I am very familiar with the idea of a Streisand effect, and in fact was recently reminded about it -- maybe by you! -- on this very forum.
With respect to doing my own research, I do essentially nothing other than that activity, which you call research and which I call reading -- reading every intelligent source I can get my hands on, every day. When I ask another commenter for details I am generally trying to get an impression of what that person really bases his or her thoughts on.
If you would like to know my opinion on something or other, please ask me now because I can only reply to you via one of Matt's existing posts. I have unsubscribed from his substack feed, with regret, after having read a lot of what he writes over a few years. I have been disappointed in his current work.
Matt has been elaborately disdainful of Democrats, and at the moment seems to be more or less neutral about Trump and the wretched crew of Proud Boys and Neo-Nazis who worship at the empty temple of The Donald's soul.
I speculate that Matt does not show his true disdain for Trumpism for fear of offending a significant part of his current audience.
Matt, I respect you and I wish you well, but I cannot keep reading you at this point.
Thanks for the reply. I would argue that Taibbi, like me, does not see Trump as the leader of a movement as much as a conduit for a movement that already existed. If you watch Trump early, he is literally testing material to see what gets a reaction at his rallies. Therefore to place Trump at the heart of this misses the point (at least for me and I am assuming Matt would agree).
I understand it is the Stoic way to ask questions as a means to further a conversation and I admire that. I would, however, suggest you have used that technique an absurd amount of the time.
I can sense your earnestness.
Best of luck to you and the next site comments section you land on!
BillPD, I strongly agree that Trump is a conduit but fail to see the relevance of that to the points I was making.
A leader who becomes that kind of blank conduit, (based on testing speech material), is even more despicable than a leader with a preexisting ideology, because he will indiscriminately amplify any vile thing an audience suggests or reacts to.
People, at their very core, are cruel, homicidal, dangerous animals. If you doubt that, consider the behavior of very young child, one who is not old enough to have any concept of doing right or wrong.
In a mob, the behavior of the loudest person determines the behavior of the whole crowd. If that loudest person thinks only of his own advancement, and if the crowd is already angry, nothing good can come of the next few hours.
I used the question technique a lot here -- I usually do not use it often -- because when someone writes that the election was stolen, or that Biden is a Communist, I see no point denying such absurd statements, as my denial would be ignored.
Instead I ask that person in return, What is your evidence?
BillPD, thank you for your reply.
I am very familiar with the idea of a Streisand effect, and in fact was recently reminded about it -- maybe by you! -- on this very forum.
With respect to doing my own research, I do essentially nothing other than that activity, which you call research and which I call reading -- reading every intelligent source I can get my hands on, every day. When I ask another commenter for details I am generally trying to get an impression of what that person really bases his or her thoughts on.
If you would like to know my opinion on something or other, please ask me now because I can only reply to you via one of Matt's existing posts. I have unsubscribed from his substack feed, with regret, after having read a lot of what he writes over a few years. I have been disappointed in his current work.
Matt has been elaborately disdainful of Democrats, and at the moment seems to be more or less neutral about Trump and the wretched crew of Proud Boys and Neo-Nazis who worship at the empty temple of The Donald's soul.
I speculate that Matt does not show his true disdain for Trumpism for fear of offending a significant part of his current audience.
Matt, I respect you and I wish you well, but I cannot keep reading you at this point.
Best of luck all.
Ralph:
Thanks for the reply. I would argue that Taibbi, like me, does not see Trump as the leader of a movement as much as a conduit for a movement that already existed. If you watch Trump early, he is literally testing material to see what gets a reaction at his rallies. Therefore to place Trump at the heart of this misses the point (at least for me and I am assuming Matt would agree).
I understand it is the Stoic way to ask questions as a means to further a conversation and I admire that. I would, however, suggest you have used that technique an absurd amount of the time.
I can sense your earnestness.
Best of luck to you and the next site comments section you land on!
BillPD, I strongly agree that Trump is a conduit but fail to see the relevance of that to the points I was making.
A leader who becomes that kind of blank conduit, (based on testing speech material), is even more despicable than a leader with a preexisting ideology, because he will indiscriminately amplify any vile thing an audience suggests or reacts to.
People, at their very core, are cruel, homicidal, dangerous animals. If you doubt that, consider the behavior of very young child, one who is not old enough to have any concept of doing right or wrong.
In a mob, the behavior of the loudest person determines the behavior of the whole crowd. If that loudest person thinks only of his own advancement, and if the crowd is already angry, nothing good can come of the next few hours.
I used the question technique a lot here -- I usually do not use it often -- because when someone writes that the election was stolen, or that Biden is a Communist, I see no point denying such absurd statements, as my denial would be ignored.
Instead I ask that person in return, What is your evidence?
Best wishes to all.