https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-blathering-superego-at-the-end-of-history/#!

This is superior analysis.  I didn't write it.  But I can recognize superior analysis when I see it.  Can you?

"It becomes the blathering superego at the end of history." ... quote from essay, speaking of managerial liberalism.

First off, it's an almost 1 year old article. So keep that in mind to the further developments that have been made since June 2017.

The article points out that the role of fake news in 2016's election was what blindsided the Democrats "fact-checking" and use of charts. I don't know what to think about that other than people wanted a change from the status quo, as usual, and that Donald Trump played on the lowest common denominator successfully. Where is that wall between Mexico and U.S. now?

I think Donald Trump's populism was and still is successful because of, as written in the article, liberals undying attention to apparences and are therefore blind to people's disdain for tongue-in-cheek remarks to his "stupid tweets", the covfefe of the press.

From the article:

Quotethe truth is that intellectual authority does not cause political authority, and political authority does not cause intellectual superiority. Both are derived from class power.

A truism that liberals (and everyone else) should make a note of.

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 05, 2018, 05:08:15 PM
First off, it's an almost 1 year old article. So keep that in mind to the further developments that have been made since June 2017.

The article points out that the role of fake news in 2016's election was what blindsided the Democrats "fact-checking" and use of charts. I don't know what to think about that other than people wanted a change from the status quo, as usual, and that Donald Trump played on the lowest common denominator successfully. Where is that wall between Mexico and U.S. now?

I think Donald Trump's populism was and still is successful because of, as written in the article, liberals undying attention to apparences and are therefore blind to people's disdain for tongue-in-cheek remarks to his "stupid tweets", the covfefe of the press.

From the article:A truism that liberals (and everyone else) should make a note of.

I just read about that in Scientific American.  The most effective to change peoples' opinions isn't to just present fact (they ignore them) but to reverse the question.  In other words, ask THEM "what would it take for you to change your mind about "X"?  When they tell you, you can provide that information.  And as they are engaged in the decision of what facts matter to them, they are more likely to accept.  After all, they agreed to the equation.  And it makes THEM answer a question with some specificity.

It was a fascinating read.  I've beaten my head against too many theist walls not knowing what facts would change their minds, never considering that MAYBE all I had to do was ask THEM what might change THEIR minds.  Since their minds are the ones that have to be changed, why not ask THEM what they would consider a sufficient reason to change?

Change of topic to theology, from ideology?