* Notwithstanding their ostensible egalitarianism and pragmatism, the liberal elites are committed to their own particular brand of identity politics, complete with its own special kind of otherization. The “bitter clingers” who stand in the way of gun control are not merely criticized as misguided, but despised as occupants of a lower moral and cognitive order, atavisms of a barbaric past that liberals alone have superseded. Whereas now eclipsed traditionalist hierarchies revolved around perceived differences in things like sexual purity, work ethic, religious affiliation, family pedigree, and ethnic bona fides, the new status hierarchy of liberalism is rooted in “cognitive elitism” and centers around a morally charged division between those who are “aware” and those who are not. The former have the psychic maturity to accede to liberalism. The latter lack it and must be reformed. This kind of identity politics will always take refuge in some pragmatic-sounding pretext—e.g., the dangers of firearms or the drawbacks of home schooling. But conservatives dismiss this pragmatism as an elaborate façade for a status hierarchy that liberals refuse to acknowledge.
* The liberal virtues are in truth gestures of identity-assertion designed to come at the expense of conservative ordinary Americans.
* The modern liberal identity is not an unvarnished naturalistic lucidity, as liberals are wont to see it. For it embodies the contingent historical forces that first generated it, a new uniformization, homogenization, and rationalization that liberalism’s Enlightenment narratives conceal or discount.
* Given that the symbolic realism is invariably intertwined with the biological functioning of a symbolic animal, liberalism’s efforts to mark off a sphere of “real” harm-tracking morality from the realm of airy cultural grievances is necessarily parochial, the product of an ethnocentrism that cannot recognize how liberals and conservatives partake of a shared humanity one side of which liberalism discounts.
* the emergence of a conservative identity politics, a conservative politics of recognition. The tropes and ideals of the Left are being marshaled, not simply to advance one or another conservative cause, like ending abortion or untrammeled free markets, but moreover in defense of conservatives themselves as an unfairly maligned social group. This is what defines a conservative claims of cultural oppression.
* Social meanings can constrain us because they ground our identities. To preserve identity is to contain freedom—to limit the range of possibilities that one can seriously contemplate. This narrowness is the sine qua non of taking oneself seriously, which is what social meanings allow us to do.
* A biological male is within his rights to self-identify as a female and attach more importance to this inner self-conception than to his biological sex. But he cannot reasonably expect others—for who many such disjunction between biology and identity is foreign—do the same and recognize him as a female. His sexual self-identification is a private matter, but his biological sexuality is a public one, and others will respond to what they can see and hear. His perspective is legitimate, but so too is theirs. Both express equal but ultimately incommensurable frameworks of identity. He is on the losing end of this conflict, not because he is morally inferior, but because of a utilitarian calculus resting on 1) a social consensus that the sexes should use separate restrooms, 2) the fact that he is in the minority and3) the fact that the resources available for the construction of public restrooms are finite. Someone is going to be left feeling uncomfortable, and it is the greatest good of the greatest number that determines who this will be.
* The liberal identity is premised on the ethos of disengaged self-control and self-reflexivity, and this places it in direct conflict with those whose patriotism resists that ethos.
* most people’s need for cultural identity affirmation is largely defensive in nature…
Posted inConservatives|Comments Off on The Role of Identity in Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression
One option when a politician changes positions is to simply announce the new position without acknowledging any change occurred. Ignoring the flip-flop may allow the politician to avoid awkward questions about it, if the issue has low salience for key stakeholders. For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama criticized John McCain for proposing a commission to study the recent financial crisis on Wall Street. “A commission,” Obama said, “That’s Washington-speak for we’ll—we’ll get back to
you later” (Jacobson, 2010, para. 2). However, after his election, President Obama created commissions to deal with the BP oil spill, the national debt, nuclear energy, and bioethics. PolitiFact reported that the White House declined to comment on its story. It may be that most voters had little interest in the issue of government commissions, and even Obama’s political opponents were not motivated to attack him over it. Thus, ignoring the apparent inconsistency was a viable strategy.
Another situation in which politicians may be able to ignore their flip-flops is when only their partisan opponents are concerned with the flip-flop, or when the flip-flop has become commonplace in Washington. Between 2013 and 2018, for example, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, both changed their positions on filibustering judicial nominees. When Democrats controlled the Senate, Reid supported eliminating the filibuster (to allow Democrats to confirm their judges) and McConnell opposed it. Later, when Republicans controlled the Senate, McConnell supported the elimination of the filibuster and Reid opposed it. PolitiFact found that both men performed full-flops, but neither senator attempted to justification the
change. The mostly likely explanation for the change seems to be naked partisanship; however, because most Republicans and Democrats were guilty of the same thing, and because each party’s base supported its actions, there was little reason to address these
flip-flops directly.
