Nicko wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:The 'honest' racists are thick as shit, and the ones with more functioning neurons are mendacious, sometimes to a criminal extent. The pathology has been on display for some time, so many here will be tempted to declare that I'm not bringing an original insight to the table here.

I don't think that Trump is stupid per se, more that he's profoundly superficial and highly anti-intellectual. Trump's racism is the lazy bigotry of a septuagenarian white American who's just never bothered to engage in even the basic level of introspection that would be necessary to overcome his prejudices.

Nicko wrote:The rise of Trump was only possible due to the Republican Party's (largely cynical) embrace of anti-intellectualism.

Nicko wrote:As Max Boot (hardly anyone's idea of a "libtard") points out in this article:

Max Boot wrote:The Republican embrace of anti-intellectualism was, to a large extent, a put-on. At least until now.

...

In recent years, however, the Republicans’ relationship to the realm of ideas has become more and more attenuated as talk-radio hosts and television personalities have taken over the role of defining the conservative movement that once belonged to thinkers like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and George F. Will. The Tea Party represented a populist revolt against what its activists saw as out-of-touch Republican elites in Washington.

There are still some thoughtful Republican leaders ... But the primary vibe from the G.O.P. has become one of indiscriminate, unthinking, all-consuming anger.

The trend has now culminated in the nomination of Donald J. Trump, a presidential candidate who truly is the know-nothing his Republican predecessors only pretended to be.

...

Mr. Trump even appears proud of his lack of learning. He told The Washington Post that he reached decisions “with very little knowledge,” but on the strength of his “common sense” and his “business ability.” Reading long documents is a waste of time because of his rapid ability to get to the gist of an issue, he said: “I’m a very efficient guy.” What little Mr. Trump does know seems to come from television: Asked where he got military advice, he replied, “I watch the shows.”

Historians have long looked to a few key criteria in evaluating the beginning of a president’s administration. First and foremost, any new president should execute public duties with a commanding civility and poise befitting the nation’s chief executive, but without appearing aloof or haughty. As George Washington observed at the outset of his presidency in 1789, the president cannot in any way “demean himself in his public character” and must act “in such a manner as to maintain the dignity of office.”

New presidents also try to avoid partisan and factional rancor, and endeavor to unite the country in a great common purpose. In line with their oath of office, they dedicate themselves to safeguarding and even advancing democratic rights and to protecting the nation against foreign enemies. They avoid even the slightest imputation of corruption, of course political but above all financial.

Donald Trump, in each area, has been a colossal failure. The truest measure of his performance comes from comparing his first year not with those of the best — Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt — but with those of the worst.

Over the decades, historians’ ratings of presidents have consistently consigned a dozen or so presidents to the bottom of the heap, including James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce and, in recent evaluations, George W. Bush. Some of these presidents failed because they made disastrous miscalculations. Others were victims of circumstances not of their own making but whose decisions made things worse.

Still others were accidental presidents of limited skill and credibility who succeeded men who died in office. And then there were a few presidents who abused their position or permitted rampant corruption. Yet the first years of these failed presidencies were not always so bad, and in nearly every case not as bad as Mr. Trump’s.

continued...

Calilasseia wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:The 'honest' racists are thick as shit, and the ones with more functioning neurons are mendacious, sometimes to a criminal extent. The pathology has been on display for some time, so many here will be tempted to declare that I'm not bringing an original insight to the table here.

I don't think that Trump is stupid per se, more that he's profoundly superficial and highly anti-intellectual. Trump's racism is the lazy bigotry of a septuagenarian white American who's just never bothered to engage in even the basic level of introspection that would be necessary to overcome his prejudices.

Actually, if you read further into my post, the hypothesis I was delivering, was that Trump doesn't possess the cognitive machinery required even to be a stupid racist. Because all he cares about is how much the rest of the world can masturbate his ego. That. Is. It.

Trump's failure to engage with ideas on even the most elementary level boils down, quite simply, to the fact that he's one of the most floridly pathological narcissists on the planet. He regards ideas as superflous to requirements full stop, because ideas don't toady to him the way he wants.

This is what's really scary about Trump. At least with an ideologue, you know you're dealing with someone who has enough cognitive functioning to handle ideas, even if said ideologue moves on to implement toxic policies as a result of the ideology adhered to. Said implementation of toxic policies on the basis of a toxic ideology, is a process that even an elementary student of political discourse is equipped to understand, even if it takes a certain level of skill to overcome this. Against an ideologue, you have rival ideas as a potent weapon on your side, particularly if those rival ideas enjoy support from real world data. Someone such as, say, Yuri Andropov in the past, was dangerous, but the fact that he moved in the world of ideas (indeed, one of his observers described his time in office as "a total ideocracy"), containment becomes possible simply because of that movement in the world of ideas. Point out contradictions and absurdities in the ideology, and the rug is pulled from under an ideologue's feet, even if the ideologue doesn't immediately recognise this happening, or tries to pretend that it hasn't happened.

