Re: [ExI] Study of social media behavior must be 'crisis discipline'

[William Flynn Wallace]

Do we think that T's followers believed all of his lies, or just thought they didn't matter?  Teflon like Reagan?  Essentially treated like a god?  The bio of Washington I just finished showed me that a large percentage of the people want a kinglike figure to adore/worship, and faults didn't seem to matter (who was going to do that to Hilary? as a side question).  One of my areas is persuasive communications and what is going on these days is highly interesting and in some respects inscrutable.  bill w

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <extrop...@lists.extropy.org> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 6:14 AM spike jones via extropy-chat <extrop...@lists.extropy.org> wrote:

The mainstreamers' credibility will take years to recover lost ground.

The mainstream, by definition, is who people trust more than other sources.  They will continue to be trusted despite their blunders, just like they have in the past, if only because of a lack of other sources that have as much reach.

That said, the "mainstream" consists of many more sources than it did a decade ago. 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extrop...@lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jun 27, 2021, at 11:19 AM, William Flynn Wallace <fooz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do we think that T's followers believed all of his lies, or just thought they didn't matter?  Teflon like Reagan?  Essentially treated like a god?  The bio of Washington I just finished showed me that a large percentage of the people want a kinglike figure to adore/worship, and faults didn't seem to matter (who was going to do that to Hilary? as a side question).  One of my areas is persuasive communications and what is going on these days is highly interesting and in some respects inscrutable.  bill w

Back in 2015 and 2016 when I hung around with the local ‘libertarians’ it seemed to me many of them were into Trump (and later Jordan Peterson) because they wanted to own (piss off) liberals, progressives, and Leftists. I even asked a few if they hated their opponents on the Left more the loved freedom.

Regards,

Dan

[William Flynn Wallace]

Dan, when you use the word 'libertarian' do you assume that we will assume that they are conservative?  I have had people tell me, after I identified myself as a liberal libertarian, that they never heard of such a thing.   bill w

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/7D7DEA92-8603-4BF7-B20D-F5B74E3C26F6%40gmail.com.

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jun 27, 2021, at 1:14 PM, William Flynn Wallace <fooz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dan, when you use the word 'libertarian' do you assume that we will assume that they are conservative?  I have had people tell me, after I identified myself as a liberal libertarian, that they never heard of such a thing.   bill w

No. I was using the term they self-identified with. And this was a group called ‘libertarians.’ They were overrun by folks who used the label but were mainly interested in trolling liberals, etc. And their support of Trump seemed based on ‘well, he pisses off people I don’t like’ rather than for anything else. In fact, many if their political positions seemed to be chosen in an adolescent style: what is most shocking to the Left they would advocate. (For instance, I talked to two of them who thought a certain German leader got a bad rep because of Allied propaganda. He wasn’t really all that bad, according to them.)

Many libertarians I know — outside of the aforementioned group — identify as left libertarian. (And I know left Rothbardians, Left market anarchists, market socialists, etc.) The whole C4SS crowd might fall under this.

A few (that I know) also identify as liberal libertarian or liberaltarian. I believe the late Steve Horwitz (he only passed away this morning) self-identified that way. (Bleeding Heart Libertarians is or was kind of an online home for them.)

Of course, people throw around these labels without too much thought, so I usually don’t put too much stock in it. For instance, does liberal libertarian mean something coherent or is it just a mash up of mainstream liberal and libertarian ideas? If the latter, then two individuals who fancy themselves liberal libertarians might have serious disagreements on many issues in seemingly random places. (With conservative libertarians I know, it’s almost always much easier: they’re not libertarians at all. They simply accept a few libertarian positions but the overall thrust is they want conservative rule, even for many an ethnostate and for a few some form of theonomy.)

