"The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall." - Edward O. Wilson
I think you described the intersection of these problems pretty well.
Are we entering an age of permanent revolution, where our institutions fail us and technology spurs the contagious emotion of outrage? What will become of our democracies (who respond to popular sentiment) and the autocracies (who try to insulate themselves from it)?
So basically the Internet has increased the voice of stupid people. Awesome. When stupid people voted for Trump back in 2016, I sympathized with their frustration and figured they didn't know how horrifically unqualified he was. Now I don't care how much the morons who voted for him suffer. You don't want "educated elites" telling you what to do? Great, good luck figuring it out with President Jackass.
I guess we'll see. I'm concerned too. I'm just not going to dismiss my (very working class and very multiracial) clan as a bunch of morons, despite their votes. You can certainly feel free, and let's see where that contemptuous attitude gets you. Certainly not on the path to understanding. I mean, this is half the country we're talking about. I'm not even trying to be sympathetic; I'd rather try to understand their concerns and why they all voted the way they did, instead of handwaving their feelings aside as idiotic. Anyway, I guess I'll be finding out in a few days, over Thanksgiving LOL. Fortunately, I sort of get it already and I'm not going to be going into the inevitable discussions by automatically considering them to be stupid people. People vote the way they do for a whole lotta reasons, including the feeling that the other side considers them to all be fools.
If someone votes for a candidate because they believe the other candidate believes them to be a fool, that's foolish behavior. You don't choose a surgeon based on whether he likes you; you decide based on whether she's the best. I have searched high and low for a rational, fact-based argument for the belief that Donald Trump will be a good president (contrary to his literal performance last time); I've yet to hear it. Therefore, voting for someone when there is no evidence that he's going to make your life better is foolish. Most Trump voters voted on emotions and they make up reasons later to justify voting for someone who makes them feel good by being cruel to people they don't like or because he allows them to believe this big, complex world is as simple as they'd like to think it is. Again, foolish behavior. Show me one piece of data that Trump voters are more well-educated or more rational in their decision-making process and I'll rescind the argument.
They are morons. They could not cogently understand this article. I share with them certain cultural values, and I hate the marmishness, effeminate, effete, totalitarian, and morally bankrupt wokist system of bureaucracy that has corrupted every institution in America, yet I still will call them dumb. Because they are.
That sounds like an emotionally healthy and open-minded take LOL. If your words were coming out of the mouth of someone you disliked, you'd probably recognize the pointless assholishness of such a limited attitude. But I know how satisfying feeling superior to other people can feel, so you do you. Enjoy!
More emotionally healthy than voting in a person like Trump because you want to "burn it all down". Yeah we get to call people morons for doing dumb shit. I'm tired of seeing people say I have to understand when the "understanding" is that they hold abhorrent and shallow views.
I'm trying to imagine what my take would look like on the opposite side. It would basically be a more extreme version of the dirtbag left. "I agree with the left about policies, but they're a bunch of gay pussies and I'm a man who shoots things and lift weights."
No, that sounds like a cool guy. So, I can't say I agree with you that the inverse of my take would be unlikable.
"Coddled affluent professional" railing against institutions always reminds me of the part of Empire of the Sun by J.G. Ballard when the affluent British residents of the Shanghai International Zone are being received for internment, and many of them brought their tennis rackets and golf clubs. The Japanese had to tell them "LOL, you won't get to do any of that here".
Bored rich people ultimately want the excitement of revolution without the real world consequences.
I wonder if there will be an angle in the future for a tone of rhetoric that is both Border and wonk/nerd, seeing as the coming US administration is bound to do a bunch of idiotic, norm-violating, maybe illegal stuff. I think commenters and politicians that manages to summon a vibe of being both casual but also obviously more intelligent than these morons, could become popular. Rude down to earth liberal smugness, if it's not directed at hillbillies but at the current elites (that are cosmically to blame for everything frustrating in your life) could become appealing even to the people that previously found it grating.
If you haven't read it, I think you should check out End Times by Peter Turchin. Lot in there that is relevant to what you are saying here.
Andy Mills, while being interviewed on Tara Henley's podcast, may have revealed J.D. Vance's own villain origin story. Except it wasn't NYC socialites (gross), it was the elites at the Aspen Ideas Festival (grosser) that turned him.
"lites, as a broad grouping, have almost always let the public down. There’s always been corruption, failures of leadership, failures of strategy, etc. But in previous generations, elites had a cozy relationship with the media and their failures were given soft treatment or swept under the rug entirely"
This is a very good point. People are wanting back the "good old days" when "elites were not out of touch with ordinary people", but the fact is that elites probably have always been "out of touch with ordinary people" (e.g. just look up "forced busing" in the 1960s and 1970s), just media helped hide or downplay the extent it.
That said, I don't think a society can work functionally without elites playing a leading role - populists haven't exactly excelled at solving issues so far.
Revolt of the Public is okay but Gurri is partisan and very much repudiates the notion it was about Trump and even wrote an addendum that amounted to a defense of Trump.
"The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall." - Edward O. Wilson
I think you described the intersection of these problems pretty well.
Are we entering an age of permanent revolution, where our institutions fail us and technology spurs the contagious emotion of outrage? What will become of our democracies (who respond to popular sentiment) and the autocracies (who try to insulate themselves from it)?