With Trump, there's no rug of this sort to pull from under his feet, because he simply doesn't reside within the same cognitive space as other human beings. He's walled himself off into the television inside his head, to an extent that has long since transcended the certifiable. Conventional approaches to political discourse aren't working with him, because you're fighting a vacuum. Even the Republicans who thought it would be a good idea, to have a vacuum head in the White House, that they could play like an instrument to push through cynical, inhuman policies aimed at creating a plutocracy, are finding out the hard way that this is a very bad idea in his case. Because in the past, they could appeal to ideas either to sway an incumbent, or engage an incumbent in combat. They've learned the hard way that this isn't the case with Trump, and that what they have to appeal to instead, is a capricious ego with a limitless appetite for the most simplistically unctuous, pompous and bombastic displays of sycophancy on the part of others. They're dealing not with anything resembling adult cognition, but instead the random flailings of a three month old nappy shitter.

Nicko wrote:The rise of Trump was only possible due to the Republican Party's (largely cynical) embrace of anti-intellectualism.

Well, I could probably write several paragraphs on the matter of how Occam's Razor (which is frequently appealed to by self-declared "anti-intellectuals" as a basis for rejecting analysis and nuance) is itself an intellectual product, and as a corollary, how much so-called "anti-intellectualism" actually relies upon the products of intellectuals to support it. But that's a subject for another thread. Indeed, the whole process of trying to persuade others, that those who paid attention in class have somehow got it all wrong, itself requires engagement with the world of ideas in the same manner as those self-same people being castigated on the basis of their cerebral diligence. A fine point that tends to be missed by the sort of individuals who resort to "pointy head" rhetoric.

That internal contradiction, of course, doesn't stop self-declared anti-intellectuals from following yet more assertionist blind alleys in pursuit of their fantasies, but again we're dealing with a well-documented aetiology.

Nicko wrote:As Max Boot (hardly anyone's idea of a "libtard") points out in this article:

Hang on a minute, while I digest that ...

Max Boot wrote:The Republican embrace of anti-intellectualism was, to a large extent, a put-on. At least until now.

...

In recent years, however, the Republicans’ relationship to the realm of ideas has become more and more attenuated as talk-radio hosts and television personalities have taken over the role of defining the conservative movement that once belonged to thinkers like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and George F. Will. The Tea Party represented a populist revolt against what its activists saw as out-of-touch Republican elites in Washington.

There are still some thoughtful Republican leaders ... But the primary vibe from the G.O.P. has become one of indiscriminate, unthinking, all-consuming anger.

The trend has now culminated in the nomination of Donald J. Trump, a presidential candidate who truly is the know-nothing his Republican predecessors only pretended to be.

...

Mr. Trump even appears proud of his lack of learning. He told The Washington Post that he reached decisions “with very little knowledge,” but on the strength of his “common sense” and his “business ability.” Reading long documents is a waste of time because of his rapid ability to get to the gist of an issue, he said: “I’m a very efficient guy.” What little Mr. Trump does know seems to come from television: Asked where he got military advice, he replied, “I watch the shows.”

But we're back to my thesis again. Intellectual effort doesn't provide him with the instant gratification he seeks, as a result of the nature of his ego, not least because he doesn't possess the cognitive machinery required to gain rewards from that effort. The whole business of engaging in effort, in order to solve a problem, and derive a feeling of reward from successful prosecution of the requisite endeavour, regardless of whether or not this also brings material or more familiar emotional rewards, is completely alien to him. He isn't dissolute in the usual sense, because there was never anything of stature to degrade in the first place within his psyche. He is, quite simply, entitlement incarnate. If you want a truly chilling description of the state of affairs, we're dealing here with an individual who does not, ultimately, have a concept of 'concept'. Consequently, an entire new arsenal needs to be devised to deal with this bizarre apparition, because the conventional methods of discourse have as little effect upon the resulting fog, as trying to plough furrows into the Caribbean Sea.

The Republicans are now discovering just how much of a shitfest arises, when one allows a political office to be held by someone who brings John. F. Kennedy's description of government to life, in the most outré manner possible.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Human resources experts and economists say they are not surprised one-time bonuses are getting more play in response to the tax cut for several reasons. For one, bonuses are easier for employers to hand out than bumps in base pay because they don't increase a company's fixed costs.

"The one-time bonus is an easy thing to do: It generates good will, puts money into employees' pockets, and you're not committed long-term to anything," said Gregg Levinson, a senior retirement consultant at Willis Towers Watson. 

"Salaries represent the single largest percentage of direct labor costs" for employers, said Ken Abosch, the North American compensation practice leader for Aon. "Any time you give someone an increase in their salary, it’s an annuity. It's not a one-time event like a bonus. It’s additive and it compounds." 

newolder wrote:How to present a working face to the base when the office is closed due to one's own incompetence:

Calilasseia wrote:So now we're seeing apologetics for corporate vampirism as well?

That's a development I wasn't expecting ...

Nice to see said apologetics quickly demolished though ...

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:So now we're seeing apologetics for corporate vampirism as well?

That's a development I wasn't expecting ...

Nice to see said apologetics quickly demolished though ...

Facts over an anti-Trump agenda... what is this world coming to

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:So now we're seeing apologetics for corporate vampirism as well?

That's a development I wasn't expecting ...

Nice to see said apologetics quickly demolished though ...

Facts over an anti-Trump agenda... what is this world coming to

Happy to see you at least acknowledge that the situation is quite different from what the CEO claimed in the video you posted.