Divisiveness.........who wins?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by sculptor, Aug 23, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    More to the point, they would lose their audience. People watch those bimbos because that's what they like to see (and they say what viewers want to hear.)
    Right - because that sold ads.

    If no one watched any news show that covered Clinton's email woes, I can guarantee you that within a month no TV news show would cover it. But we (as in Americans in general) lapped it up and clamored for more - and we got it.
    Day after inauguration - 48% approve, 43% disapprove (on average)
    March - 45%/49%
    May - 42%/53%
    July - 39%/54%
    Today - 37%/57%

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Since content was not what they were selling, they had their choice of content. Their viewers have a long track record of "demanding" whatever they choose to sensationalize - their viewers have no a priori preferences or "wants", no relevant and stable ideology or worldview.
    They sold ads on whatever they chose to sensationalize.
    They couldn't have sold ads on sensational reports of the bizarre and TV-ready doings of the Godfather Clown and his cloak and dagger dealings? Seriously?
    If they had chosen to sensationalize La Familia Circus Trump, the notion that they could have instead equivalently sensationalized wonkish and convoluted bureaucratic dealings involved in email security issues of no apparent consequence would appear rather implausible, don't you think?

    In short: hindsight misleads - there was no external inevitability or "demand" driving them, but rather an agenda of their own.
    Those are summary polls (uncorrected for strength of approval or comparison bias) starting on inauguration day - his temporary peak of comparison with Clinton. Go back two years, and you are tracking a campaign blip largely driven by Hillaryhate bs - not Trump's doings. Hillary sidelined, it regresses to baseline in the polls. The prediction here is that barring quick and terrible disaster regression will not continue past that baseline.

    He's got the same core of support that nominated him, and elected him, and forms the core Republican base supporting the Republican Congress. Prediction: he won't lose it until after a major disaster that reasonably cannot be out-blamed, and possibly not even then. Like W (or before him Reagan, when the deficits blew up at home, the S&Ls imploded, and the Marine barracks was blown up in Lebanon). That core is a deliberate creation of a defined and identifiable political faction in the US.

    Takehome: "divisiveness" favors power and money, and that's what's been driving its fomentation by the rightwing corporate authoritarians primarily responsible for it. It's a one-sided matter.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No; had they reported on all the good things Clinton has done they would have lost viewership. FOX has made a name for itself as a right wing news source, and some people view it for that reason. If that had changed, they would lose viewers (and money.)
    Seriously. Their viewership would have declined precipitously as they began to attack what FOX viewers considered their savior.

    Could they then reinvent themselves as an anti-Trump site? Perhaps - but it would be a painful transition for them.
    Of course they have an agenda - and of course it played into external demand.
    Of course it does - and both sides know that.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Who suggested that? That's not on the table.
    That's circular. Clearly the approach would not be to build up Trump as a savior, and then attack him.
    External demand creation was part of the agenda, not a priori. It wasn't "played into", it was part of the play. Still is.
    There is one side, in this matter, and then there is everybody else - all the other sides, in all their variety.

    Since Nixon, "divisiveness" itself is become a one-sided matter. The fascist faction engineered its takeover of the Republican Party, and then the Republican Party's takeover of US government, by employing it.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Right. FOX's approach has been to favor right wing causes, such as Trump. They have built a loyal following over the years based on that. Had they decided to "sell ads on sensational reports of the bizarre and TV-ready doings of the Godfather Clown and his cloak and dagger dealings" they would have lost that following. Which is why they didn't do it. Pretty simple.
    If you are claiming there is "divisiveness" and "non-divisiveness" fine; that's still two sides.

    If you are talking about FOX News vs CNN/MSNBC and similar outlets, then you are talking about right-leaning and left-leaning - and those are also two sides.
    Now there's a fascist side? OK, but that's sort of a facile argument. A right wing extremist could claim the two sides are "socialist losers" and everyone else, and be just as right.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Nonsense. Trump was not a "right wing cause" until they and their coordinated allies made him one, and he was ripe for spectacular sensationalism - they could have begin ( 2012 - 2015) by outing him as a stealth liberal with perverted lusts.
    No, it isn't. It's about seven sides, one of which is the ascending fascist faction currently in control of the Republican Party.
    CNN is right-leaning, MSNBC is a muddle but mostly leaning right. And you already have at least four "sides" there: Right/Left X Authoritarian/Libertarian.
    It's not an "argument", it's a label - a perfectly accurate one, that saves much typing.
    Of course there is - what do you prefer calling rightwing corporate authoritarian heavily militarized racial myth based police state nationalism with strong homoerotic and dominance/submission misogynistic overtones? OK, "Republican" works, but it's contingent.
    If he could find any large contingent of socialists with dedicated major media etc he could make a two-sides error like that, sure. But I'm not going to.