"21st century software running on bronze age hardware" is another way I've heard it put
So basically the Internet has increased the voice of stupid people. Awesome. When stupid people voted for Trump back in 2016, I sympathized with their frustration and figured they didn't know how horrifically unqualified he was. Now I don't care how much the morons who voted for him suffer. You don't want "educated elites" telling you what to do? Great, good luck figuring it out with President Jackass.
That sounds like a great recipe for continually losing. Hope you like the taste of bitter, it's gonna be on your tongue for a while.
I'm not running for office. I'm allowed to say the truth - that stupid people are making a stupid decision that's going to hurt them.
I guess we'll see. I'm concerned too. I'm just not going to dismiss my (very working class and very multiracial) clan as a bunch of morons, despite their votes. You can certainly feel free, and let's see where that contemptuous attitude gets you. Certainly not on the path to understanding. I mean, this is half the country we're talking about. I'm not even trying to be sympathetic; I'd rather try to understand their concerns and why they all voted the way they did, instead of handwaving their feelings aside as idiotic. Anyway, I guess I'll be finding out in a few days, over Thanksgiving LOL. Fortunately, I sort of get it already and I'm not going to be going into the inevitable discussions by automatically considering them to be stupid people. People vote the way they do for a whole lotta reasons, including the feeling that the other side considers them to all be fools.
If someone votes for a candidate because they believe the other candidate believes them to be a fool, that's foolish behavior. You don't choose a surgeon based on whether he likes you; you decide based on whether she's the best. I have searched high and low for a rational, fact-based argument for the belief that Donald Trump will be a good president (contrary to his literal performance last time); I've yet to hear it. Therefore, voting for someone when there is no evidence that he's going to make your life better is foolish. Most Trump voters voted on emotions and they make up reasons later to justify voting for someone who makes them feel good by being cruel to people they don't like or because he allows them to believe this big, complex world is as simple as they'd like to think it is. Again, foolish behavior. Show me one piece of data that Trump voters are more well-educated or more rational in their decision-making process and I'll rescind the argument.
They are morons. They could not cogently understand this article. I share with them certain cultural values, and I hate the marmishness, effeminate, effete, totalitarian, and morally bankrupt wokist system of bureaucracy that has corrupted every institution in America, yet I still will call them dumb. Because they are.
That sounds like an emotionally healthy and open-minded take LOL. If your words were coming out of the mouth of someone you disliked, you'd probably recognize the pointless assholishness of such a limited attitude. But I know how satisfying feeling superior to other people can feel, so you do you. Enjoy!
More emotionally healthy than voting in a person like Trump because you want to "burn it all down". Yeah we get to call people morons for doing dumb shit. I'm tired of seeing people say I have to understand when the "understanding" is that they hold abhorrent and shallow views.
I'm trying to imagine what my take would look like on the opposite side. It would basically be a more extreme version of the dirtbag left. "I agree with the left about policies, but they're a bunch of gay pussies and I'm a man who shoots things and lift weights."
No, that sounds like a cool guy. So, I can't say I agree with you that the inverse of my take would be unlikable.
"Coddled affluent professional" railing against institutions always reminds me of the part of Empire of the Sun by J.G. Ballard when the affluent British residents of the Shanghai International Zone are being received for internment, and many of them brought their tennis rackets and golf clubs. The Japanese had to tell them "LOL, you won't get to do any of that here".
Bored rich people ultimately want the excitement of revolution without the real world consequences.
I wonder if there will be an angle in the future for a tone of rhetoric that is both Border and wonk/nerd, seeing as the coming US administration is bound to do a bunch of idiotic, norm-violating, maybe illegal stuff. I think commenters and politicians that manages to summon a vibe of being both casual but also obviously more intelligent than these morons, could become popular. Rude down to earth liberal smugness, if it's not directed at hillbillies but at the current elites (that are cosmically to blame for everything frustrating in your life) could become appealing even to the people that previously found it grating.
Great post per usual.
If you haven't read it, I think you should check out End Times by Peter Turchin. Lot in there that is relevant to what you are saying here.
Andy Mills, while being interviewed on Tara Henley's podcast, may have revealed J.D. Vance's own villain origin story. Except it wasn't NYC socialites (gross), it was the elites at the Aspen Ideas Festival (grosser) that turned him.
"lites, as a broad grouping, have almost always let the public down. There’s always been corruption, failures of leadership, failures of strategy, etc. But in previous generations, elites had a cozy relationship with the media and their failures were given soft treatment or swept under the rug entirely"
This is a very good point. People are wanting back the "good old days" when "elites were not out of touch with ordinary people", but the fact is that elites probably have always been "out of touch with ordinary people" (e.g. just look up "forced busing" in the 1960s and 1970s), just media helped hide or downplay the extent it.
That said, I don't think a society can work functionally without elites playing a leading role - populists haven't exactly excelled at solving issues so far.
Decided to pick this one up, after finding "How to Win the War on Truth" a little lacking.
Revolt of the Public is okay but Gurri is partisan and very much repudiates the notion it was about Trump and even wrote an addendum that amounted to a defense of Trump.