<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;">I suspected what your argument might be and I am in agreement, with two caveats.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Objective 1) is achieved only to the extent that <b>all or most</b> Trump supporters are as you describe. <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Objective 2) not only pushes moderates leftward but simultaneously pushes the Left-Radical-Fringe off the precipice.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">The strategy can, I think, remain unproductive/counterproductive vis-a-vis these two objectives, but probably would no longer merit the adjective "stupid."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">Personally, I think that any meaningful change will require not only "showing just how bad it can get" but reducing the temple to rubble. (Where's Sampson when we need him?) Apocalypse Now! The only problem is how to make sure that those that "led" us to this state of affairs, and the bureaucracies that maintain that state, are the first one's culled by the pandemics, the jihads, and the environmental collapses.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">davew<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, at 4:11 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> I think the way to start is to identify the intention/purpose of the <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> rhetoric/strategy. My tack, what I want to argue about, is that the <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> rhetoric/strategy you identify is *not* "to defeat Trump". And that's <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> why you think it's a stupid strategy, because you've identified a <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> fictitious objective. The actual objective is to two-fold: 1) to <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> demonstrate the extent to which Trump supporters are offensive to <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> everything liberal democracy is and 2) to push the moderates further <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> left.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> Hillary is an interesting example because she's not very far left (if <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> she's even left at all). Her "basket of deplorables" comment lands, I <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> think, squarely in (1). And I think we can classify most of the <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> candidate rhetoric this way. For the most part, the moderates still <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> talk about "my friends across the aisle" ... though I admit that's <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> getting more rare. Day by day, those on the right show themselves to be <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> anti-democracy, many show themselves to be pro-authority.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> To a large extent, my guess is that many lefties think Biden isn't much <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> different from Trump, policy wise. So, the objective isn't to defeat <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> Trump. It's to push the entire electorate left. And I think the <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> strategy is working. Personally, as I argued in 2016, if Trump is <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> re-elected, he'll *further* demonstrate how offensive and <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> anti-democratic he and his supporters are. So, my strategy would be to <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> re-elect him so everyone can see just how bad it can get. Maybe *then* <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> we'll be motivated to go back and reconsider what we're trying to do. <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> So, I'm almost ambivalent to whether Trump is re-elected. And I'll <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> continue ridiculing his idiot supporters.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> As to SteveG's windmill tilting hermeneutic capitulation to theists, <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> the ridicule strategy is working there, too. And we don't even need to <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> work very hard at that. Our progress in coming to grips with the large <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> and intricate universe demonstrates, daily, how stupid it is to believe <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> in overly simple things like the Christian God. Now, more subtle <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> conceptions of "gods" like that of pantheism, the Tao, or Buddha are <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> not so easy to make look silly ... maybe because those concepts simply <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> aren't silly. And a Jesuit conception of the Catholic Trinity is, <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> arguably, similar. But it takes almost zero work to show how silly the <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> Fundamentalists are. So, again, the strategy is working, as measured <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> against the actual objective.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> On 6/12/20 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote:<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > context:<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > near the end of vFRIAM, SteveG argued that Science's denigration and dismissal of God and religious sensibilities in general was both arrogant (on the part of Science) and divisive / counter-productive. In an attempt to steelman SteveG's position I generalized the argument and made the assertion that this element of the Liberal Democratic strategy to defeat Trump was not only counter-productive, but *extremely stupid*. I also expanded the scope of SteveG's argument away from simply religion but to all the views that might be held by those in Hillary's "basket of deplorables."<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion.<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> > How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes first?<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> un/subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">> FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a> <br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">><br></div></body></html>