The unintended consequence of the Fire & Fury book is that it is making people inside the Trump Hysteria Bubble wonder if they look like Michael Wolff to those outside it. (Answer: yes) #potusvsg
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) January 7, 2018
January 7, 2018
What's crazier than thinking the consequences you don't intend won't happen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
So much winning.
The left works by direct action, the right by caution about perverse side-effects.
Since all the problems that can be solved by direct action have been solved long ago, what's left is problems that respond to direct action with perverse consequences.
So the left today is almost always wrong and the right is almost always right.
It's the evolution of unintended consequences problems. The most fit problems survive until they rule the world.
So the left is really used to unintended consequences and they don't care about them. They're just new problems to be attacked by direct action.
The left is young and the right is old.
The Trump Hysteria Bubble is too dark inside for self reflection.
Attention certain unnamed Althouse commenters.
Ah, mischaracterizing political opposition to Trump as a mental disorder, right after a blogpost about the wrongness of doing so. Sorry but that’s some blatant hypocrisy on display this AM.
Conspiracy theory X^n: Wolff is working for Trump and the book is published to throw the media into a total frenzy while McConnell & Co. works out a devilish plot to pass a real budget and more?
Reagan was elected when I was a quite young Dem and everyone in my bubble (I was living in Eugene OR) thought he was a crazy moron and would start a nuclear war ("failed actor," bedtime for Bonzo, etc.). The hyperbole was almost as bad as now and eventually the screamers lost me and a lot of others. I realized that I really liked Reagan, and have not voted for a Democrat in a federal race since.
Even before the election, and ever since, the media has published numerous stories about leftists whose depression or anxiety over the prospect of a Trump presidency was causing them to seek psychiatric care, by their own admission. It’s hard to deny that those fragile souls are decompensating even more dramatically now that Trump has had a successful year, with poll ratings comparable to Obama’s first year, and looks increasingly likely to escape the Russia trap set by the conspirators in the Department of Justice and CIA.
In any case, “hysteria” as a psychiatric diagnosis was deprecated decades ago, and is now a purely subjective term used only by laymen.
“Even before the election, and ever since, the media has published numerous stories about leftists whose depression or anxiety over the prospect of a Trump presidency was causing them to seek psychiatric care, by their own admission.”
I’d say a vast majority of the Trump opposition are channeling their energy in a more positive and constructive way. Recent Virginia and Alabama races might be a clue.
"Inga said...
Ah, mischaracterizing political opposition to Trump as a mental disorder, right after a blogpost about the wrongness of doing so. Sorry but that’s some blatant hypocrisy on display this AM."
Equating political opposition with the deranged behavior of so many on the left is....sorry, just fucking retarded.
Dullard.
This is what characterizing your opponents as crazy looks like. This is the Democrats today:
Yale psychiatrist who briefed Hill Dems wants to physically restrain President Trump, force him to submit to evaluation, declare him unfit for office. But she worries: 'This really will look like a coup.'
https://mobile.twitter.com/ByronYork/status/949753102902669323
Oh and she lied about briefing a Republican Senator.
Inga is up early or late, as the case may be.
No smarter, though.
“Inga is up early or late, as the case may be.
No smarter, though.”
Michael is commenting on how early I’m up and commenting, then goes on to make an insult, yet he then whines when someone slaps him back? Try to act like you’re the smart person you think you are.
It would look like a coup. Cause it would be a coup. Seriously, that lady is crazy.
Maybe Scott Adams will rip of his mask to reveal Ann Althouse. Or vice versa. She quotes Adams more than evangelicals quote Jesus.
“Equating political opposition with the deranged behavior of so many on the left is....”
Good example of Soviet style abuse of psychiatry to squelch political opposition. See Althouse blogpost posted at 6:09 AM.
"Inga said...
Good example of Soviet style abuse of psychiatry to squelch political opposition. See Althouse blogpost posted at 6:09 AM."
Equating a blog comment pointing out the deranged behavior of so many on the left (with video evidence) withthe Soviet Union jailing dissidents is again, just fucking retarded.
Dullard.
"The left works by direct action, the right by caution about perverse side-effects.
