thought that one day they might become rich themselves.
Maybe this is related to the fact that most lottery players are poor.
Trump, by showing concern, may have attracted a lot of them, especially since Democrats have lost interest in white working men.
No. Trump won by being a bully and weaponizing social capital to bring people (e.g., immigrants and Muslims) down. He won by encouraging people to feel aggrieved, not by encouraging them to feel welcome.
There's no doubt that 8 years of Obama left "Joe the Plumber" folks feeling like outcasts. Trump reversed that overnight.
This did not win over the Mean Girls.
Obama was quite the bully: the "beer summit" was an early indication but the "little Sisters of the Poor" case and the IRS targeting of conservatives are stronger cases in point.
"Kovacs said...
No. Trump won by being a bully and weaponizing social capital to bring people (e.g., immigrants and Muslims) down. He won by encouraging people to feel aggrieved, not by encouraging them to feel welcome."
Not immigrants. ILLEGAL ALIENS. Can lefties be honest about anything?
Zell Miller is the only Democrat in the last fifty years I'd ask to sit down at my table.
I hated that girl.
It meant someone Noticed. Very embarrassing.
"Can lefties be honest about anything?"
I think self-delusion and deception is necessary to sustain the brand. Even the label liberal is dishonest.
Very stupid and pointless.
I wonder if Harvey was popular in middle school. Maybe he never got to sit with the cool kids and secretly vowed to some day make them pay, especially those stuck up cute girls........There's a theory that being nerdy or unpopular in school somehow makes you a more sensitive and better person. Probably not. It might just be the chrysalis stage for bullies in later life.
"Trump, by showing concern, may have attracted a lot of them, especially since Democrats have lost interest in white working men."
You misspoke. Trump feigned concern.
As usual, the rubes bought it, and voted in another rich asshole who doesn't give a shit about them and will pass laws that hurt them.
I understand the resentment of the non-rich and struggling (a majority of Americans) for the rich and comfortable, but just because a rich candidate knows how to say the words doesn't mean he or she cares or will actually do anything to improve matters for the majority...it just means they have learned how to pander, an essential political skill. When will voters wake up to this?
I hope The Children are not our future, what with their being nasty, brutish and short.
"Trump won by being a bully and weaponizing social capital to bring people (e.g., immigrants and Muslims) down. He won by encouraging people to feel aggrieved, not by encouraging them to feel welcome."
This is succinct and accurate. It helped that his opponent was no better than he as a human being or potential president.
While I am not religious, this 'sit with us' ethos is why 'Jesus Christ Superstar' is my favorite musical.
Whether feigned or not doesn't matter. I've said earlier in other posts that Trump is the quintessential CEO and I still strongly believe that. I've worked under or with quite of few CEOs over the years and to a tee Trump hits that language and manner of a CEO.
As usual, the rubes bought it, and voted in another rich asshole who doesn't give a shit about them and will pass laws that hurt them.
Not to be pedantic, but it's Congress, a different bunch of rich assholes who don't give a shit about them and will pass laws that hurt them
Not immigrants. ILLEGAL ALIENS. Can lefties be honest about anything?
No. No they cannot.
So Psychology Today is telling us that being kind to people makes them like us as if this is some grand secret just discovered. I thought there was this guy some 2000 years ago who basically said the same thing but I could be wrong.
The left right divide is so clear in this analysis: the roles under Obama are reversed under Trump so that he who was a bully formerly feels picked on now.
"Not to be pedantic, but it's Congress, a different bunch of rich assholes who don't give a shit about them and will pass laws that hurt them."
Yes, many in Congress are assholes who don't care about their constituents. I am not cynical, though, and I believe many in Congress do have sincere intentions to help their constituents. Trump exemplifies and is the figurehead for the assholes who don't care in the least about their constituents. I don't believe Trump truly cares about anyone else but himself.
It's fascinating how people from different sides interpret the same thing. Whether you see Trump as a bully or Trump sticking up for the bullied depends on your filter. I personally think he's a little of both. He seems to bully the bullies, and he seems to recognize and exploit certain feelings of frustration.
"You misspoke. Trump feigned concern.
As usual, the rubes bought it, "
As usual, Cookie is a mind reader but I fear his talent is limited to crazy minds like Democrats and Socialists.
You misspoke. Trump feigned concern.
More lefty projection on display. People who know Trump and work for him or with him have consistently come out and said he routinely meets with people at all levels of organization, demonstrates care and concern and in turn his employees are very loyal. Why would I believe this? Because if it was not true the dishonest lefty media would be flooding the air with "disgruntled employees" to show us what a meany The Donald is. Instead, whenever an intrepid reporter asks they get the truth: he's a great guy to work for.
Now go and look at anyone who worked for Hillary has to say about how she treats the "little people" and you can see why we laugh at your stupid bleats about "feigned concern." Hell, feigning concern is the first thing a lefty politician learns to DO! That's WHY Bill was elected in 1992, right? He felt your pain!
Yeah sure he did. And then he told you to put some ice on it.
Funny Robert if you were to replace Trump with Obama in your comment you perfectly express my own beliefs.
"Yes, many in Congress are assholes who don't care about their constituents. I am not cynical, though, and I believe many in Congress do have sincere intentions to help their constituents. Trump exemplifies and is the figurehead for the assholes who don't care in the least about their constituents. I don't believe Trump truly cares about anyone else but himself."
It's funny what you believe and what you know.
He seems to bully the bullies, and he seems to recognize and exploit certain feelings of frustration.
Yes, he bullies the elites and the ones who have been bullying us for years. He's Shane and lefties hate that shit. I'll just sit back and watch ARM's head explode at the Gary Cooper reference.
Re: Sitting in the bathroom during lunch, I thought I was the only one who did that. But apparently it's quite common, if the 93 comments on that article are anything to go by.
