Dyson is a tool.

However that has exactly zero impact on the fact that Trump is an utter disgrace, nor on the point you made above. This is just one more incident of whataboutism

That is also a 10 minute snippet from a 2 hour debate. Might be worth watching the rest of the Munk lecture as to why Dyson took that line with Petersen, in a debate about why political correctness was right/wrong. More selective quoting.

What do you mean by this?

Trust of what or whom?

I‘ll give you that it is daft.

I‘ve long thought that Trump is a distraction.... We can‘t believe the crap, each day sends out a new absurdity, but behind this, there‘s a lot of dismantling going on. The rich get richer and screw the poor. Corporate rights over workers, loss of safety nets and protection. The crap that started with Reagan‘s indifference.

And while political correctness can be overwrought, it is sometimes necessary to level the playing field. Yammering on about the evils of PC is often an excuse for opression. Political correctness is not grace, but surely the world could do with grace now and again.

But hey, just my opinion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44324545

Tom

And another one out the door. It just keeps revolving.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44377729

What is your reason for believing this is schtick or part of a carefully crafted and deliberate plan? I'm a believer in the adage that 'all things being equal the simplest solution tends to be the best one'. In this case we have plentiful examples from before he even ran that this is a deeply disturbed man, after the election we see his rage tweeting, inability to stay on message, inability even to avoid boasting about intelligence secrets to the Russions. Why do you think that despite all the evidence that this is just a man out of his depth do you believe it's all just a cunning ploy? that he is not fact rage tweeting uncontrollably but considering his message carefully to give the impression of rage tweeting uncontrollably?

Ha! Bbc are trying to get some credibility back, lol. It wouldn't be there a few months back. There must be something about his strategy, it is hillarious to read it off bbc web. What's next...Guardian?

If you really care to know my oppinion...I do. Because business (his life before) is different than running a state. Because he's got too many strategic points to take care of, and he is too consistent. The bbc article pointing out flexibility within his consistent strategy, in order to succeed, illustrates it. People need consistency in order to build trust. He needs time and he is distracting and misleading enemies while gaining time. I think it might be a team effort to get to this level of consistency. If opponents would realize how much time/energy they are losing limited by a particular idea of their activism and virtue signalling...

__________________
"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

How strange and depressing is that? Really the guy is a vindictive and idiotic numpty and he's deliberately taking apart policies that were actually beneficial, merely because he so dislikes Democrats and in particular Obama.

Err, what?

IMO, BBC news always had credibility. They are just reporting a Gallup Poll. Anyway Republicans don't want to be seen to not be supporting their own party, thats pretty clear. Especially as it will look awful on them if or when the whole truth regarding Russian collusion in the 2016 election comes out.

I don't think it is such a bad idea, a bit of muscle tone practice there. Like M. Obama swirling in hoolahops on TV and enticing the nation to move? Empowering!

You gotta give it to them, yanks.

Also, they want to do as well as possible in the upcoming midterms. I think if that goes badly, you'll get more rats like Paul Ryan abandoning the sinking ship.

Many past presidents had personality and anger issues. Lyndon Johnson for example was a despicable bully and aerosole. Nixon was a liar. Even Lincoln had some diusturbing personality issues, Had they had access to something like Twitter, who knows what they would have done with it.

But that doesn't mean that these presidents didn't also achieve some great things. People with ugly personalities can still do the right thing. The line between genius and madman can sometimes be blurry.

He was a showman, remember?

That cant be. Must be a fake video. Don't watch it.

StirB and his little friends have been insisting that this man has only been gracefully supportive of his succesor.

Obviously you and your 'big friends' are fully clued in Andrew.

You realise successor means comes AFTER. This video is from BEFORE.

It's not rocket surgery.

And commies were syphilitics but managed to provide free healthcare and edu. I don't like to dwelve in relativism but I agree that sometimes you have to repeat the obvious - absolute terms are daft. Expecting a potus, any potus, to be a flawless hero is a dream.

People got tired of a manicured intellectual, who's messages they did not really understand. I bet Trump is actually a lot more bland than he portrays himself publicly, knowing people gobble up sensational weirdness (tan..his pseudo Twitter Tourette, etc). His mission is to be direct and do things fast, so there will be rash behavior.

I totally think it's a front and it still gets people and media to keep him in their focus. Him being direct and not caring that much for the aftermath translates to strength and power, to many people.

__________________
"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

I did, last week.

One thing is, you can't have a productive conversation or debate with Dyson because he appears to think he holds the absolute truth. A debate requires agreement on what is going to be debated on. An explicit agreement on that is necessary in the case of PC because the pro-side's and the criticiser's definitions contradict each other. Dyson blocks every attempt in that direction. This may make sense in a zealot's world as he thinks he holds the truth but not for everybody else.

Another thing is that Dyson declares any argument on PC that may come from any white person invalid simply due to white privilege. Just imagine what would happen if any white person said the same about black people. At best Dyson is deeply prejudiced, at worst he's outright racist.

You may know that Fry is openly gay. Dyson demonstrates his double standards when he invites Fry to sit on his lap, something that should be a clear No-No for any pro-PC person. Unless he's black, apparently.

Here's the full debate:

I also watched the full debate, it was pretty enjoyable as a spectacle. Sadly, none of them really answered the question (Fry acknowledged this on several occasions to be fair).

I'd say the only person who came out of it with any credit was Fry, but it's clear from watching it that he's the only real intellect on the panel, so hardly surprising.

The one thing that actually sticks in my mind, was Dyson and Peterson trying to out-semantic one another with fancier and fancier terminology, referring to each other as "confreres" on a few occasions. Then Peterson's mask of intellect slipped a bit when he referred to Fry as his compatriot, despite him being Canadian and Fry British!

I think the moniker that is often applied to Peterson - The stupid man's smart man - probably applies equally on the other side to Dyson.

Regarding Dyson calling Peterson a "mean white man" and inviting Fry to sit on his lap (they were having a little bit of flirty banter previous to this) - I think it isn't the worst tactic when arguing for being PC - Fry took it as a joke, but Peterson was mightily offended, which more or less showed that he is only against PC when it isn't aimed at him.