    The point is: the "divisiveness" is not accidental, it's tactical, and it's the tactic of one side - the "Republican" side.
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    2 sides
    seems most likely to be a tad simplistic.

    If simplistic, and adhered to, then most likely a construct, then constructed by whom?
    Think 3d rather than 2d. For example, think rhombicosidodecahedron. If it seems too simplistic to be an accurate reflection of reality, then, it most likely is.

    In another thread, we discussed the perils of dichotomous thought, In another, we addressed the perils of focus.
    If one is intent on focusing on an assumed dichotomy, then the freedom of thought of that individual is necessarily compromised.
    And the truth will remain hidden behind the curtain.

    And, then, we come to the human need to be in association with supposedly like minded individuals. Group think may be easier on the emotional circuits than the freedom and dangers of individual thought.

    Go beyond up and down, blue and orange, black and white, left and right, republican and democrat, and look to the strategy behind the assumed tactics.
    and now, for the important stuff
    why do my air gauges measure in increments of 6 psi?
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    If you do that, you will verify that the current "divisiveness" in American politics is a deliberate creation of the faction that now controls the Republican Party, and through it has a promising grip on US government at all levels.

    One side did it.
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    no side
    not "one side"
    look behind the curtain
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    When one political party is doing the most evil things, then not focusing on that side is taking one's attention away from the true problem. "Both siderism" is a tactic employed mostly by the political right to deflect attention away from their misdeeds. It's like when George W. Bush ruined the reputation of the Republican party and everyone become Tea Party or claimed to be independent.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Behind the curtain is one side setting out to divide and conquer, in 1968. The Southern Strategy. The "side" is the American fascist political faction, now identified with the Republican Party. Initial success.

    Disaster and recovery, first solid success - 1980. Lobbying influence boosted, intellectual development, and consolidation of hold on Republican Party 1992-1994; on US government first go 2000, disaster, massive infusion of money around 2012, and recovery 2016.

    The nation divided, and thereby conquered.

    One side did it.
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Trump likes divisiveness, I do not know why. He has increased the division between republican and democrat. He has increased the division between the different ethnicities. He apparently is running out of people to divide against each other so has begun in earnest to divide his own republican party against itself.

    Again I do not know why. He seems to enjoy watching conflict between people for some reason.

    Maybe he is Satan. [shrug]
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Because he likes the attention and the acclaim. Divisiveness pits one side against another - and that means more attention for the side he's on, and more fervent believers in his side. With a lot of cooperation it's harder to take credit for things.
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Makes sense, in a horrific sort of way.

    The Satan thing is still possibility...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    It certainly seems that he feeds on discord. He needs his followers to be a permanent state of angry grievance. For that, it helps to start arguments so that he can aggressively take sides and look tough. Especially when he needs to distract attention from having flip-flopped on another of his campaign promises.
    origin likes this.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Same reason burglars like broken doors and windows, and benefit from feuds among neighbors or between them and the police.

    His core support is a minority and well unified, so he gains relative or comparative strength by having the majority divided and squabbling.

    His agenda is essentially robbery and exploitation via seized power and access - the institutions set up to prevent that require broad coordination and cooperation internally and among each other to do their job, so he gains by undermining that.

    He has no goal or agenda of actually governing, of helping to manage the country well by seeing to its Federal governance, so he enjoys no offsetting gains from harmonious cooperation among friends or foes.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well, yes - but keep in mind that to make that happen, he needs to create fear first. That's why so many of his speeches use false or exaggerated depictions of the harm that will come to people (i.e. Mexicans will kill you, rape you and throw bags of drugs on your head) so that he can create that fear among his supporters. Once people are fearful they are much easier to control. No one likes to be afraid, so they look for an outlet for those negative emotions - and Trump provides that for them, in the form of Obama, liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, Antifa, environmental regulations and the evil, evil government.
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Is there an inherent human psychological need to "choose up sides"?
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    There is a logical and moral need.
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    How so?

Share This Page