Things got better in high school, in that there were a few kids who would sit with me. (This is also when we all started being tracked. Coincidence? I think not.) But sixth and eighth grades (skipped seventh) were da beeyatch.
Another solution to the schoolkid's horror of sitting alone in the lunchroom: Hiding in the bathroom.
At our local grade school level, lunch is more structured - kids sit at the same table with their class. When I was volunteering and escorting the class out for recess, I came across a 5th grade classmate of my daughter who was hiding in her locker at the beginning of lunch recess. Because of a social anxiety issue she was not required to go outside during recess, but she would hide in her locker until everyone had passed through the hallway so that she would not have to explain why she was not going outside. Part way through middle school she became home schooled, but she is a star athlete in her sport and has professional potential.
I can't remember ever eating lunch in the high school cafeteria. Sometimes I ate in the computer lab or the AV room. I'm not sure where else I went at noon, but it was never to the cafeteria.
"Trump feigned concern."
And of course, we know that no Democrat/lefty ever feigned concern, nor have they ever pandered.
"So Psychology Today is telling us that being kind to people makes them like us as if this is some grand secret just discovered. I thought there was this guy some 2000 years ago who basically said the same thing but I could be wrong."
The point of the article is not that being kind to people makes them like us, it's that being kind to people, especially those who are outcast, is good for them, and can help bring them into the fold. (It goes without saying that people who are kind to others do themselves a world of good.)
There have been many who have taught this lesson aside from "this guy 2000 years ago," but many are still unable to get it, often because they have been brutalized themselves, often within their families, and they are damaged people.
Michael K said...
There is a theory, I forget where I saw it, that many poor and lower middle class people resent the credentialed, who lord it over them by way of bits of paper and envy the really rich who are out of reach but offer the thought that one day they might become rich themselves.
11/16/17, 9:01 AM
I think that theory missed the mark by "this much". Many poor and lower middle class don't resent the credentialed because they lord their "bits of paper" over them. They dislike the credentialed because the credentialed falsely believe they know best for the rest of us and want the rest of us to just sit down, shut up, and do as our "betters" tell us. They want us to trust them and ignore our lying eye because we are just dumb rubes.
Trump spoke to that. He had the balls to say that the "elite" were wrong instead of doing what all the other Republicans did which was [in one form or another] apologize for their "wrongthink". He took Obama's advice and "hit back twice as hard".
Most of the folks I know even back when I was "poor" never envied "earned wealth", instead believing if we worked hard enough we could get our piece of the pie too.
I grew up being told that life is not fair but hard work will pay off. I still believe that but I could be completely wrong as maybe my perceptions are colored by my inherent white privilege...
"And of course, we know that no Democrat/lefty ever feigned concern, nor have they ever pandered."
You are mistaken if that's what you think I said.
Trump's opponent, for example, was equally dishonest in her feigned concern for her supporters, whom I am sure she considered to be mostly deplorables.
Trump fought back against the sort of people who hate ordinary people who work for a living. That Robert Cook aligns himself with the sort of credentialed idiots who can't even mow their own lawns or change their own oil comes as no surprise; I said people who work.
Hillary is the biggest bully of all.
Those of you who hate Trump should remember that.
"Isn't this kind of how Trump became President?"
No. The analogy would be closer to Trump squeezed his way in and sat down at the cool kids table uninvited. "Ewww", and the cool kids were eventually forced to move to another table where Trump forced his way in again. Eventually the cool kids are forced to an outer table to disassociate themselves from him, allowing the sit alones to take over the center of the room.
Trump didn't invite the sit alones to the cool kids table, he created a space in the center of the room for them to associate with each other.
The lunchroom is a much happier place (at least for the sit alones) now. The only recourse for the cool kids is to call in the principal to have The Donald expelled. After all, they are the cool kids. This is not the proper order of things lunchroom.
"He's Shane...."
Who...Trump?
Bwahahahahaha!
He's Eddie Haskell with poorer manners and fewer morals.
Cook, you are my favorite lefty; engaging on substance and not simply being oppositional.
Robert, explain how you know that Trump is "feigning" concern. Or is it just a strong opinion based primarily on a visceral dislike?
I ask because there are many things I don't much like about Trump, but I've not seen any anecdotal evidence that supports the position that he feigns concern for "little people."
That was not sarcasm, then you added that Haskell comment and made me second guess myself
I was one of the first women in an all-male college. The guys avoided sitting with us. Even picked up their trays and moved if we sat down with them. One night all of us arrived at the cafeteria before it opened and spread out, one to a table. There were few empty tables left. When a guy finally had to sit with one of us or eat standing up, we told him politely that the empty seats were taken. They were reserved for next year's class of women, and the year after that. We continued to do it until one night some of the guys came over and asked us to join them at their table. Most middle schools have a larger "out" crowd than the "in" one. The "outs" just need to learn the value of solidarity. The best way to deal with a bully is to neither need or seek his approval. The bully in the last election was Hillary Clinton. She's been demolished by those of us who couldn't have cared less that she called us names and wouldn't come to our states to campaign.
Kovacs said...
No. Trump won by being a bully and weaponizing social capital to bring people (e.g., immigrants and Muslims) down. He won by encouraging people to feel aggrieved, not by encouraging them to feel welcome.
11/16/17, 9:03 AM
LOL!
One of the reasons that the left hates Trump with a white hot passion [beyond that he stole the crown from Queen Hillary is] Trump had the audacity to tell Americans that they need not be ashamed for not wanting their country flooded with illegal aliens and that they were not wrong to worry about unvetted imports from countries and groups that have sworn to their God that they would die killing us. He also stomped all over the PC crap that was jammed down our throats daily by liberals, Democrats, and the media. They are not "un-documented workers" they are illegal aliens that have chosen to enter our country against the rule of law and in many cases then demand our support and services in order to say here illegally.
