You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Bullshite Baffles Brains’ tag.

Facts do not necessarily win political arguments. The sooner the progressive left realizes this, the better. As a progressive lefty I’m consistently amazed by the voting patterns of the common people i.e. the people the political left is supposed to represent. Recently in Canada our most populace province decided to elect an business sense challenged, no political platform, boorish individual who spoke not in terms of political policy, but in catchy, folksy, accessible language:

His populist message resonated with voters who were unhappy with the provincial Liberals. Ford promised “buck a beer,” ten cents off a litre of gas and major tax cuts. He also promised to cut government spending by $6 billion but didn’t say how.”

Like, jesus christ in a fuckbasket, what kind of platform is that?  Anyone with more than two neurons to rub together can see the bread and circuses messaging and the usual conservative trojan-horsery going on here.  I’m not sure people get it, so let me state it here.  Conservative party policy focuses on maintaining the good times for people who most likely are not YOU.  The business elite, the wealthy, the current power structure are all beneficiaries of conservative rule – the hoi polloi – is not.

Not ever.

But hey, my fellow Canadians, enjoy your cheap beer while the newly minted government savages and merrily defenestrates the social safety net and related infrastructure that makes your life bearable.  Your vote indicates that you are good with that.

Why I shake my head (more) is that these paradoxical voting patters are nothing new.  Sharun Mukand and Dani Ridrik expound on how world view memes (in the Dawkins sense) can influence people to vote against their self interests.

 “Importantly, identity and worldview memes do not prevail equally across all subgroups of the population. Political entrepreneurs target these memes toward the electorally critical subgroup. Our model predicts that identity polarisation and support for policy memes will both see their greatest rise within the lower- and middle-income group of the majority-identity group. These are the potential switchers to whom the memes will be targeted. We should not expect those memes to operate as strongly among the wealthy who belong to the majority group or the minority-identity group of all incomes.

Increased inequality raises the reward to the rich from successful ideational politics. The returns from discovering a policy meme that persuades the median voter, for example, that lower taxes are in the interests of not only the rich, but also the low-income median voter are much higher when inequality is high. Similarly, an effective identity meme that catalyses identity around issues such as gay marriage, women’s rights and immigration can also serve as a ‘wedge’ giving low-income voters a reason to vote for the high-income party. As one team of economists concluded in 2015: ‘Despite the large increases in economic inequality since 1970, American survey respondents exhibit no increase in support for redistribution … demand for income redistribution in the US has remained flat by some measures and decreased for others.’ This is remarkable. And it happened, as our research framework suggests, thanks to the role of ideas as a catalyst for policy change. The elite, along with an allied ‘political-ideational complex’ (including academics, think tanks and talk-radio), successfully disseminated the worldview that rising inequality was an inevitable byproduct of structural changes in the global economy, which in turn necessitated the adoption of financial deregulation, low capital-income taxes and the embrace of globalisation.

Ideas and interests both matter for political change, and the two feed into one another. On the one hand, economic interests drive the kind of ideas that politicians put forward. As Kenneth Shepsle, professor of government at Harvard University, put it in 1985, ideas can be regarded as ‘hooks on which politicians hang their objectives and further their interests’. However, ideas also shape interests. This happens because they alter voter preferences and/or shift their worldviews ex-post, in both cases shifting rankings over policy.”

Fuck.  I wish the notion of concise writing would make a comeback in academia.  There are the makings of a great article in this piece, but it is severely hampered by clunky, inaccessible writing.

The gist is that you make people focus on an bullshit issue(s) that has little relation to the actual levers of power in society.  Once elected, on said mountain of bullshit, its like “Oh, by the way, along with your buck-a-beers, we’ll be needing to privatize healthcare (and other policies that screw the Average Joe and Jane sideways).

This isn’t magic, folks.   Honest.

“For those who view politics in terms of a narrow and static notion of interests, the electoral support for Trump, Brexit and other populist movements seems to pose a puzzle. It seems as if many poor people are voting against their self-interest. But the puzzle is more apparent than real. It is rooted in a habit of thinking of interests only in economic terms, and also as fixed. Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon understood well that interests are malleable. With the right message and framing, Bannon noted in 2013, you could change the political calculus by shaping popular perception of self-interest: ‘Trade is No 100 on the [Republican] Party’s list. You can make it No 1. Immigration is No 10. We can make it No 2.’

What appears to be culture might be economics – the consequence of identity or worldview memes marketed by economic elites for their own self-interest. For example, Reagan used the imagery of a ‘welfare queen’ to attack unemployment benefits and the welfare state. So identity politics was being deployed by him to ensure that voters supported the Republican low-tax economic agenda. Similarly, what might look like economics might be shaped by cultural predispositions that provide voters with their interpretive frameworks – such as Merkel’s celebration of the ‘Swabian housewife’ when making the case for austerity.

Defeating autocratic and nativist political movements will likely require strategies based on both ideas and interests. As we have seen in recent elections, proposing policies that are better suited to the economic needs of middle- and lower-income voters will likely not be enough. Successful challengers will also need to come up with narratives that help to reshape peoples’ worldviews and identities”

What a long way of saying is that left needs to up its bullshit game, so we can baffle the brains of the populace and then introduce policy that will actually benefit them.

Interesting conclusion though, is that the right consistently wins through the bait and switch that treats people as if they were feckless, greedy, morons.   Yet, the left politic seems hesitant to do so, as if somehow the patronizing authoritarian method is somehow disdainful and wrong.  I’m at the point of ‘fuck it’ and do what works already, because I’m tired of the Right being the sole benefactors of this proven, winning political strategy.

(The best part is that the Right always accuses us lefty types of elitist authoritarian tendencies, all the while exemplifying the best practices of the former.   Like, okay, then let’s do this then, and beat them at their own shitty game.)

A big thank you to PZ Myers for finding this video on youtube.  Reposted here so the intrepid DWR audience can calmly sit and watch the spectacle of smart and rational people spout silliness and spin in rhetorical circles, all the while,  making up bullshite stories to justify their belief in magic and vainly attempting to maintain some semblance of credibility.  I warn you now, bring your own spade as there is a lot of ‘argument’ to shovel your way through. :)

Speakers in order of appearance (from Why Evolution is True):

  • Professor George Coyne, Astronomer, Vatican Observatory.  Not a relative! Doesn’t believe in most miracles except for the virgin birth and the resurrection.  He’s embarrassed to believe in that stuff as a scientist, but then maintains that he’s “c0nsistent.”
  • Robin Collins, Professor of Philosophy.  Says that evil is part of God’s plan because it’s an inevitable byproduct of God-given free will.
  • Dr Benjamin Carson, Paediatric Neurosurgeon. Doesn’t believe in evolution, and you’ll find his reason hilarious.
  • John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics. Dawkins presses him hard to pinpoint when in human evolution the primates became “people.” He squirms. And this guy is an Oxford professor!
  • Francis Collins, National Human Genome Research Institute Director. What can I say? He admits that he accepts God-created miracles, but doesn’t say which ones. In a panel discussion, he admits that his faith involves a suspension of rationality, and then says that he’s unwilling to deny the existence of Satan!
  • John Polkinghorne, Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics.  ”God is both connected with time and also outside time. That’s puzzling and difficult to work out, but I think it’s absolutely essential.”  He goes on to spew more deepities.
  • JP Moreland, Professor of Philosophy, Biola University. “God is an individual person and angels are finite persons.”
  • William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy. I can’t figure out what he’s trying to say about theodicy, but it involves God going back and changing the past to create the Fall, and God giving us vipers to serve as metaphors for the evil in our hearts.
  • Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. OMG.  Miracles are not suspensions of the laws of nature, but “nature living up to its own depths.” Dawkins is too charitable here, giving the good Archbishop an out by suggesting that he’s using “poetic language.”  I never understand those atheists who see this man as a friend.
  • Dinesh D’Souza, Hoover Research Fellow, Stanford. Claims that God instilled the soul into humans about 5,000 years ago, when all of a sudden there was an efflorescence of culture and the wheel was invented. Says that his faith was affirmed when he stopped letting his brain get in the way.
  • Dr Ravi Zacharias, Renowned Christian Apologist. Tells gay people to “renounce their dispositions for the sake of Christ.”
  • Brian Leftow, Oxford Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion. If you can figure out what he’s trying to say, please enlighten me!
  • Dr William Lane Craig, Renowned Apologist and Philosopher. Laments the futility of human effort in light of the impending heat death of the Earth.
  • Nicholas Saunders, Science and Religion Scholar, Cambridge. Argues that, in quantum mechanics, it could be God who makes probabilistic events actually occur.  You can’t prove it, but he says you can’t disprove it, either.
  • NT Wright, Leading New Testament Scholar. Claims that the existence of males and females is not an accidental genetic quirk, but is the direct result of God’s plan.  And if you think that makes the Bible homophobic, well, you have to stand on some moral high ground.
  • Alvin Plantinga, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy. For a world to have the Incarnation and atonement, there has to be not just evil, but a lot of it.
  • Alistair McGrath, Oxford Professor of Historical Theology. Dawkins asks him why McGrath claims that God doesn’t intervene in human affairs, but that God does intervene sometimes to save lives.  His answer is perhaps the greatest example of bafflegab in the whole video.
  • Freeman Dyson, Physicist, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. Says that an electron and atom have “rudimentary consciousness;” implies that quantum mechanics has something to do with human consciousness.  Says his God is part of the universe, evolves with the universe, and has no idea what’s going to happen.
  • RJ Berry, Professor of Genetics, University College London. Explains that we couldn’t be physically descended from Adam and Eve, but we could be spiritually descended from them (whoever they are). In one instant we became Homo divinus.
  • Denys Turner, Yale Professor of Historical Theology. Espouses negative theology, in which “one doesn’t know what you’re talking about.”  He says that that, in fact, is what theology is about.  Sounds pretty much right to me.
  • This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