If politicians try to ignore their flip-flops, they run the risk of looking foolish when someone questions them on the subject. We found several cases in which politicians announced new positions and did not explain how they had arrived at them until journalists or voters challenged them on the change. A few politicians tried to continue ignoring the issue by dodging the questions or giving non-responsive answers. Most attempted to deny or justify their flip-flops. We believe a more effective and ethical strategy in these situations is to announce the reason for the change up front. Failure to do so may insult the intelligence of key stakeholders.
Posted inJoshua M. Bentley, Politics|Comments Off on Representations of reliability: The rhetoric of political flip-flopping
Podnotes AI summary: I’ve read extensively about Kamala Harris, including her biography, three books on the Biden administration, and multiple articles. One trait stands out: insecurity. This seems to drive her tendency to blame others for her problems and contributes to staff turnover due to a reportedly abusive work environment.
When prepared, she does well; however, unpreparedness leads to public mistakes and blaming staff. Despite current momentum with media support, this pattern of insecurity could lead to future meltdowns.
Harris’s campaign for president in 2020 showed internal dysfunction but also revealed her political skills. Her selection as VP was strategic due to her identity rather than qualifications alone. Still, she has an impressive track record as San Francisco DA and California AG.
Her office has been described as dysfunctional with high turnover rates attributed to Harris’s management style—often failing at preparation and directing stress onto aides.
Despite these issues, it’s important to not just dismiss criticism of Harris as sexism or racism; those who work for her aim for success but are challenged by the workplace dynamics under her leadership.
The label “border czar” given by some media outlets was misleading since she never had actual control over border policy or enforcement—a point that became clearer over time despite partisan narratives.
Overall, while there are criticisms of how Harris handles responsibilities and relationships within her team—which can affect morale—it is undeniable that she has achieved significant roles in politics through skillful communication when scripted situations allow it.
In his first year, President Biden faced a historic challenge with immigration. The media should have covered the bipartisan bill killed by Trump more thoroughly. Ben is visibly upset and accuses Laura of not understanding the issue’s complexity, having worked on it for years. He believes the bill was terrible and deserved opposition.
The discussion shifts to Kamala Harris’s controversial comments and her role in setting up a bail fund post-George Floyd riots. Critics question why the press hasn’t scrutinized her as they do others, suggesting bias due to her support of Black Lives Matter movements.
Harris’s progressive stance is noted as being far-left compared to national averages, especially on border issues—some fear this could hurt Democrats electorally. Yet, despite negative approval ratings similar to Trump and Vance, she has strong backing from influential Californians.
Despite Harris’s qualifications and track record in high-profile roles like District Attorney and Senator, there are concerns about her leadership style leading to staff turnover and low morale within her team.
Finally, debates arise over whether criticizing Harris carries risks due to gender or racial dynamics; yet some argue that regardless of these factors, leadership issues persist under her command.
Some women without children may feel unhappy and resentful when this is pointed out, as it reflects the pressure they face. Men, on the other hand, don’t feel the same sting since they can father children at any age. Often, women remain childless because they haven’t found a suitable partner to have kids with.
The global population decline in countries like Japan, Italy, and China suggests we need more discussion around encouraging families and addressing this trend. Clay Travis tweeted about these issues from a national conservative perspective.
There’s controversy over J.D. Vance’s remarks about “childless cat ladies” affecting the country’s future; critics say it reflects Trump’s difficulty dealing with powerful women like Nancy Pelosi or Kamala Harris. Some suggest Trump’s choice of Vance could be detrimental to his campaign.
Kamala Harris has been criticized for her prosecutorial style during hearings and her ambition to gain power possibly overshadowing good governance practices. Her 2020 presidential campaign faced internal conflicts and public scrutiny which led to its downfall.
Experts debate whether Harris would be classified as an ‘active positive’ or ‘active negative’ personality in terms of political leadership styles – ambitious but either adaptive or insecure respectively. Presidents like Nixon are cited as examples of active negatives who sought power intensely but struggled personally.