To counter that "argument" from Trump, Hillary called us deplorables. Way to unite! What an inclusive message that was! But it is different when the left does it since all "right thinking" people agree with her and know she is right. Just like Obama was not "divisive" because the media agreed with him. Ignore the fact that half the country was opposed to his policies and behavior. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and it is the left half of the country "out of sorts" the President is divisive again. Funny how that works out only every single time a President has an R after his name.
nonapod. I was small at school, so I always hung around big guys. Implicit in that decision is that I needed someone the other big guys that would (and did) beat me up were afraid of.
In the stupid thinking of modern school mob control, it was one bully against another. I grew up in a more enlightened time.
Trump campaigned that he would enforce the law. The left sees that as a bully. The people who voted for Trump saw and still sees the law as a protection.
This is one of the regular Althousian insights I come here to read.
When are we going to give up the silly notion that “bullying” can be “a thing of the past”? As long as humans interact with each other, there will be some degree of “bullying.” People compete, they assert dominance, they backstab, they shut others out. It never really ends. People mature, but they are still social creatures with instincts.
I’m noticing a theme of sorts. Hippie Althouse is making a comeback. Everyone should be equal and happy and no one should exploit their advantages to gain a benefit. Powerful men should not sleep with naive women. Everyone should be allowed at the lunch table. No bullying. No coercion. No “undue” influence or pressure. Just beautiful souls living in harmony and happiness.
Part of the war on single people who sit alone, is to tax them for our breeding children. I mean it is only fair that they pay for our group at the table.
What would happen if single people didn't have to pay for public schools:
California Education Tax Relief Act
Maybe next, they can petition to not pay taxes on any condition of marriage (e.g., courts for divorce, state administration for marriage related costs).
I think each us identifies with a particular side or candidate who is given the benefit of the doubt whilst our opponent is seen through a negative filter. It's a challenge to be aware of our internal filter and to fight the tendency to apply it too freely.
You misspoke. Trump feigned concern.
This is just cynicism that Robert Cooke mistakes for deep thought.
"Everyone is just in it for their own selfish interests and any pretense otherwise is just a sham put on for the gullible, but I see right through it."
Well, OK then. You are just way smarter and perceptive than everyone else. Thanks for letting us know.
"Trump fought back against the sort of people who hate ordinary people who work for a living. That Robert Cook aligns himself with the sort of credentialed idiots who can't even mow their own lawns or change their own oil comes as no surprise; I said people who work."
Big Mike, who am I aligning myself with? Trump? Obviously not. Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama? Fuck no! Trump didn't "fight back against the sort of people who hate ordinary people who work for a living." That's what he wants you to think. If you buy it, you've been conned no less than Obama's supporters or Hillary Clinton's supporters who believed they cared about them.
By the way, asking people who are eating alone to come eat with you is a popular and effective means of proselytizing. It is a rare human being indeed who doesn't want to be part of a group. It is built into our DNA. And eating with others is an important part of the bonding process.
Blogger Kovacs said...
No. Trump won by being a bully and weaponizing social capital to bring people (e.g., immigrants and Muslims) down. He won by encouraging people to feel aggrieved, not by encouraging them to feel welcome
...
How is it possible that someone with enough consciousness to log on to a computer can write that. Unreal.
Simply put, Robert Cook's positions are unassailable. Everything is wrong, because nothing short of perfection will ever be right. Saw it in the 60's and wasn't impressed then. 'Above the fray' is easy. I'm still not impressed.
To be fair to Cook I have the same view of Obama he does of Trump now. I never gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and saw all his actions as cynical ploys. Doubtless in his own mind Obama saw himself as a hero and he likely sincerely thought he was doing good. The all arises out of distinctly incompatible world views.
There is a theory, I forget where I saw it, that many poor and lower middle class people resent the credentialed, who lord it over them by way of bits of paper and envy the really rich who are out of reach but offer the thought that one day they might become rich themselves.
Trump: "I love the poorly-educated!"
Elites: (Snicker)
I think that was the counterpoint to Hillary's "deplorables" line, and the Dems haven't gotten their heads around it yet.
When I worked for Northrop, every once in awhile we would all meet for lunch at a pizza parlor.
Of course there would be more of us than could sit at one table.
So I, being mostly anti-social and the guy most likely to offend others (just for fun), would sit at the next table.
After a couple of minutes, the people crowded into the one table with no elbow room (in order to sit at the bosses table), would see the advantage, and join me at my table. Ahhh! Now they could breath.
One day the boss said "Hey Etienne! You sitting with all your friends?"
I took this to be a bullying asshole remark, and being the curmudgeon that I am, I replied "I fly first class, I don't fly coach."
He laughed, sorta. People split off again, as his table was too crowded.
People are f'n sheep. I think the girls story has legs.
I remember reading something awhile back that claimed that your dog doesn't really love you, that dogs had just learned to mimic that behavior so that humans would care for and feed them. Someone fired back that in that case, how do you know your wife or husband or kids love you? Maybe they have learned to behave in a way that gets you to care for and feed them.
Going around proclaiming that everyone is just a lying bunch of crooks is pointless. It solves zero problems. For one thing, nobody thinks of themselves as evil. It is possible for Hillary to be a lying crook and for her to actually care about the issues she claims to care about. What is important is the behavior, motivations are only important so far as they drive behavior.
"But," says the cynic, "you are a bunch of gullible dim wits." And then wonders why nobody listens to him.
"Robert, explain how you know that Trump is 'feigning' concern. Or is it just a strong opinion based primarily on a visceral dislike?
"I ask because there are many things I don't much like about Trump, but I've not seen any anecdotal evidence that supports the position that he feigns concern for 'little people.'"
