You've never touched a book outside of fucking kindergarten, yet you think you know more of communism than me, a fucking communist? Do you think im a baffoon?
A lot of liberals can see issues in society, problems. People being oppressed, people unable to afford to live, increasing isolation etc.
But they resist “feel-good” solutions to these problems, that people less educated than them might come up with. Housing too expensive? The answer is clearly not to provide free or subsidized housing. That sounds good, but it would cause untold economic pain, making things worse. Instead we need a 5 year committee exploration into tax breaks for first time home buyers with a small business. This is just rational behavior. Intelligent behavior.
This type of logic can be applied in every situation, where they add “depth” and “complexity” to every situation, so that they can rationalize their slavish adherence to the status quo, and so that they can feel superior to the unenlightened populists.
Honestly I feel this is a problem in all aspects of life. People (and they are most often liberals ime) resist simple solutions in favour of their own, complicated approach that isn't even necessarily a solution because it makes them feel like they're in control.
Maybe I'm an old fuddy duddy, and I certainly don't exist pre-atomisation, but I'd argue atomisation of society has seen people less able to just discuss and not insist on their own way.
Some of them are plenty smart - they got good grades and went to good colleges and have professional jobs. They're engineers, teachers, what have you. And they're probably perfectly good at their jobs, and they think because they've made it that far and see so many people doing worse, they assume they're just better.
As
said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."Building on this, capitalism associates a person's worth to how much money they have, not the fact living things are inherently valuable with their own thoughts and ideas. Libs have completely internalized this idea.
So the lib who is good at their job, makes decent money, and spent a lot on their education sees themselves as valuable not because they're a person, but because they aren't poor. And only smart people become wealthy, so obviously none of the wealthy are fascists or stupid (unlike the poors). This then creates their classicism.
As said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Who is this "Sinclar"? Can I get a name, I'm unfamiliar with this fella.
An excellent (fiction) writer on themes of labour, ethics, culture, and politics in the USA in the early 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis
a lot of libs who are ideologically committed to being libs were affluent and got good grades in school. being a liberal isn't a reflection of your intelligence it's about socioeconomic status, there are plenty of 'smart' liberals.
Because they believe they have already won. It really comes down to that. "Why would you pick communism, it lost already?" is what they think. Picking the winning sides makes you smart.
I think a big contributing factor is the articles they read are written in a way to make them feel as though they are "intellectually grappling with" the material and developing "nuance" when really it was just a bunch of keys jangling in front of their face. I read a really good essay at one point about how Scott Alexander (the last psychiatrist guy) structures his essays in this way to make you feel as though you're being really thoughtful while not doing any thinking whatsoever. Malcolm Gladwell also has this style. This is a deep cut but it reminds me of this silicon valley triumphalist tweet from 2015:
Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba, the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate.
Something interesting is happening.
It's all in the end line. "Something interesting is happening" - that is the ultimate vibe of the liberal article. What is interesting about it? What is a tangible conclusion? It just throws a bunch of phenomena at you then does not actually analyze it. But because you learned of all these disparate phenomena then drew conceptual similarities between them you have done a thought. Libs learn that this is what public intellectualism looks like.
I read a really good essay at one point about how Scott Alexander (the last psychiatrist guy) structures his essays in this way to make you feel as though you're being really thoughtful while not doing any thinking whatsoever.
This is like when
s feel smart after finishing a video game puzzle that was specifically curated to be solved and make them feel smart lol.Maybe even lower than gamer mentality.
Every time I solve a particularly difficult puzzle in a video game, before I start feeling too big for my britches I remind myself that the hard part of puzzle design is making puzzles that are easy enough to be solved.
Yeah, exactly! They complain about "hand holding" in games as if non-verbal game design directions aren't the same thing but without words.
If they play a game that's not player-centric in its design they complain with "it's objectively bad game design" or "it's not fair, and thus bad".
Understanding what make game good make gamer brain hurt. Where boobies?