He felt it was his duty to become president, believing he should rise above politics. Three psychologists profiled Kamala Harris’ personality, revealing her assertive and ambitious traits. In a discussion about her viability as a presidential candidate, some expressed skepticism based on intuition and past behavior under pressure.
Critics worry that Harris may react excessively in international conflicts to prove toughness. Others argue she’s likely to intervene strongly overseas. Some compare historical female rulers’ ruthlessness with modern workplace dynamics, suggesting potential for vicious leadership.
Debate over Harris’ candidacy includes concerns about her communication skills and track record as San Francisco DA and California Attorney General. Despite these issues, she remains a possible nominee due to party support and Biden’s endorsement after dropping out of the race.
Harris’ speaking style is often criticized for being circular or nonsensical without clear messages or answers—raising questions about how well she could communicate as president. Her defenders claim critics are too harsh on minor flaws in communication; however, clarity is crucial for presidential roles.
Despite challenges like staff turnover and awkward laughter during serious moments, Harris might still have a chance at presidency—especially if voters prioritize preventing Trump’s reelection over enthusiasm for her personally.
The psychological analysis indicates that while Harris has leadership qualities, impulsiveness could affect decision-making. As election day approaches, both parties strategize around Biden’s exit from the race and his endorsement of Harris—with many uncertainties ahead regarding the Democratic nomination.
Kip joins the show: Anthony Cumia is known for his emphasis on telling unvarnished truth, even if it means stepping outside polite discourse. Like him, you value honesty over sparing feelings because of the benefits that come after facing hard truths.
Anthony was part of the “Opie and Anthony” show; have you followed Greg ‘Opie’ Hughes since their split? His perspective aligns with yours about media personalities. The show also featured comedians like Joe Rogan, Gilbert Gottfried, Louis C.K., Colin Quinn, and Patrice O’Neal – whom I consider one of the greatest comics ever. O’Neal’s candid style and resistance to political correctness were significant long before his passing in 2011.
Speaking of influential comedians, Norm Macdonald and Rodney Dangerfield are my top picks alongside Dave Chappelle – whose sketch comedy outshines SNL in my opinion. Similarly impactful was “In Living Color,” which showcased talents like Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans.
Reflecting on politics and media influence: The media might shape narratives subtly through repeated messaging across different platforms rather than overt persuasion. Yet despite this potential sway, figures like Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump have been elected against considerable media opposition.
We can debate whether individuals evolve to be gullible or not; however, I believe people are capable of discerning manipulation attempts regardless of widespread propaganda efforts. That said, we must acknowledge how our diverse society lacks a singular model now compared to decades past when there was more cultural homogeneity.
Finally discussing Kamala Harris’s personality traits based on psychological analysis: She exhibits confidence and charm due to her outgoing nature but may act impulsively at times due to boredom with routine tasks. Her dominant assertive personality suggests she enjoys public interaction during campaigns but may encounter limitations when faced with mundane responsibilities.
Kamala Harris is known for her ability to motivate and foster supportive relationships, which are key in policy implementation. Her assertive personality drives her to seek change and lead international affairs through collaboration with foreign leaders. However, she may occasionally lack emotional restraint or self-discipline.
Research from the unit studying personality and politics suggests that while Harris is persuasive and authoritative, she might also be abrasive and combative at times. She uses assertiveness as a strategy but could potentially intimidate others into compliance.
Her questioning during hearings shows her outspoken nature; however, this can sometimes come across as inflexible or lacking objectivity. Despite these potential shortcomings, Harris’s charisma and confident presence have made an impact on the political stage.
Harris’s interpersonal conduct displays warmth and authority, connecting well with people despite being prone to impulsive decisions. Her leadership style involves mobilizing support effectively but may suffer from a superficial approach that limits sustained focus on details – something noted during her presidential campaign.
In terms of temperament analysis similar to other high-profile individuals like Bill Clinton or Donald Trump, Harris is seen as optimistic and pleasure-driven by power pursuits. While charismatic, she sometimes lacks conscientiousness regarding detail orientation which could affect effective policymaking.
The text also touches upon various analyses of violent behavior in relation to an attempted assassination on Trump – highlighting how personal grievances can manifest into predatory violence after careful planning rather than impulsive aggression.
Finally, it discusses public figures’ influence over societal norms throughout history before delving back into modern political discourse around personalities such as Kamala Harris’s role in shaping current events.
