I think the way to start is to identify the intention/purpose of the rhetoric/strategy.
My tack, what I want to argue about, is that the rhetoric/strategy you identify is *not*
"to defeat Trump". And that's why you think it's a stupid strategy, because
you've identified a fictitious objective. The actual objective is to two-fold: 1) to
demonstrate the extent to which Trump supporters are offensive to everything liberal
democracy is and 2) to push the moderates further left.
Hillary is an interesting example because she's not very far left (if she's even left at all). Her
"basket of deplorables" comment lands, I think, squarely in (1). And I think we can
classify most of the candidate rhetoric this way. For the most part, the moderates still talk about
"my friends across the aisle" ... though I admit that's getting more rare. Day by day,
those on the right show themselves to be anti-democracy, many show themselves to be pro-authority.
To a large extent, my guess is that many lefties think Biden isn't much
different from Trump, policy wise. So, the objective isn't to defeat Trump.
It's to push the entire electorate left. And I think the strategy is working.
Personally, as I argued in 2016, if Trump is re-elected, he'll *further*
demonstrate how offensive and anti-democratic he and his supporters are. So, my
strategy would be to re-elect him so everyone can see just how bad it can get.
Maybe *then* we'll be motivated to go back and reconsider what we're trying to
do. So, I'm almost ambivalent to whether Trump is re-elected. And I'll continue
ridiculing his idiot supporters.
As to SteveG's windmill tilting hermeneutic capitulation to theists, the ridicule
strategy is working there, too. And we don't even need to work very hard at that. Our
progress in coming to grips with the large and intricate universe demonstrates, daily,
how stupid it is to believe in overly simple things like the Christian God. Now, more
subtle conceptions of "gods" like that of pantheism, the Tao, or Buddha are not
so easy to make look silly ... maybe because those concepts simply aren't silly. And a
Jesuit conception of the Catholic Trinity is, arguably, similar. But it takes almost zero
work to show how silly the Fundamentalists are. So, again, the strategy is working, as
measured against the actual objective.
On 6/12/20 2:46 PM, Prof David West wrote:
context:
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."
glen wishes to 'discuss' my assertion.
How to proceed? from the general to eventual specifics/particulars? who goes
first?
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