Where has he ever shown he truly feels concern for "the little people?" It's easy to say, easy to pretend. He'll prove it when he does things to improve the lives of "the little people," (i.e., most Americans). That he can slap backs and share jokes with those beneath his station is a skill any Chamber of Commerce spokesperson or local business owner learns early on.
sparrow: Of interest is that the voters who swung the election voted for Obama the last two times. He campaigned on standing up to the establishment.
Clinton was the teacher who punished you for getting a punch in when getting pounded on by the bully.
"Simply put, Robert Cook's positions are unassailable. Everything is wrong, because nothing short of perfection will ever be right."
You obviously misunderstand my positions. Of course perfection is never attainable; it is trying that's important.
Beautiful insight, Professor.That is the secret of all political wins, i.e., making your circle larger until the other want to join yours.But initially you need COURAGE to fight the Bully that excludes the newbies.And they will shun you too if possible, after all you are the disrupter.
The latest insider book, Bannon , is surprisingly good at explaining the tactics involved.
The best Bannon quote in Ch.17: " Donald Trump and moral courage. I never see someone I admire more than Trump. The pressure on Trump right after he won was amazing, intense and from every different direction...Trump stuck to the commitments he ran on to the American people, to the Deplorables...he was not backing down."
"One of the reasons Trump won was because he offered the common people liberation from that kind of bullying from the elite."
You nailed it.
The Left controls everything - Hollywood, television, universities, schools, newspapers, the UN, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, government. We just wanted one thing. And look at the reaction it's engendered. Bullies react extremely badly when you confront them; and right on cue, the Left has lost its mind.
"Trump feigned concern."
Not so. I think Trump genuinely likes people, all kinds. His working life had YEARs
of being on job sites, actually eating lunch with the construction workers. Big Macs and pizza out of a box are real foods that he enjoyed with the "regular" grunts. He talked to the lowest manual laborer and asked what they really thought about the work process.
Trump campaigned on enforcing immigration law.
Clinton campaigned on the law being the problem (Ferguson, BLM).
Pick your bully. Antifa or ICE.
That was the same framing in Charlottesville. Trump didn't lose that one either.
Of course perfection is never attainable; it is trying that's important.
When do you plan to start?
"To be fair to Cook I have the same view of Obama he does of Trump now. I never gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and saw all his actions as cynical ploys. Doubtless in his own mind Obama saw himself as a hero and he likely sincerely thought he was doing good. The all arises out of distinctly incompatible world views."
Sparrow, thanks for your kind words. Obama pretended to be a man of the people, but he served the interests of the rich. Trump pretends to be a man of the people, but he will serve the interests of the rich.
Where has he ever shown he truly feels concern for "the little people?"
I think the current bar to get over is: Didn't set up a charity to raise money for Haitian hurricane victims and then keep the money for yourself.
Trump, clears that one with ease.
However, just putting emphasis on jobs for Americans and reducing illegal immigration which depresses their wages goes so much farther than that.
Derek,
I don't think it's as simple as that. It's also about who was inspired to go out and vote and who felt they had little to fight for. Obviously Obama inspired a different mix of supporters than Hilary. However I think his attitude and policies set up the white working class union rejection of the Democrats. Prior to this they were more loyal, only Reagan was able to inspire that cohort
What Trump personally believes or feels is utterly irrelevant. It's the policies that matter. Immigration restriction is a big one. If he gets it done, who cares what his motive was? Immigration restriction is a good policy even if one is motivated to support it by pure venality.
I also like something Kurt Schlichter said after the election when the psychic break in the Democrat mind was exposed: "Democrats are absolutely terrified that we plan to do to them what they had planned to do to us."
I think that's right. They were going to bully us to extinction. Now they're worried we're going to do that to them - it's a reflection of how fragile they know their position is.
So completely off topic, but since this is the top post right now I'll mention it.
Democrat Senator Al Franken harassed a female journalist, and she has posted pictures of him grabbing her breasts while she was asleep on a plane. This happened like 3 years ago.
Now then. When will Al Franken be expelled from the Senate? Where are all the Mitch McConnells and the Gloria Steinems and the Inga's and Chucks to demand Franken's resignation, because there is zero doubt here that he harassed and molested this female journalist.
Why are we getting crickets? Oh yes: because 1) Franken is a Democrat and 2) Mitch McConnell couldn't care less about sexual assault by Democrat Senators--he only wants to use it to keep out conservatives. Even if he has to lie and coordinate a hit job to do it.
--Vance
"You obviously misunderstand my positions. Of course perfection is never attainable; it is trying that's important."
Mr. Cook, I have never seen you take a position other than 'not good enough'. Ever. And everyone, everyone, is "trying".
It's simple Hillary lost both her presidential bids because of "a vast right wing conspiracy". I mean how else could someone who had sat at the cool kid table her whole life not become president and saved the world. She even had a girl ivy league education where non-cool kid tables don't exist.
It takes a special kind of self deception to see Trump as the anti bully hero. It takes imagination and a deep desire to make him into something acceptable or even admirable. It’s astounding that intelligent people go to such lengths.
Your welcome Cook. I try to find the humanity in those I disagree with as an exercise in self examination. I have a dear sister who I love very much but we disagree on all things political. I'm not willing to write off half of my fellow man because we don't see the world in the same way. To be sure, I have no doubt about the truth, but I recognize that I can be blinded by passion just like everyone else.
Derek Kite said:
Trump campaigned that he would enforce the law. The left sees that as a bully. The people who voted for Trump saw and still sees the law as a protection.
Winner!
For myself, thankful that I was born in a galaxy so long ago and far away that we were all expected to bring our own sandwiches, if any, for lunch.
Immigration restriction is a big one. If he gets it done, who cares what his motive was?
I don't think you can sell reducing illegal immigration as a sop to big business. If you could, the Dems would be running commercials 24/7 saying it.
There are only two ways to look at it:
1. Trump loves average and low-income Americans.
2. Trump hates foreigners.
I'll let you consider which positioning you're more likely to hear from our media.