"Since all the problems that can be solved by direct action have been solved long ago, what's left is problems that respond to direct action with perverse consequences.
"So the left today is almost always wrong and the right is almost always right."
Unproven premises > Invalid, self-serving conclusion
What is this "left" you and so many here refer to? The Democrats? Anyone not Republican? Anyone who opposes the current regime? (By "the current regime," I mean the unbroken military/industrial/corporate/intelligence state that has existed since the end of WWII.)
I no longer address Inga directly but, if I did, I would suggest acting crazy is not the way to show how stable you are.
The hysteria of the left since the election has earned the term, "Trump Derangement Syndrome," just as a somewhat similar behavior toward Bush earned a similar term.
"Derangement" is not a psychiatric diagnosis but suggests something not specified is wrong with the victims.
I suggest it is rage and frustration, a bit like children kicking and holding their breath until they turn blue.
Parents have several ways of dealing with that childish behavior. The best is probably to ignore it.
Some parents suggest slapping the kid silly but I'm not one of them.
“Equating a blog comment pointing out the deranged behavior of so many on the left (with video evidence) withthe Soviet Union jailing dissidents...”
There he goes again.
By "the current regime," I mean the unbroken military/industrial/corporate/intelligence state that has existed since the end of WWII.
Pretty good definition Cookie. Communists were members but now the fascist left is also present in pretty good numbers.
And the state began in World War I with Wilson, was interrupted by Harding and Coolidge and resumed with Roosevelt.
Inga threads bore me and this looks like one developing.
Bye.
“I no longer address Inga directly but, if I did, I would suggest acting crazy is not the way to show how stable you are.”
“I no longer address Inga directly”, LOL! Grow up Michael, you’re behaving like a petulant child who pokes the kid sitting next to him, then screams when the kid pinches him back.
"Inga said...
Good example of Soviet style abuse of psychiatry to squelch political opposition"
Google "Trump + Crazy" and you'll get 94 million hits. Many from the likes of the NYT and WaPo. That fact that you are bling to it is not surprising...but telling.
Bye Michael! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
“Google "Trump + Crazy" and you'll get 94 million hits. Many from the likes of the NYT and WaPo. That fact that you are bling to it is not surprising...but telling.”
Google Trump Derangement Syndrome and see how many hits you get... stable genius, lol.
@ Curious George:
Google "Trump + Crazy" and you'll get 94 million hits.
The post above with the Mr. Ed references made me think that the "stable genius" thing is some kind of strategic attempt by Trump to optimize search results by having "Trump-Stable" and "Trump-Genius" show up more often when people Google "Trump-Unstable" or "Trump-Idiot". Looks like right now the internet is doing it's best to help it along.
The root problem the Dems have is they spent years defending the Clintons for doing what they accuse Trump of doing.
"Left" is a bad term to use in modern US politics.
There was a time when this was a reasonable distinction, still related to European ideoligical memes which had infected US politics in the early-mid 20th century. By the 1970s there certainly was a coherent American left, and the Democratic party was largely defined by its aspirations.
But the current split certainly does not conform to this.
There is no way that the Google-Apple-Tom Steyer Wealth-Management-University Endowment faction can be defined as "left".
New words will have to be found.
There is no way that the Google-Apple-Tom Steyer Wealth-Management-University Endowment faction can be defined as "left".
New words will have to be found.
Remember that many nobles supported the French Revolution.
Some sought privileges and some thought they could direct its course.
The leftist billionaires have various motives. Steyer is all ego. Page and Brin and Schmidt are probably thinking they will rule the world this way. I have no doubt they are certain that they know better than anyone else how to rule because they made all this money.
I guess "Fascist" would be a better term but for the historical association,.
John Borell said...
It would look like a coup. Cause it would be a coup. Seriously, that lady is crazy.
1/7/18, 7:58 AM
Idle thought. I wonder if the members of Congress realize that the only reason why all 535 of them are not slaughtered along with their families is that President Trump has been so kind as not to publish their addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information. If he were to be impeached, or removed from office in any way, I hope he would take that step.
"Inga threads bore me and this looks like one developing. Bye."
