Summary: This and That ("The Problems of the Suggestion", b/w, "micro | macro")
If he could post a quick summary of his posts at the beginning - "Trump is bad because he raped a woman" - that would be awesome.
Honestly, Bill, what that part feels like, over time, is that people need things summed up in little bite-sized chunks that they can more easily argue with. That is, it's too hard to say something quick and easy in response. It's one thing to dumb it down for people, but there's a lot more to, say, historical discussion, than
「Xians r bad b/c there theists」.
Tell you what, why don't you write down my argument, for me, in a manner that satisfies you, and then maybe it will be something you can deal with.
(One thing I've learned here, over the course of twenty-five years, is how easy it is to insult people by presuming them intelligent. I could drive myself mad trying to solve the riddle of that tenderness, so I learned a while ago to not worry about it.)
Additionally, it's worth pointing out that while simplistic formulations like, "Trump is bad because he raped a woman", might make it easier for someone to utter simplistic responses, such artificial constraints also preclude other, more subtle discussions, like what it is about rape that Trump supporters love so much.
(Or, oh, should I have taken a few more words for that last?)
(Also, didn't we recently
encounter the problem↗ with short posts?)
Additionally, a particular problem with your suggestion is recently recorded:
see Pinball1970 at
#3745548↗, "Why? I have already answered." What he did was lop off a manageable chunk of a three-sentence paragraph, and then asked ("Why?") for a restatement of the part he cut out, according to a fallacious justification that he has "already answered". (
Hint, it didn't matter whether he had answered or not.) That's hardly new behavior around here.
Compared to a "quick summary of his posts at the beginning", it sounds like you're asking me to tee up for known trolling behavior.
So, let's be clear and simplistic, Bill: Are you asking me to dumb it down for people who aren't capable, or folks who are lazy? Is the problem that you don't understand, or that it's harder to pop off and bullshit?
(Or should I remove that to a third-person framework in order to explicitly shield you from the implication: Is the problem that those folks don't understand, or that it's just harder for them to get their fix? See, in that formulation, I'm including you in the perspective that assesses behavior, instead of the behavior assessed. In truth, at this point, it's unclear who is capable of discerning the difference, but I am also uncertain why you, or anyone else, would be so offended that I presume you, or them, capable.)
Consider an old bit about how American students were taught to write: One piece of advice or instruction, depending on teachers and schools, was to lead with your thesis, or declare it at the end of the first paragraph/section. Anyway, we can skip the detail and subtleties about what that means and why; by your take, we might instead tell students to write their thesis as the first sentence of their research paper because nobody is going to read anything that comes after.
(Comparatively, I have no idea what to say about
using GAI↗ to write a post of little or no apparent value, and such appearance that its most direct application is fallacious and, in that context, seemingly extraneous and possibly even counterproductive for appearing to reinforce the question it relates to. Even still, it's probably best to just leave people to their demonstrations.)
• • •
… about how Trump has threatened allies, and to what end. Let's stick to that.
It seems to me that, to a certain degree, the spectacle is its own purpose,
i.e., the distraction is the point.
There is, for instance, a saying in American jurisprudence variously expressed: When you have the facts on your side, you drum the facts; when you have the law on your side, you hammer with the law; when you have neither, you pound on the table.
In American history, our living period has witnessed a certain transition. But, what do we do with that? Forgive the
recap↑, but:
「Was a time when science and enlightenment were sufficient.」 What should I say about that? Maybe a bit from Aldous Huxley, ca. 1925, to show that this isn't a foreign idea to the British; or a quip from Stephen Ambrose, about capitalism and globalism, to remind the pretense of science and industry within our American enlightenment. Maybe skip it entirely, because, well, we can sort of take the note in our moment, here.
Thus:
「Was a time when science and enlightenment were sufficient. But the science started to inform differently than the superstitions of the prevailing societal narrative, so we suddenly had a problem.」
We can easily imagine there would be a lot of questions about what that means, but skepticism toward the pretense of
a time when science and enlightenment were sufficient can only run so deep before it reads outright cynical. It's one thing to say Scopes trial, but there is also a question of colonialism, which is something of a sensitive question these days, including the role of religion in the colonialism of science, industry, and enlightenment.
To the other, the more immediately revealing questions will have to do with science deviating from the superstitions of the prevailing narrative, because that is part of what is happening in American and British politics, right now, and clearly at play in some of our discussions, here, at Sciforums. For instance, our neighbor
acknowledging his terfdom↑ is not any particular surprise; it's been evident in
recent↗ months↗, at least, but I didn't know which particular issue it would be.
But it also makes a fine example: It's one thing to observe the political and historical condition of the Exclusionary Radical Feminist, including observation of its easy and even comfortable coincidence with traditionalist sentiments about the proper role of a woman, but the real problem, here, is that they don't have the science on their side.
So, like creationists, homophobes, and anti-abortionists before them, the anti-trans movement requires redefinition of terms, including medicine, before their arguments have merit. That's why on social media they're just screeching over and over and over again, in hopes of conditioning the audience.
Now, repeat some version of that question for antivax, tariffs, inflation, immigration, cancel culture, health insurance, taxes, spending, and even the freaking "Holy Land".
At some point, it feels like driving a stake: It's too much to ask that they get a better argument for their issue, so we lower the bar in order to keep these fallacious arguments at the table.
And since, over and over and over again, those arguments fail scrutiny, what they have left is to make sufficient spectacle as to distract from any substantial consideration of facts, evidence, or reality,
i.e., evade scrutiny.
This lowering of expectations
can under certain circumstances, be enforced by sheer might. And in this way, there are two purposes to Trump's threatening bluster. First, the spectacle is the distraction is the point. Second, he is asserting a context of permission, just like the question of stochastic terrorism.
That is to say,
microcosmic particularities will always seem more particular than macrocosmic generalizations, but it really is a
similar framework to why Trump would insult allies.