"Unknown said...
It takes a special kind of self deception to see Trump as the anti bully hero. It takes imagination and a deep desire to make him into something acceptable or even admirable. It’s astounding that intelligent people go to such lengths."
A lot of people feel the way you describe. How can you dismiss their reasoning so blithely? Do you lack the capacity to see a situation from another point of view?
Farmer is correct: we'll never know the interior motivation of any politician, but we do know what policies they push. Unfiltered immigration erodes the social bonds of our country, undermines the rule of law and irresponsibly endangers us all.
Democrat Senator Al Franken harassed a female journalist, and she has posted pictures of him grabbing her breasts while she was asleep on a plane.
It's like Al Franken in The Jerk:
Franken: (in a soft voice) Anyway, I've decided that in a few minutes, when the time is right, I'm going to touch your breasts. If that's o.k. with you. Just don't say anything. (no answer) You've made me very happy.
I personally wouldn't categorize Trump as serving the interests of "the rich" necessarily. I'd certainly concede that he serves his own self interests (as do we all), which may or may not align with those of the ambiguous "rich" at any given point. I suspect he's far more interested in his own personal legacy than trying to please a bunch of shady plutocrats. Trump strikes me as a person who prides himself on not being too beholden to anybody, or at least anyone much beyond the base he's cultivated.
Trump prides himself on not doing what people tell him he should do, at times it seems for no other reason just because they tell him too. For example, many people who are ostensibly on his side have been begging him to lay off Twitter, but Trump absolutely refuses to be corralled. If he really was in this just to please "the rich" of whatever, it just seems to me he would start to behave more like all those big donors want him too.
Trump really likes being liked. You can categorize that as narcissism I suppose, but I'm uncertain if that'd be completely fair.
Shorter Inga: You people are deplorable!
The reality is that the immigration issue was between fully open borders and modest reasonable restrictions. Immigration was never going to be curtailed entirely.
sparrow said...
Cook, you are my favorite lefty; engaging on substance and not simply being oppositional.
11/16/17, 9:46 AM
Haha! Good one.
We would never be allowed to sit at Inga's lunch table.
Odd that we hear no push-back from the Clintonistas. It's suspiciously quiet under the bus.
FullMoon
I meant it. Way too many blogs are are one sided bubbles. Cook actually thinks for himself and is not a standard issue talking point Dem. Not that I agree with him but rather I prefer a living breathing opponent to spar with.
"Unknown said...
It takes a special kind of self deception to see Clinton as the anti bully hero. It takes imagination and a deep desire to make him into something acceptable or even admirable. It’s astounding that intelligent people go to such lengths."
Fix it for you, you are welcome.
"Democrat Senator Al Franken harassed a female journalist" He said it was funny, so case closed.
Big Mike, who am I aligning myself with?
Nice of you to ask, Cookie. When you position yourself so far to the left that you cannot distinguish between George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, then you are aligning yourself with the sort of people who think that an elite should be making decisions for everybody else -- where people's kids should go to school and what they should be taught; when, what, and where a farmer should plant crops; who should thrive and who should be put on welfare; even how many of any given product should be made and where it should be sold.
You may not have enough introspection to recognize what you are and who your fellow travelers are, but the rest of us do. Now toddle along and try to make it in a world where salary is the basic determination of what you do and how well you do it.
Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Hillary is the biggest bully of all.
Did you run that by Brooklyn?
@sparrow:
The reality is that the immigration issue was between fully open borders and modest reasonable restrictions. Immigration was never going to be curtailed entirely.
Sadly, this is true. I would love a minimum 10-year moratorium on virtually all immigration but don't see this as likely to happen. A significant reduction in legal immigration, a wall, universal E-VERIFY, entry/exit tracking for visas, an end to family-based chain migration, and an end to birthright citizenship would be an excellent runner up package, though. That's the standard by which I'll judge the Trump presidency. All the tribal partisan crap is a waste of attention. And I still wish Trump would do a big triangulation move by backing something like a huge infrastructure bill, a big bump to the federal minimum wage, or lowering Medicare eligibility.
FWIW as a thought exercise I try sometimes to imagine/decode what the other side thinks. In my profession there are many dogmatic lefties. I think most people sincerely believe their policies are beneficial and fail to examine or credit evidence from the other side. The public square is thick with lies and whose info you trust has a strong influence on perception.
“We would never be allowed to sit at Inga's lunch table.”
Au contraire! I’ll be sitting at a large dining table with at least half of them being conservatives, this Thanksgiving. And even after vigorous debate ( on occasion) we all continue to like each other and in some cases even love each other, go figure!
@Big Mike:
When you position yourself so far to the left that you cannot distinguish between George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama
I do not consider myself "to the left" at all, and I have a difficult time distinguishing between Bush and Obama. And Bill Clinton for that matter. All were pretty typical neoliberal globalists. They all supported managed trade deals, expansion of federal entitlements, loose immigration policy, and a militarized foreign policy.
I recently watched a talk (start @ 42:32) at The Oxford Union by Anthony Scaramuci. He discussed how he grew up blue collar/middle class but became wealthy and then completely lost touch with middle class society. He noted that in contrast, Trump never lost touch with the middle class or how the middle class went from aspirational to desperational. I think that deep connection stems from what Trump learned from his father, who started as a carpenter, went into business at age fifteen with his mother, and eventually built housing for the middle class in Queens.
BDNYC: When are we going to give up the silly notion that “bullying” can be “a thing of the past”? As long as humans interact with each other, there will be some degree of “bullying.” People compete, they assert dominance, they backstab, they shut others out. It never really ends. People mature, but they are still social creatures with instincts.
Prog V. Goodthinker @9:00am: OMG, can you believe those ignorant conservative yahoos who don't believe in evolution and think humans are "special", and don't understand that humans are animals and just part of nature like everything else?