This is a terrible way to deal with the "back and forth" problem.
When you name another commenter and say something negative, you are propagating the name and provoking another response from that person. If you really wanted to help with the problem, you would say nothing.
And calling attention to the fact that you are leaving isn't helpful to anyone. Just leave, if you must, but don't try to create activity around your leaving.
If you really want to help with the problem, ignore what you don't like and write a good comment.
There is no way that the Google-Apple-Tom Steyer Wealth-Management-University Endowment faction can be defined as "left".
New words will have to be found.
FDR used the term Economic Royalists. I think it's apt.
If you really want to help with the problem, ignore what you don't like and write a good comment.
I do in many cases but it gets overwhelming sometimes.
I will omit the comment and just leave.
There is no way that the Google-Apple-Tom Steyer Wealth-Management-University Endowment faction can be defined as "left".
Perhaps. But they are the ones enabling, funding and using the Left.
Perhaps we should switch to "uniters" and "dividers" rather than Left and Right?
Perhaps. But they are the ones enabling, funding and using the Left.
They funded H>er not for ideology but because she was expected to win, and demonstrated that once bought she would stay bought. We may think of H>er as a leftist, but the leftists don't.
Taking Fire & Fury at face value is diagnostic of TDS.
Fire and Fury: fake book by fake novelist who is also a fake journalist who works for a fake newspaper which shills for fake Americans.
The boy and girl who read Wolff.
You want to know who is crazy? It is quite obvious the people who seem to believe Trump will be undone by the 25th Amendment. It is difficult to comprehend this level of crazy. I want to laugh at it, but its depth and scope is a bit disturbing to see- insanity can mass into something quite dangerous.
Though I will occasionally engage with Inga, I mostly follow my own advice- don't feed the trolls. You should be able to recognize a troll- I shouldn't have to make a list for you, but I will point out that there are trolls from both sides of the American political divide present here in these threads, and they engage each other to such an extent that I do often wonder idly if it isn't some sort of performance art by a single commentator.
A ridiculous belief doesn't usually have to be pointed out, so don't add to the verbiage.
Pay attention to me damnit, when you make me repeat myself I have less time to prepare for my eventual lotto win.
It's prog or proggies. Maybe progdouches or doucheprogs; never progcocks or topprogs though.
If you really wanted to help with the problem, you would say nothing.
When I was a child, I was told to "just ignore" bullies, because "they just want to get a reaction". This was unquestionably the worst life advice I've ever gotten.
That also applies to conversation-disrupters. Just remaining silent and leaving does not discourage them in any way. On the contrary, it makes them feel empowered. It convinces them that since pushback has lessened, they are actually winning the day... as they poison more and more threads. It is an extremely bad idea, unless you want conversations destroyed, which I assume isn't what you want.
Someone calling attention to the fact that he is leaving—because it looks like disrupters are going to dominate yet another thread—is calling your attention to that fact. Many people, over the last months, have called your attention to the fact that your discussions are suffering badly because of less-than-a-handful of serial disrupters. Complaining because your commenters are pointing this out, and insisting that the best response is to ignore the bully and leave silently, is demonstrably doing nothing to make your discussion threads less unpleasant. It works about as well as adults telling me to "just ignore them" worked. Which is to say, not at all.
Is Inga really a troll, in the current sense of the term? Or just someone who believes and repeats a lot of stupid stuff?
Jaed,
The trolls would leave if they didn't get people responding to them. Real life bullies can be punched in the nose if you have the wherewithal, but dealing with trolls online is different kind of thing- ignoring them is the best thing you can do.
The trolls would leave if they didn't get people responding to them.
Not in my considerable (and professional) experience. If other people stop talking, the trolls feel they have won. Their aim is destruction of conversations, and handing them a victory encourages them.
If everyone else stopped posting here, the comment threads would still be full, but it would be only four or so posters talking to each other and themselves. Plus any hapless newcomers who didn't realize the place had been given over entirely to trolls.
(And of course, in practice, scolding people to "ignore" the trolls never works. Never. People who are involved in a conversation will respond, even if you continuously [and boringly] urge and cajole and order them not to.)
Post a Comment