Democrats faced the potential loss of numerous Senate seats, even as they risked losing the presidency. Poles showed some improvement from Biden’s situation, but Trump’s campaign effectively targeted both Biden and Harris. Kamala Harris’ left-wing record could hurt her chances for the presidency despite being a replacement to energize voters and save Senate seats.
Donors withdrew support from President Biden due to his negative impact on other candidates. Despite excitement over pushing him out, it doesn’t guarantee success for Harris, seen as too liberal by many national Democrats.
Security measures around VIPs are dynamic and extensive, not just limited to close proximity. Surveillance before events is crucial for safety; this includes aerial resources and proactive elements assessing vulnerabilities constantly.
Media influence in politics was hotly debated with opinions varying on its impact on voter decisions. Some argue media narratives can sway public opinion significantly while others believe people generally follow their self-interest regardless of media persuasion. The role of media in shaping or reinforcing preexisting views remains contentious.
He claimed he wouldn’t campaign but didn’t say why he wasn’t seeking reelection, which was unsettling. A book that shaped my views on persuasion is “Not Born Yesterday,” which argues against the notion that people are easily manipulated. It suggests we’re skilled at deciding who to trust and what to believe, despite historical beliefs of gullibility.
The author contends emotional signals must be reliable or they’d be too easily exploited. We evaluate emotions based on prior beliefs, context, and the sender’s trustworthiness. The book aims to prove humans aren’t blindly obedient; we have cognitive tools for evaluating information.
On a different note, children should experience great literature to understand English’s potential and human creativity. Dismissing this as unimportant overlooks its profound impact on understanding humanity.
Hugo Mercier posits humans aren’t as susceptible to influence as some think—challenging views like Voltaire’s about belief manipulation leading to atrocities. My personal experiences align with Hugo’s perspective; I value openness over narrow political biases.
Political campaigns in the U.S., despite their costliness, show little effect on voter behavior according to studies—raising questions about their efficacy.
Lastly, personal anecdotes can sometimes reinforce or challenge our opinions more than research does—as demonstrated by an experience where advice from someone trusted led me to reconsider my stance against using inhalers for asthma relief.
Claire Khaw joins the show. She complains a show she did was taken down due to a copyright strike regarding footage of the Olympics.
Luke: I watched the CNN debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, knowing I couldn’t show even 2 seconds of it without risking a copyright notice. Networks spend billions on broadcasting rights, like NBC with debates or Premier League football, so they’re strict about copyright violations. However, academic presentations or niche podcasts aren’t as lucrative, so sharing clips from them isn’t usually an issue.
When asked how I feel about people using clips from my streams, I’m fine with it, but some streamers are sensitive to this and can react harshly.
Claire: I was impressed by a Nigerian online space where participants were polite and educated. It made me reflect on Western society’s challenges due to its success; English-speaking talent worldwide often outperforms native Western education levels.
Regarding news consumption habits, some people interpret events in ways that align with their emotions – happy individuals seek positive spins while others may lean towards doom and gloom narratives. Personally, I aim for neutrality but recognize my role as a political activist might skew that toward optimism.
The New York Times discussed the dating stigma around male podcast hosts who share personal opinions publicly; many women see this trait negatively when considering potential partners. Despite this perception of “podcast bros,” there are certainly exceptions based on the nature and respectability of one’s content.
I once mentioned something that made my girlfriend, Haley Rivers—a smart and wonderful woman—leave me. We had good times but it ended after two months.
Moving on to advertising, its effectiveness is often gauged by elasticity. For example, if doubling ad spending only increases sales by 1%, the impact is minimal.
Research shows most ad campaigns have little to no significant effect on sales; this has been known for some time in marketing circles. Ads resonate when they align with existing beliefs, which explains why changing minds en masse is tough.
Humans are naturally skeptical of new information that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. However, we might accept such information if the source seems informed or trustworthy—if Joan recommends a phone and she’s knowledgeable about tech or isn’t just selling it.
Five months ago in therapy, discussing life goals led to an analysis of “eroticized rage,” a term from my past relationship with Haley after she left adult entertainment. This connection made dating difficult; one woman even joked about extreme measures before considering dating me due to my history writing about the sex industry.
In 2007, I stopped covering porn to focus on Orthodox Judaism instead—both communities share deep suspicions of outsiders. In therapy recently, reflecting on desires and relationships brought back memories of Haley and discussions around eroticized rage.
Posted inAmerica, Kamala Harris|Comments Off on Decoding Kamala Harris (7-28-24)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