Prog V. Goodthinker @9:15am: OMG, can you believe those racist sexist conservative assholes who think that adaptation and natural selection have anything to do with (totally socially constructed) differences among humans or failure to achieve and maintain completely egalitarian societies?
(Prog V. Goodthinker @9:16am: OMG, some conservative just said that it's OK to be unkind to people because evolution!)
“He discussed how he grew up blue collar/middle class but became wealthy and then completely lost touch with middle class society.”
This is exactly the phenomenon I’ve seen time after time in the very deep red county that I live in.
"I have a difficult time distinguishing between Bush and Obama" they were not as distinct as I would have liked but there are distinctions. I think of it as each one is driving us all to Hell and our only choice is which gear.
Trump will lose money while president. That is how selfish he is.
"Where has he ever shown he truly feels concern for "the little people?" It's easy to say, easy to pretend."
The people who work for him are one example. You should get out more.
Althouse is on to something.
DJT is like a school. It's like he's started a Trump University that helps normal people.
"This is exactly the phenomenon I’ve seen time after time in the very deep red county that I live in."
Jealousy is tough to live with.
I notice you omitted the second sentence
J. Farmer said...
I do not consider myself "to the left" at all...
11/16/17, 10:50 AM
Said the guy that just previously posted:
And I still wish Trump would do a big triangulation move by backing something like a huge infrastructure bill, a big bump to the federal minimum wage, or lowering Medicare eligibility.
The only thing on your list that is the Government's actual "job" is infrastructure. The rest is "candy to kids with other people's money". So, yes, sorry, you are a "lefty" whether you realize it or not.
“Jealousy is tough to live with.”
What is it with you and thinking people are jealous of you and others? I have nothing to be jealous of. My income is comparable to the conservatives who live in this county. You really can be such an asshole.
“Jealousy is tough to live with.”
Michael K, you present yourself as an elite, are you sure you want to do that? It belies everything you say about Trump.
@Todd:
The only thing on your list that is the Government's actual "job" is infrastructure. The rest is "candy to kids with other people's money". So, yes, sorry, you are a "lefty" whether you realize it or not.
That's fine if you want to employ a definition of "lefty" that includes virtually every president of the 20th century, all three presidents so far in the 21st century, all members of Congress, and more than 75% of the American population. But I would suggest that a single word ("lefty") that includes all of those people in its definition does not really tell you much.
So, Todd, I suppose my question to you is have you voted for a winning candidate in any election who would not meet your definition of "lefty?" If so, who?
So, Todd, I suppose my question to you is have you voted for a winning candidate in any election who would not meet your definition of "lefty?" If so, who?
As far as I am concerned, the only conservative president in my lifetime was Reagan. Before him you'd have to go back to Eisenhower, and then back to Hoover.
"When you position yourself so far to the left"
I honestly am not sure what Cook's position is on anything. He seems uniquely cynical about all electoral possibilities. Can't say that I disagree with him, though.
Also, the rubes figured out that Panem doesn't really have their best interests at heart and exist mostly to perpetuate themselves, and that the credentialed don't have truly any better idea how to run the place than their own mothers.
I do not consider myself "to the left" at all, and I have a difficult time distinguishing between Bush and Obama. And Bill Clinton for that matter. All were pretty typical neoliberal globalists.
This might be the first thing I've ever agreed with Farmer about.
"like a huge infrastructure bill, a big bump to the federal minimum wage, or lowering Medicare eligibility."
None of these things will help growth or job prospects.
He won by encouraging people to feel aggrieved,
You mean like the Democrats have been doing since 1964?
Well.he was once a Democrat after all......
I am not cynical, though
Oh please.....There's a reason you're called Comrade Marvin.
Thanks to everyone for getting off topic so I could forget about recalling school memories.
@Gahrie:
As far as I am concerned, the only conservative president in my lifetime was Reagan.
Under Todd's definition, though, Reagan would count as a "lefty." I do not believe that, but that is the problem of having such an expansive definition of "lefty." It pretty much includes everyone who is not an anarchist.
This might be the first thing I've ever agreed with Farmer about.
Seems like you've written that sentence before, but I am not certain. Anyway, a minor quibble. Always nice to have a moment of concordance.
@Known Unkown:
None of these things will help growth or job prospects.
I did not necessarily justify any of them in that regard. Ron Unz, also certainly not a "lefty," has made a very persuasive case for raising the minimum wage, which can be read here. Infrastructure, I think, would certainly have a stimulative effect on the economy, and lowering the eligibility age for Medicare would reduce costs to private insurers and help lower premiums.
He'll prove it when he does things to improve the lives of "the little people
He already has..he kept Hillary from becoming president.
you are aligning yourself with the sort of people who think that an elite should be making decisions for everybody else -- where people's kids should go to school and what they should be taught; when, what, and where a farmer should plant crops; who should thrive and who should be put on welfare; even how many of any given product should be made and where it should be sold.
You're close...however you need to change the word "elite" to "government" (which of course would be run by the elites)
Trump feigned concern.
As usual, the rubes bought it
^Robert Cook showing the real voice of concern.
Raising the minimum wage will accelerate the adoption of automation and increase the difficulty in getting a job for low end workers. However as an exercise in virtue signaling raising the minimum wage is a surefire success. My idea is to structure corporate tax rates based on a earnings/employee ratio such that companies that employ many get a low rate as reward and those that seek to boost profits by employing as few as possible (ie Amazon) get taxed at a higher rate.
@sparrow:
However as an exercise in virtue signaling raising the minimum wage is a surefire success.
There are many people on the so called conservative spectrum who support an increased minimum wage, and I assure you that there arguments are not based in "virtue signaling." I linked to one such argument above. Even if you do not agree with Unz's position, it's worthwhile confronting his ideas.
J. Farmer said...
So, Todd, I suppose my question to you is have you voted for a winning candidate in any election who would not meet your definition of "lefty?" If so, who?
11/16/17, 11:26 AM
I am constantly forced to weight the evidence and settle for the lesser of the two evils.
The only "acceptable" candidate I ever voted for (and I was still young and forming at the time) was Ron R. Was proud I got to pull the lever for him and helped make Jimmy a one-termer. As I continued to "grown" and society has failed to (resulting in Clinton and Obama), I am forced to settle for what I can as I try to keep the socialist and communist dogs at bay. Just doing my part to keep the country as the founders envisioned.
Sparrow,
Using the tax code to retard biz actions re increasing the efficiency of biz operations is unwise. Retarding increases in efficiency means lowering increases in economic growth. IOW, more efficiency is good, not bad.
@Todd:
The only "acceptable" candidate I ever voted for (and I was still young and forming at the time) was Ron R.
Then you would concede that by your definition, Reagan was a "lefty?" If not, what made him not a lefty?
"what made him not a lefty?"
Giving a pass to the racists in South Africa wasn't lefty.
https://www.salon.com/2011/02/05/ronald_reagan_apartheid_south_africa/
Unknown said...
It takes a special kind of self deception to see Trump as the anti bully hero. It takes imagination and a deep desire to make him into something acceptable or even admirable. It’s astounding that intelligent people go to such lengths.
11/16/17, 10:18 AM
Nonsense, Inga. There are innumerable examples of Trump displaying kindness, empathy, understanding. Remember the GOP debate where Ben Carson missed his cue to take the stage? Everybody but Trump passed him by; Trump waited with him until the matter was resolved. I don't care who you are, that was humane of him.
sparrow said...
My idea is to structure corporate tax rates based on a earnings/employee ratio such that companies that employ many get a low rate as reward and those that seek to boost profits by employing as few as possible (ie Amazon) get taxed at a higher rate.
11/16/17, 12:15 PM
Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers and shareholders do through higher prices and lower dividend/stock value. The proper corporate tax rate is zero.
Agree with you on the minimum wage. The actual minimum wage is zero, that is what the people not hired due to the government set rate, earn. It makes people feel good though. Like they are "helping", yep, helping teenagers and others not get entry level jobs. Also, unions LOVE them some high minimum wage cause most union contracts are a multiple of minimum wage so when that goes up, they all get raises that did not need to be negotiated.
"Everybody but Trump passed him by; Trump waited with him until the matter was resolved."
He waited because he was worried that Doc Ben was gonna stab him in the back.
"He wrote a book and in the book, he said terrible things about himself, ... he said that he’s pathological and he’s got basically pathological disease ... I don't want a person that’s got pathological disease."
"Of course perfection is never attainable; it is trying that's important."
Ladies and Gentlemen: Socialism.
It matters not if the problem can be solved. It matters not if the scarce resources could be better applied to another problem. We tried!
And, having tried, we will continue to "try" for all eternity, for the great ratchet of government power only ever turns one way. Until we run out of other people's money.
There is wisdom in Althouse's statement that "'Better than nothing' is a high standard."
J. Farmer said...
Then you would concede that by your definition, Reagan was a "lefty?" If not, what made him not a lefty?
11/16/17, 12:35 PM
At the time, he was to the right of me. He did disappoint with Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 in that he let the Dems get away with their poison bill ban on new machine guns. He let himself get suckered by the Dems on the border security too. His wife was into astrology. Yep, lefty, hollywood lefty but he at least TRIED. He learned as he aged how bad lefty can be. He also was President, not emperor and so had to work with the congress he had...
Blogger Unknown said...
“Jealousy is tough to live with.”
Michael K, you present yourself as an elite, are you sure you want to do that? It belies everything you say about Trump.
Inga, only you and Ferdinande or whatever his name is, think I present my self as "an elite.
I was the first of my immediate family to go to college. I went through all the way to MD as a scholarship student.
Along the way, I learned about economics. My family was outraged that my first vote for president was for Nixon.
You are jealous of everyone above you on the intellect, social or economic scale.
@Todd:
So then it is safe to say that Reagan was a "lefty," despite his claims to be a conservative? Do you have a functioning definition of a "lefty?"
J. Farmer said...
@Todd:
So then it is safe to say that Reagan was a "lefty," despite his claims to be a conservative? Do you have a functioning definition of a "lefty?"
11/16/17, 1:07 PM
I will grant he was more conservative than most (and when I was younger, more conservative than I was).
My working definition of a "lefty" is anyone that tries to sooth their conscience with other people's money. I will include in that trying to get the Government involved in non-Government things, wanting the Government to be a nanny. The Constitution lays out what Government can do. Anything else if over-reach. You want the Government to do something not in the Constitution? Then do the hard work of amending the Constitution versus getting some guys in robe to "see" what is not written therein.
@Todd:
My working definition of a "lefty" is anyone that tries to sooth their conscience with other people's money. I will include in that trying to get the Government involved in non-Government things, wanting the Government to be a nanny. The Constitution lays out what Government can do.
Then it really isn't about "other people's money," since even the things that the government "can do" requires other people's money to do. Your argument is a constitutional one...describing a "lefty" as anyone who supports the government doing unconstitutional things. But the problem is that there is no clear agreement on what the Constitution says government "can do." How far, for example, can the government go to "regulate interstate commerce." Even jurists with similar constitutional philosophies (e.g. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, etc.) do not agree on what the government is permitted to do and what it is not permitted to do. So is a "lefty" anyone who disagrees with you on what the Constitution means. If someone believes that the Constitution is more restrictive than you believe, does that ipso facto make you a "lefty?"
"'As usual, the rubes bought it'
"Robert Cook showing the real voice of concern."
Anybody who believes wildly grandiose but un- or ill-defined campaign promises is a rube. The people who bought Obama's promises of "hope" and "change" were rubes, too.
Cookie prefers Bernie's well thought out plans for nirvana.
J. Farmer said...
...
Then it really isn't about "other people's money," since even the things that the government "can do" requires other people's money to do.
Your argument is a constitutional one...describing a "lefty" as anyone who supports the government doing unconstitutional things. But the problem is that there is no clear agreement on what the Constitution says government "can do." How far, for example, can the government go to "regulate interstate commerce." Even jurists with similar constitutional philosophies (e.g. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, etc.) do not agree on what the government is permitted to do and what it is not permitted to do. So is a "lefty" anyone who disagrees with you on what the Constitution means. If someone believes that the Constitution is more restrictive than you believe, does that ipso facto make you a "lefty?"
11/16/17, 1:25 PM
In part. You left off some. I actually said: anyone that tries to sooth their conscience with other people's money. I understand that funds are needed for the Government to do the things it is supposed to do. That is a far cry from confiscating money from people to pay for things to so you feel better about yourself or forcing the Government to impose costly rules on others to make you feel better. While also trying to limit individual freedoms.
Some "standard" lefty positions are: higher minimum wages, more restrictive gun laws, more regulations on businesses, regulations and requirements on services.
All these things "mean" well but all have negative impacts on the people they are supposed to help. Lefty policies have ruined inner cities and black families. Lefty policies to "cure poverty" have only made things worse.
does that ipso facto make you a "lefty?"
Maybe, in their eyes. Some of my positions very likely do. I am fairly socially liberal, much more than the average "conservative". I think we should have NO drug laws. I think prostitution should be legal. Basically I think consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want, enter whatever agreements they want, as long is it does not adversely affect the rights of others. I am also very fiscally conservative and think the Government(s) should be on a starvation diet and only do the things they have to. For the Fed Government that means no Dept. of Ed., no NEA, no OCare, no SSN, no medicate/medicare, no czars, no student loans, etc. Back to basics. Let the markets work it out.
So am I a lefty or a righty? I think I am lefty where it actually matters and makes sense and I am a righty where it matters and makes sense. I also "observe" that if one has to draw a line, these days, the right is doing much less damage than the left to society and the Government.
"Cookie prefers Bernie's well thought out plans for nirvana."
Nah...Bernie's rep is inflated. He is a Democrat in all but name, who votes along party lines, despite his pretense at being something different.
With the way schools are controlling kids like they are in maximum security prisons it's a wonder to me that there aren't more school shootings, when these kids go batshit.
My daughter (the oft-mentioned aspiring pilot) is awesome in many ways that her peers are not positioned to appreciate and she struggles socially. Lunchtime is very hard. Her few friends don't share her lunch period, and she is forced to go to the cafeteria and sit at a table. There are no tables that are empty enough to allow her to sit alone and read or draw and thus maintain some dignity. Security guard has busted her for trying to stand or sit along the wall. She's not allowed to eat outside, in a hallway, in a favorite teacher's classroom or anywhere else on campus but in the cafeteria, at a table, in a chair. If she hides in the bathroom, she has to sit cross legged on a toilet so she isn't caught on one of their sweeps of the bathroom.
It's a wonder that kids who are already stressed out over academics and their social lives don't lose their shit more often.
I don't know how we managed to survive when I was in high school in the 90s and we could go wherever we wanted for lunch. Cafeteria, hallways, teacher's classrooms, off campus, outdoors on nice days ~ no one cared as long as you were in class when the bell rang and you cleaned up after yourself. Problem kids were dealt with individually and the rest were left to their own devices.
The main thing I remember from middle school was getting out of a class by telling the teacher that a friend and I had to practice a skit for the talent show. We kept saying that after the talent show was over, and it worked for about a week.
Oh, and the most amazing kid ever, to my seventh grade mind, who flipped off the vice principal, walked out the door, lit a cigarette, and walked off. Unbelievable. An indication that the world included another social universe that I knew nothing about.
The key to middle school and junior high might be adopting the Cigarette Kid's attitude toward mean kids. Who are they? Who cares what they think?
@I Have Misplaced My Pants:
I do not mean this facetiously. Why don't you consider homeschooling?
"she struggles socially"
Most of us have no idea what the kids are going through these days. The hand-held computer has changed everything. For the worse.
People no longer lose their virginity, they lose their anonymity. Their desire to be individual, or unusual.
The people who bought Obama's promises of "hope" and "change" were rubes, too.
But Obama did bring change! Change for the worse, but certainly change.
“You are jealous of everyone above you on the intellect, social or economic scale.”
Nonsense. You have issues. Guess what, no one is jealous of you.
I agree with Farmer that she sounds like a good candidate for home schooling.
Two good friends of mine here in Tucson raised three great boys. Their mother would take each to home school for a year. They went to Catholic school which allowed it. She home schooled each that way.
One is a Marine pilot with a BS in civil engineering.
The second who is a concert pianist level skill at piano has a masters in engineering.
The third is in college now and I don't know his major. All are great kids. The parents shut off TV when they were little.
They used to come over to my house because I had TV,. It was their only chance to watch it.
Inga, I'm not always tearing others down.
Think about it a little.
I do not mean this facetiously. Why don't you consider homeschooling?
I most certainly have; I've researched it thoroughly and know what approach and curriculum I would use were I to do so. (Classical education modeled on the trivium, for the curious.)
Unfortunately her dad doesn't agree with homeschooling; she loves marching band and her math & science honor societies which Texas will not allow her to participate in as a homeschooled kid; and she's to the point where her STEM needs and abilities outstrip my ability to teach her and I live in a shit town with limited access to qualified tutors. So, we do the best we can with the high school available to us, coupled with frequent assurances that while high school mostly sucks ass, if she grits her teeth and wins at it, she can choose a salubrious college experience and her life will only go up from there.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा