That's a reference to some earlier posts

I think you should "You Tube" Eric Weinstein when you get the chance. He describes himself as progressive and liberal but I would categorize him as a libertarian and moderate liberal in the US political realm. He is very on point with what has happened to the US political system the past 30 years - notwithstanding what has occurred in the US economy and higher educational systems.

As an aside, I would not classify Trump as a dictator but what I will say is that he is a narcissist and egotistical leader (EVERYTHING is about him!) and will do whatever he can to ensure that he wins the next election. Not for the good of the American people mind you, but because he cannot stand to lose.

His recent comments about Dr Fauci receiving all the great press when he/Trump appointed him - reinforces my point. Trump's ego cannot handle his ratings/poll decline; fascinating in that Trump, to a large degree, created his own issues. To be fair, the press has not helped but Trump continues to stoke their ire with his tweets. He simply cannot help himself.

And "old" podcast but quite noteworthy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li2J4GxZ6iM

As per the title of this thread or as per Russian...classics? It's a bit confusing...



I guess it's all relative to where the point of centre is....

I think this is beyond Trump. It has long ago became a pre-req for a lot of political leadership roles. Obama might have just been smoother about it.

As almost all of the people in politics.

Before people quickly decide to blame one particular politician for the dire state the society is in: I'd pause for a min to ask - is it how voters work? Or is it how they respond to what is delivered to them...I think politicians (and media) deliver exactly what they predict the voters will respond to. So maybe we should question what voters desire. For me, power (and potential progress) is based on the ability to predict correctly. Imho, people judging potus have their heads stuck in the past issues. In the better case. Many just respond reflexively.

So - things aren't as black and white.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Yes, but then again, what isn't?

Schrödinger never asked the cat how it wants to exist (or not). Ethology can be more useful than relativity, maybe. That cat had such potential.

So..Voters have the ultimate power. They will have more when they realize that they are accountable for it. Not their representants. To loyally represent millions of people or concepts is quite impossible, illusive.

Instead of delegating, we have ultimate power to create our own opinions and act upon them. Be loyal to ourselves. There is the least risk of dumb polarization. I sound like Tolstoy ("Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself"). But it has some Nietzsche mixed in, me thinks.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

The problem with being accountable for your vote in a 2 power system is that you often have to sacrifice things you might care deeply about in order to vote for the party that you feels ticks most of your boxes.
If I support 4/7 of the main points of a party but 3/7 of the other, when I vote for the first party they take it that I'm for 7/7.

Why would one be so split...they make it so easy for you, innit. And entertaining. Media/campaign managers play their game right and polarize so only a few would feel split about the offer. How do they do it? Ethology. Create an affective reaction fast, nobody will actually question the ratio of the main points. Look how much affective stuff is delivered every second in US media. And why does it work...Because people want it. A grown up is not supposed to be really openly passionate about other stuff except sports, politics and some of the religions. So, either go out there and vent your needs at rallies or keep paying a shrink. Trump/Biden are cheaper.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

My "thinking way" (how we would refer to our thought process in Japan), is that the OP posits society is becoming more and more polarized. If that is the case and we extrapolate that to an extreme, then society one day will demand and force unwavering alignment with factions and narrow, disparate beliefs. Coalition building, moderate viewpoints and attempts to find common ground would therefore be considered extreme and the new form of radicalism.

Don't know what @Ouchboy is on about nor was I going there.

This whole thread is mental masturbation anyways. You are all wrong and I am right. But I don't think we are more polarized now. JMTC.

Right or wrong assumes that there is some kind of universal authority of truth. But universalism got flamed long time ago and foundationalism isn't popular anymore, either. While both those mind frames were stabilizing, the movement away from them is good news, imho.

Attempt to summarise this thread:

Oh, society is polarised. Why?
Yes, some people think differently from others. Even very, very differently.
Yeah, because they're superior.
Huh?
My qualifications/education/mind-set/knowledge of literature or suffering, clever ability to provoke is/are superior to yours.
Really, they are.
Seriously? Can't you get over it?
Here we have ways to practice English. Grammar. Phrases.
And Goobledygook. Creativity. Carelessness.
And the Russians, don't forget the Russians.
Huh? What is the point?
Yeah, definitely more "huh?".
Cooperation can be great.
What's considered good manners is cultural or subjective.
Lots of -isms mean lots of different things to different people. The others are wrong.
Only the superior will engage in the stimulating debate. After all, it's a magic yardstick.
No, it's a wank.

Brilliant! Could you please summarise the Trump thread too?

ugh.. no.

Finally, a lapidary digest of the thread's pericombobularities.

"Heavyweight" members don't like my posts on sensible matters...but don't worry you are not the only ones who are not like to what I am provoking people to debate...I would like to continue, but for this thread is enough...in the end Freud was right about people sexuality...

To summarise the summary.

"Humans are weird".

People who are misunderstood often fall into the trap to assume other's aren't good enough to understand them. Sometime this is the case. More often though, it's the protagonist that can do a much better job either at explaining, or as in this case, distilling the hodgepodge of random and somewhat cliche thoughts to something more interesting.

It doesn't seem to me that OP is looking for approval.. Maybe actually you assume that he does?

Tbh, I can't tell what he's looking for but his posts seem non standard and they entertain (more than aggravate).

Ha, this is funny. Heavyweight!

All roads lead to Rome.

Who said anything about seeking approval? Certainly not the post you partially quote, which was about understanding, continuing with I'd have thought that as someone whose posts have often been deliberately misinterpreted you might try to avoid doing the same yourself.

The various funny tangents in this thread do touch on a real issue, IMO, about posters (on the internet in general, not only or specifically here) who try to seem clever by using words or phraseology that's they hope won't be properly understood, in order to prove their superiority.

In fact it nearly always backfires and makes them look stupid themselves. This whole thread is evidence of such an occurrence.