Once upon a time, "classical liberalism" created western civilization, democracy, and expanding medieval urban commoner class, literacy, increases in education, high-social-trust national institutions and the modern nation state system. Conservatives were the "alter and crown types". Romanticism had not yet given birth to Marxism and Fascism.
ILLIBERALS on either the "far left" (Marxists/Neo-Marxists/"woke" totalitarians) or "far right" (Appalachian Neo-confederates, "Fascists"*, Duginists) have various dystopian visions that will never be palatable to the majority.
As appalling and revolting as globalist neoliberalism is, it has accomplished the reduction of poverty for several billion people worldwide by something like 90% (Pinker, Stewart Brand), and it is heading to 3-5% soon. Marxism/socialism/class revolution would have never accomplished that, which is why China merged "capitalism" into its one-party system.
You may not have been allowed to study politcal history from the Reagan era (he was POTUS during most of the ancient 1980s), but one of his greatest propaganda accomplishments was making the word "liberal" equate to "socialist-communist-pinko-bad-bad-bad!". Prior to Reagan, many people were proud to call themselves liberals, meaning that they were open to change. They welcomed government (socialist) programs of assistance introduced by liberal POTUS Roosevelt during The Great Depression, like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc. So, during the Roosevelt to post-Reagan era, the liberals were considered socialists, and the conservatives were alter, crown and cross-idolizing, racist, change-hating thugs (not fascists?), just as they still are today. Now, that you've had a lesson in ancient history, I hope you have a better understanding of my comment. Also, using the word "senile" to slur an older person is, well, what can I say, childish?
You are a mindless ideological tribalist that apparently can't imagine escaping your echo chamber or the groupthink narratives that rattle around in it endlessly.
Whoa!, Pierce, sounds like you need to increase the dosage! Unless "proven otherwise," Mr Ganer is, "ignorant, lost, senile, scientifically illiterate"? Really? OK, so you've found YOUR Magic Talisman in Henrich. And you worship at its altar. The Guardian and The Atlantic, among others, have reviews of The Weirdest People in the World raising very problematic issues and difficult questions with Henrich's grand- unified-theory-of-everything (and, by implication, your piety towards it). Your exuberant fealty here raises the spectre that: 1) your intellectual instincts do not inspire confidence and, moreover; 2) you have somewhat strained relationship with reality. Have a better one!
I'm betting that you can't coherently argue anything factual, from a rational, fact and evidence-based perspective, about Henrich's work, or evolutionary theory in general.
You must realize that your unvarying emotionally laden, hyper-vitriolic polemics, rhetoric and motivated reasoning make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, don't you? I am worried about you and for you. Your overly strained, ostentatious efforts at posing as a bona fide intellectual fools no one and serves only to self-embarrass. Remember, you are in The Chris Hedges Report site-- we know intellectuals when we see one. In any event, your posts have become predictable: tedious, unpersuasive, and uninteresting. Good bye and good luck.
You must realize that your incompetence will be quickly exposed if you try to actually address the content of Henrich's ideas and examine his data.
You must realize that your inability to escape your echo chamber will be quickly exposed if you try to actually address the content of evolutionary theory and how psychotic leftist assholes have been attacking science for decades because it contradicts their basic model of human nature.
I'm betting that you can't coherently argue anything factual, from a rational, fact and evidence-based perspective, about Henrich's work, or evolutionary theory in general.
Your COMMENTS were ALWAYS predictable: tedious, unpersuasive and uninteresting BECAUSE THEY ARE BULLSHIT.
---------------
RE: LIES AND BULLSHIT
Hedges' unvaryingly emotionally laden, hyper doomster, rhetoric and convoluted "reasoning" make it impossible for anyone to miss that he is all about EMOTIVE NARRATIVES, propped up by an impressive set of facts and evidence (that don't actually change his narrative).
Your idiotic intellectual inconsistencies are as appalling and ridiculous as are your LIES and your arrogant smugness.
What you call "intellectuals" are mostly people with an obvious set of confirmation biases that they have utterly and completely failed to even attempt to transcend.
You are incapable of escaping groupthink, and instead substitute bullshit and propaganda narratives.
You are a pathetic, lying sack of fetid, greasy dog poodle that has to rely on silly, disingenuous word games.
You remark was transparently stupid and naive in the first place.
Any "political" author on substack that doesn't carefully moderate their comments section will see a massive buildup of toxic trolling.
Hedges claim to care about people is a farce, he can't even be bothered to clean up the mental sewage in his own comment section.
Tribalists on the "left" have a long track record of being vicious liars that only want to defend their echo-chamber's groupthink, as can be seen in these comments.
Donald Ganer is intellectually masturbating and pooping himself in public, like a lot of low IQ morons on the left that gleefully embarrass themselves in silly attempts to ingratiate themselves to delusional groupthink.
Once upon a time, the liberals were the socialists, and the conservatives were the fascists. Now, they're both war-mongering fascists.
You are extremely confused, and probably senile.
Once upon a time, "classical liberalism" created western civilization, democracy, and expanding medieval urban commoner class, literacy, increases in education, high-social-trust national institutions and the modern nation state system. Conservatives were the "alter and crown types". Romanticism had not yet given birth to Marxism and Fascism.
ILLIBERALS on either the "far left" (Marxists/Neo-Marxists/"woke" totalitarians) or "far right" (Appalachian Neo-confederates, "Fascists"*, Duginists) have various dystopian visions that will never be palatable to the majority.
As appalling and revolting as globalist neoliberalism is, it has accomplished the reduction of poverty for several billion people worldwide by something like 90% (Pinker, Stewart Brand), and it is heading to 3-5% soon. Marxism/socialism/class revolution would have never accomplished that, which is why China merged "capitalism" into its one-party system.
You may not have been allowed to study politcal history from the Reagan era (he was POTUS during most of the ancient 1980s), but one of his greatest propaganda accomplishments was making the word "liberal" equate to "socialist-communist-pinko-bad-bad-bad!". Prior to Reagan, many people were proud to call themselves liberals, meaning that they were open to change. They welcomed government (socialist) programs of assistance introduced by liberal POTUS Roosevelt during The Great Depression, like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc. So, during the Roosevelt to post-Reagan era, the liberals were considered socialists, and the conservatives were alter, crown and cross-idolizing, racist, change-hating thugs (not fascists?), just as they still are today. Now, that you've had a lesson in ancient history, I hope you have a better understanding of my comment. Also, using the word "senile" to slur an older person is, well, what can I say, childish?
THANK YOU for being here!
Groupthink. Low IQ.
You are a mindless ideological tribalist that apparently can't imagine escaping your echo chamber or the groupthink narratives that rattle around in it endlessly.
You actually just proved my point, you are either seriously ignorant and lost in an echo chamber, or senile, or both.
The best social science I've seen that explains the cultural evolution of "classical liberalism" and modern rationalism is Henrich's W.E.I.R.D. model:
https://weirdpeople.fas.harvard.edu/
Unless you prove otherwise, I'm going to assume you are too scientifically illiterate to actually understand it.
Whoa!, Pierce, sounds like you need to increase the dosage! Unless "proven otherwise," Mr Ganer is, "ignorant, lost, senile, scientifically illiterate"? Really? OK, so you've found YOUR Magic Talisman in Henrich. And you worship at its altar. The Guardian and The Atlantic, among others, have reviews of The Weirdest People in the World raising very problematic issues and difficult questions with Henrich's grand- unified-theory-of-everything (and, by implication, your piety towards it). Your exuberant fealty here raises the spectre that: 1) your intellectual instincts do not inspire confidence and, moreover; 2) you have somewhat strained relationship with reality. Have a better one!
I'm betting that you can't coherently argue anything factual, from a rational, fact and evidence-based perspective, about Henrich's work, or evolutionary theory in general.
You cite ideological bullshit from the "woke" cancel culture mob compliant "authors" on the cultural-left, of course.
You ignorant blubberings are mindless and meaningless.
Anyone whose work becomes noticed will attract a small mob of lunatics that attempt to contradict ("refute") the work.
Did you bother to look for the refutations of the people claiming to refute Henrich???
The Humanities, including cultural anthropology have been breeding grounds for radical and extremist, cultural-left totalitarianism for many decades.
See the cases of the vicious attacks on E.O. Wilson and Napoleon Chagnon (and Bret Weinstein) for a well known examples.
Your ignorance is astonishing.
https://quillette.com/2019/10/05/the-dangerous-life-of-an-anthropologist/
You must realize that your unvarying emotionally laden, hyper-vitriolic polemics, rhetoric and motivated reasoning make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, don't you? I am worried about you and for you. Your overly strained, ostentatious efforts at posing as a bona fide intellectual fools no one and serves only to self-embarrass. Remember, you are in The Chris Hedges Report site-- we know intellectuals when we see one. In any event, your posts have become predictable: tedious, unpersuasive, and uninteresting. Good bye and good luck.
You must realize that your incompetence will be quickly exposed if you try to actually address the content of Henrich's ideas and examine his data.
You must realize that your inability to escape your echo chamber will be quickly exposed if you try to actually address the content of evolutionary theory and how psychotic leftist assholes have been attacking science for decades because it contradicts their basic model of human nature.
I'm betting that you can't coherently argue anything factual, from a rational, fact and evidence-based perspective, about Henrich's work, or evolutionary theory in general.
RE: LIES, PROJECTION AND GROUPTHINK
PROJECTION:
Your COMMENTS were ALWAYS predictable: tedious, unpersuasive and uninteresting BECAUSE THEY ARE BULLSHIT.
---------------
RE: LIES AND BULLSHIT
Hedges' unvaryingly emotionally laden, hyper doomster, rhetoric and convoluted "reasoning" make it impossible for anyone to miss that he is all about EMOTIVE NARRATIVES, propped up by an impressive set of facts and evidence (that don't actually change his narrative).
Your idiotic intellectual inconsistencies are as appalling and ridiculous as are your LIES and your arrogant smugness.
What you call "intellectuals" are mostly people with an obvious set of confirmation biases that they have utterly and completely failed to even attempt to transcend.
You are incapable of escaping groupthink, and instead substitute bullshit and propaganda narratives.
You are a pathetic, lying sack of fetid, greasy dog poodle that has to rely on silly, disingenuous word games.
Donald Ganer's comment is pure idiocy and the kind of reactionary bullshit that the "left" has been shooting itself in the foot with for many decades.
Only someone that is extremely stupid, or senile or insane (or all of the above) would blabber such gibberish.
-----
Donald Ganer [said] May 29
Once upon a time, the liberals were the socialists, and the conservatives were the fascists. Now, they're both war-mongering fascists.
You remark was transparently stupid and naive in the first place.
Any "political" author on substack that doesn't carefully moderate their comments section will see a massive buildup of toxic trolling.
Hedges claim to care about people is a farce, he can't even be bothered to clean up the mental sewage in his own comment section.
Tribalists on the "left" have a long track record of being vicious liars that only want to defend their echo-chamber's groupthink, as can be seen in these comments.
Donald Ganer is intellectually masturbating and pooping himself in public, like a lot of low IQ morons on the left that gleefully embarrass themselves in silly attempts to ingratiate themselves to delusional groupthink.
Calm down Mr. Pierce. While reading your comments, I was inspired with the following little song that I dedicate to you:
Isn't it nice, isn't it great?
in our beautiful land of the free and the brave
all our opinions can be expressed
Everybody stays happy and nobody falls off grace.
Isn't it nice, isn't it great!
You are an irrelevant buffoon that is pandering to a senile dotard out of ideological tribalism.
Isn't it nice?
THANK YOU for being here!
"e.pierce" is so diligent at cutting and pasting its own offensive words that I'm beginning to suspect it is a computer program.
Groupthink. Low IQ.
You are an irrelevant buffoon that is pandering to a senile dotard out of ideological tribalism.
Psychotic, incoherent bullshit.
DEFLECTION.
From another discussion:
Leftist/ Cultural Marxist, PC left, CRT/SJW/BLM rhetoric*, explained:
000. use absurd SMEARS
00. project
0. gaslight
......
1. Deflect from what was actually said/done (move goal posts)
2. Distort or lie about facts and evidence (such as straw manning)
3. Cherry pick evidence to fit the (victim/diversity) narrative / shift goal posts
4. Engage in emotive, feel good bs (special pleading) rather than use rational, objective thought
5. Use guilt by association ("you are a K-K-K/n-a-z-i") to smear people that dare to criticize PC/SJW leftist ideology.
[->] Use groupthink and scapegoating to marginalize critics of the PC left.
6. Demonize the personalities of opponents/critics.
7. Destroy the reputation, character and career of critics of the PC left
8. Use psychological violence, which could include doxxing, and threats of actual violence, against critics of the PC left.
-----
*Note: the above can be generalized to fit any ideology.
DEFLECTION.
From another discussion:
Leftist/ Cultural Marxist, PC left, CRT/SJW/BLM rhetoric*, explained:
000. use absurd SMEARS
00. project
0. gaslight
......
1. Deflect from what was actually said/done (move goal posts)
2. Distort or lie about facts and evidence (such as straw manning)
3. Cherry pick evidence to fit the (victim/diversity) narrative / shift goal posts
4. Engage in emotive, feel good bs (special pleading) rather than use rational, objective thought
5. Use guilt by association ("you are a K-K-K/n-a-z-i") to smear people that dare to criticize PC/SJW leftist ideology.
[->] Use groupthink and scapegoating to marginalize critics of the PC left.
6. Demonize the personalities of opponents/critics.
7. Destroy the reputation, character and career of critics of the PC left
8. Use psychological violence, which could include doxxing, and threats of actual violence, against critics of the PC left.
-----
*Note: the above can be generalized to fit any ideology.
DEFLECTION.
From another discussion:
Leftist/ Cultural Marxist, PC left, CRT/SJW/BLM rhetoric*, explained:
000. use absurd SMEARS
00. project
0. gaslight
......
1. Deflect from what was actually said/done (move goal posts)
2. Distort or lie about facts and evidence (such as straw manning)
3. Cherry pick evidence to fit the (victim/diversity) narrative / shift goal posts
4. Engage in emotive, feel good bs (special pleading) rather than use rational, objective thought
5. Use guilt by association ("you are a K-K-K/n-a-z-i") to smear people that dare to criticize PC/SJW leftist ideology.
[->] Use groupthink and scapegoating to marginalize critics of the PC left.
6. Demonize the personalities of opponents/critics.
7. Destroy the reputation, character and career of critics of the PC left
8. Use psychological violence, which could include doxxing, and threats of actual violence, against critics of the PC left.
-----
*Note: the above can be generalized to fit any ideology.