Liberals are experts at aping the mannerisms of intellectualism without any of the substance
Something interesting is happening.
Rent seeking. What a fucking dunce that guy is
reminds me of this line from fancy lad's polemic against The Economist
Here, then, is the problem with the magazine: readers are consistently given the impression, regardless of whether it is true, that unrestricted free market capitalism is a Thoroughly Good Thing, and that sensible and pragmatic British intellectuals have vouched for this position. The nuances are erased, reality is fudged, and The Economist helps its American readers pretend to have read books by telling them things that the books don’t actually say.
How The Economist Thinks | Current Affairs
"
much to consider!" is the start and endpoint for most of this shit"Something interesting is happening"
I've seen almost those exact words in nearly that exact order for LLM apologia, too.
Yeah Adam Curtis docs are an example of this unfortunately, even though people here like them for the vibe. One time I watched hypernormalization and felt blown away, then I tried to explain it to a friend and realized I could not identify any actual thesis from the film.
They agree with all the experts on TV, how could they be stupid?
Their treats tell them they are smart for consuming the treats, especially if they emulate the protagonists in the treats.
See the Richard and Mortimer fandom for one example, or for something more (directly) political, The West Wing.
They think the "marketplace of ideas" is a really smart idea that produces smart solutions and that by believing in the marketplace of ideas they are smart (because that's what a smart person would believe, obviously)
when the vast majority of libs recede into full philosophical idealism again, materialists are going to seem like they have superpowers for actually seeing the world as it is
Libs becoming COVID deniers probably means they'll lose their grip on reality sooner than we think. People who are still masking up are gonna seem like geniuses with their non-fogges brains.
Have they not been full ass philosophical idealists for the past several decades?
Didn't people eventually find out that Dunning-Kruger isn't real? The idea is that everyone overestimates their own abilities regardless of expertise.
Yeah, I read about the issues of it here: https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/
"Alpha males" were disowned as a concept by the scientist that originally coined it when he realized that only tracked for emotionally damaged wolves in captive conditions basically like prison, but chuds still froth about how alpha they are.
emotionally damaged wolves in captive conditions basically like prison
chuds still froth about how alpha they are
This actually fits.
They only know how to be anti-chud and since they are largely dumb asf you get to automatically feel smartasf with like no effort. It's not about politics it's about dress-up
Fascists are their only point of comparison, and fascists are stereotyped as rube hillbillies being tricked by Trump or Trump-like oligarchs.
Fascists mostly aren't hillbillies (let alone rubes) but the self-aware petite-bourgeois, along with White Power gangs and the like.
Yeah I agree, but that's what libs believe them to be. Libs don't want to believe that the call's coming from inside the house and the middle class circles they hang in have as many nazis as a Mississippi bike gang.
In the same way that conservatives are animated by xenophobia and racism, liberals are animated by condescension and pride.
You see this in the way that urban dwellers often look down on country folk as dumb hicks. They're backwards savages who vote for the red team instead of enlightened intellectuals. It also helps to justify their atrocities without outright racism. By reducing Palestinian lives to a number and framing it as a tough decision, they can justify war crimes and still feel good. They view themselves as the smart intellectuals making hard decisions because the dumb rabble can't.
They view themselves as the smart intellectuals making hard decisions because the dumb rabble can't.
As the treat slayer would say, they're the Adults In The Room that Make The Hard Decisions and Get Shit Done.
Because they compare themselves to the dumbest person they know, or the dumbest person they see on tv. They've never heard the adage "If you're the smartest person in the room, find a better room."
If people agreed to this, they might have to admit that the dredge tank (and to some degree dunk tank) are dumb places.
If libs were so smart they'd have the sense to appeal to actual succdemmery. You can probably get an extra 50 years out of this dying empire with that.
ikr lol. Capitalists aren't very good at capitalism. They could easily make it so they stay safe and wealthy for the duration of their lives and their children's lives but instead propel us to either nuclear hellfire, world-ending climate change, or communist revolution that will put their heads on spikes.