Regards,

Dan

[William Flynn Wallace]

Thanks for the new word: theonomy, then, really what each religion proposes, while theocracy is a state-sponsored religion, like the Anglican in England, I suppose.  I keep trying to figure out what I am, and what I am, I think, is one of a kind, who overlaps with many, but totally with nobody, which I think describes many who have complex, nuanced, values.   How are people like us going to have an influence at all, since we can fully agree with no one?  Run for office, I reckon.  bill w

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/9D8008D5-0C8E-48F1-84BA-4988E5921750%40gmail.com.

[Dan TheBookMan]

On Jun 27, 2021, at 2:37 PM, William Flynn Wallace <fooz...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks for the new word: theonomy, then, really what each religion proposes, while theocracy is a state-sponsored religion, like the Anglican in England, I suppose.  I keep trying to figure out what I am, and what I am, I think, is one of a kind, who overlaps with many, but totally with nobody, which I think describes many who have complex, nuanced, values.   How are people like us going to have an influence at all, since we can fully agree with no one?  Run for office, I reckon.  bill w

Theocracy doesn’t exactly mean state-sponsored religion and the Anglican Church is not really an example of theocracy. (Even if one considers this a fuzzy thing, the UK today isn’t anything like what theocratically inclined folks want.) Theocracy means rule by clergy. (One can argue about Henry VIII changing that, but it’s more the monarchy took over the church than the other way ‘round.)

Theonomists are even more particular… And I mean the ones I know — not some generic theonomist based on the definition. These folks want Old Testament inspired laws put in place and they’re quite ready to say their interpretation of that — e.g., gays, adulterers, and blasphemers jailed or executed, other religions outlawed, non-Christians basically given second class or even non-citizen status.

I don’t mind labels. They’re helpful. I expect people who call themselves X to have some wiggle room. That said, I’m surprised when folks say they’re X and then go on to endorse many anti-X things. For instance, if someone says they’re a civil libertarian and then spends all day talking about how this and that should be censored and no knock warrants are the best tool law enforcement ever invented — next to beating confessions out of suspects, then I begin to think either they don’t know what being a civil libertarian entails (in other words, they’re ignorant or stupid) or they do know what it entails (in which case, they’re playing some game).

A big problem here, too, is a word is coined and then ‘escapes’ out into public. It had a more or less clear meaning when it was coined, though probably not precise like in some logical language. But once others else starts throwing it around, the meaning changes. Socialism is a word like this. Note how it’s used to mean everything from state control of industries to welfare programs to communism to wearing a mask and getting vaccinated. (Socialism is a good term to look at because it want exactly used to mean central planning or welfare programs by its earliest users. In fact, for a time individualist anarchists described themselves as socialists. And, no, they did NOT mean that state central planning would eventually lead to some anarchist society.)

Regards,

Dan

[William Flynn Wallace]

Dan, you hang around with some strange people.  Have those guys read Leviticus?  bill w

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/EE6FE957-A0A5-4994-AE05-07DFA8A86EFA%40gmail.com.

[Dan TheBookMan]

To be sure, I don’t hang around with folks like that. I know of them and sometimes I’ve run into them at gatherings. If someone tells me they’re a white supremacist or a theonomist or whatnot, I stop contact with them. (Naturally, being openly atheist doesn’t endear me to the theonomist types anyhow.;) I left a Seattle libertarian group (years ago) because of that, and urged others to too. 

All of this reminds me of 9/11: it was, for me, an earlier litmus test for libertarians. Was a person an actual libertarian (in my view) or just someone with some decorative libertarian rhetoric that would cave once the flag was waved. My actions were similar back then: disassociate with anyone claiming to be a libertarian who supported the War on Terror, Bush, and all that. (I would still argue with them in online forums, but only because there were others involved.)

Regards,

Dan

On Jun 27, 2021, at 6:19 PM, William Flynn Wallace <fooz...@gmail.com> wrote:



[SR Ballard]

What’s wrong with Jordan Peterson?

SR Ballard

On Jun 27, 2021, at 3:51 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danus...@gmail.com> wrote:



--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/7D7DEA92-8603-4BF7-B20D-F5B74E3C26F6%40gmail.com.