    What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.

    Like Privacy?

    Change your Browser to Duck Duck Go.

    Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 406 other followers

    Progressive Bloggers


    March 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Feb    


    Blogs I Follow

    The DWR Community

    Volunteer petunia

    Observations and analysis on survival, love and struggle


    the feminist exhibition space at the university of alberta

    Raising Orlando

    About gender, identity, parenting and containing multitudes

    REAL for women

    Reflecting Equality in Australian Legislation for women

    The Feminist Kitanu

    Spreading the dangerous disease of radical feminism

    Double Plus Good

    The Evolution Will Not BeTelevised

    la scapigliata

    writer, doctor, wearer of many hats

    Mars Caulton

    Teaching Artist/ Progressive Educator


    Still she persisted

    Old Wives' Tales

    feminism, motherhood, writing

    Female Personhood

    Identifying as female since the dawn of time.

    Radfem Resources | Radical Feminist Literature

    A virtual library for those interested in radical feminist literature and resources.

    Not The News in Briefs

    A blog by Helen Saxby


    A blog in support of Helen Steel

    Where media credibility made a comeback.


    Memoirs of a Butch Lesbian


    Radical Feminism Discourse

    a sledge and crowbar

    deconstructing identity and culture

    The Radical Pen

    Fighting For Female Liberation from Patriarchy


    Politics, things that make you think, and recreational breaks

    Nordic Model Now!

    Movement for the Abolition of Prostitution

    The WordPress C(h)ronicle

    These are the best links shared by people working with WordPress


    Gender is the Problem, Not the Solution


    Peak Trans and other feminist topics

    There Are So Many Things Wrong With This

    if you don't like the news, make some of your own

    Gentle Curiosity

    Musing over important things. More questions than answers.


    short commentaries, pretty pictures and strong opinions

    Revive the Second Wave

    gender-critical sex-negative intersectional radical feminism

    Trans Animal Farm

    The Trans Trend is Orwellian

    Princess Henry of Wales

    Priestess Belisama

    miss guts.

    just a girl on a journey

    writing by renee

    Trigger warning: feminism, women's rights


    Happily Retired

    freer lives

    A socialist critique of gender ideology

    Centering Women

    A radical feminist page made for women only


    radical Elemental feminism


    A fine site

    %d bloggers like this: