Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Gary Coal Man

The Great Divide of Our Time

Recommended Posts

Do you agree with the speaker that the following is the great divide of our time moreso than Trump supporters vs. Trump opponents, urban voters vs. rural voters, or Red America vs. Blue America?

 

“For years the politics of both Left and Right have been informed by a political consensus that reflects the interests not of the American middle, but of a powerful upper class and their cosmopolitan priorities.

This class lives in the United States, but they identify as “citizens of the world.” They run businesses or oversee universities here, but their primary loyalty is to the global community.

And they subscribe to a set of values held by similar elites in other places: things like the importance of global integration and the danger of national loyalties; the priority of social change over tradition, career over community, and achievement and merit and progress.

Call it the cosmopolitan consensus.

On economics, this consensus favors globalization—closer & closer economic union, more immigration, more movement of capital, more trade on whatever terms. The boundaries between America and the rest of the world should fade and eventually vanish.

The goal is to build a global consumer economy, one that will provide an endless supply of cheap goods, most of them made with cheap labor overseas, and funded by American dollars.

But it’s about more than economics. According to the cosmopolitan consensus, globalization is a moral imperative. That’s because our elites distrust patriotism and dislike the common culture left to us by our forbearers.”

 

LINK TO TRANSCRIPT & VIDEO OF FULL SPEECH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

And they subscribe to a set of values held by similar elites

What is Hawley’s educational background? Do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

What is Hawley’s educational background? Do you know?

No clue.  Never heard of Hawley until I heard his speech referenced just a few minutes ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gary Coal Man said:

No clue.  Never heard of Hawley until I heard his speech referenced just a few minutes ago.

He went to Stanford, Yale, and taught in London.

He *is the elite.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

He went to Stanford, Yale, and taught in London.

He *is the elite.

Yeah, but he was born in Arkansas and was raised in small town Missouri.

Having the intelligence to excel academically doesn’t mean you came from the elite class nor share interests with it.

Edited by Gary Coal Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gary Coal Man said:

Yeah, but he was born in Arkansas, and was raised in small town Missouri.

Having the intelligence to excel academically doesn’t mean you came from the elite class nor share interests with it.

And being born into the elite has nothing to do with being of it also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

And being born into the elite has nothing to do with being of it also.

I wouldn’t say “nothing”, but there certainly are plenty sons and daughters of the elite class that feel so guilty about their family’s fortune that they actively take positions against that class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gary Coal Man said:

I wouldn’t say “nothing”, but there certainly are plenty sons and daughters of the elite class that feel so guilty about their family’s fortune that they actively take positions against that class.

I appreciate your perspective, but be careful you don't endorse the bastard offspring of a dung beetle who had one too many drinks with Sisyphus.

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

I wouldn’t say “nothing”, but there certainly are plenty sons and daughters of the elite class that feel so guilty about their family’s fortune that they actively take positions against that class.

Sure, like Patty Hearst. - j/k, but often they're liberal/progressive and it sounds just as hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing new about right wing populism. Joe McCarthy and Spiro Agnew both offered the same rhetoric decades ago: the elites vs everybody else. It has its run, then it dies down again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

There is absolutely nothing new about right wing populism. Joe McCarthy and Spiro Agnew both offered the same rhetoric decades ago: the elites vs everybody else. It has its run, then it dies down again. 

Would you then say that Bernie and the Democratic-Socialists crusade against “the 1%” is left wing populism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Would you then say that Bernie and the Democratic-Socialists crusade against “the 1%” is left wing populism?

Absolutely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Would you then say that Bernie and the Democratic-Socialists crusade against “the 1%” is left wing populism?

Yes. And incidentally it will have greater impact in the long run (unfortunately IMO). 

Heres why: because right wing populists don’t really care for politics. That’s why their movements never last, because the anger wears out and they go back to watching football or hunting or whatever- all they really want is to be left alone anyhow. 

Left wing populists love politics- they’re in it for life. They want radical change always. They’re smaller but they never go away. 

  • Like 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Yes. And incidentally it will have greater impact in the long run (unfortunately IMO). 

Heres why: because right wing populists don’t really care for politics. That’s why their movements never last, because the anger wears out and they go back to watching football or hunting or whatever- all they really want is to be left alone anyhow. 

Left wing populists love politics- they’re in it for life. They want radical change always. They’re smaller but they never go away. 

Yeah, I completely agree with that analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

Has nobody mentioned IQ and its heritability?

You just did, and I’d be interested to hear you expand on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it has all sort of ramifications for any sort of divide you can speak of. Give me an hour or so and I’ll lay out some basic theoretical arguments if that premise were true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heritability and IQ, and its social science ramifications, had been obsessed about since the eugenics movement of The Progressive Era in The United States. During the Progressive Era, many reformers sought to rid the world not necessarily of war or other grand tragedies, but of things such as poverty, ruined cityscapes, disease, unemployment, drinking issues, pretty much every social ill you can think of. One of the offshoots of Progressivism and reactionary conservatism was a theory of eugenics which held that human beings wound up as better, faster, cleanlier, better adjusted socially, and more healthy and intelligent offspring if their parents mated in scientifically controlled ways. While we take this for granted (either by reason or of actual scientific experiment is not my concern) today, back then, it was sweeping and revolutionary, and it changed just about all thinking in micro ways about humans and offspring going into the future. 

One of the offshoots of these attitudes and prejudices was that pertaining to the almost near-mystical rubicon of intelligence that would dominate and vex researchers for many years but had an important consensus among psyshometricians, or those that study IQ. Next post...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that consensus, across all tests and variations, was that IQ was biologically determined by your parents by about half and your environment by about half.  This was simple, accepted, and rarely controversial. However, it wasn't spoken of in terms of public policy very often until two social scientists, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein took these findings and published a sweeping summation of all the studies with an eye towards public policy. The Bell Curve, wi=ritten in 1994, was an immediate sensation, reviled as it was praised. It was certainly controversial. Herrnstein and Murray talked about race, sex, class, everything; They posited this: That there was a heritable part of IQ that was very significant, that there were significant IQ differences by race, and most importantly that these two factors, were significantly tied to one's future earnings. The higher the IQ, the different the race, the better the environment one grew up in, the more it all correlated with income earnings. In fact, when all factors were controlled, IQ -- heritable, remember -- was the one factor correlating most highly with future earnings. This, they said, should give us cause to reevaluate what they called "intelligence and class structure in American life," also the subtitle of the book. The story of the book is one for another day. The goals of this next post will be to list some of the challenges that we will face because of this intractability of inheritance of this gift of IQ. Next post...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certainly stupid people out there in politics. I use the word “stupidity” here, not necessarily to describe lack of overall intelligence or IQ, but as a sort of catchall term to describe certain traits: lazy, simplistic thinking, intellectually uninterested, often conspiracy minded, often closed minded. Here are some examples that immediately come to mind: 

Donald Trump

Maxine Waters 

Louis Gohmert 

Shelia Jackson Lee

Michelle Bachmann

Ihlan Omar

Sarah Palin 

 

Etc. As populism rises these types seem to become more popular. When populism decreases they’re typically marginalized and less people pay attention. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

And that consensus, across all tests and variations, was that IQ was biologically determined by your parents by about half and your environment by about half.  This was simple, accepted, and rarely controversial. However, it wasn't spoken of in terms of public policy very often until two social scientists, Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein took these findings and published a sweeping summation of all the studies with an eye towards public policy. The Bell Curve, wi=ritten in 1994, was an immediate sensation, reviled as it was praised. It was certainly controversial. Herrnstein and Murray talked about race, sex, class, everything; They posited this: That there was a heritable part of IQ that was very significant, that there were significant IQ differences by race, and most importantly that these two factors, were significantly tied to one's future earnings. The higher the IQ, the different the race, the better the environment one grew up in, the more it all correlated with income earnings. In fact, when all factors were controlled, IQ -- heritable, remember -- was the one factor correlating most highly with future earnings. This, they said, should give us cause to reevaluate what they called "intelligence and class structure in American life," also the subtitle of the book. The story of the book is one for another day. The goals of this next post will be to list some of the challenges that we will face because of this intractability of inheritance of this gift of IQ. Next post...

I have no idea who you are, but I’m pretty sure I know where this is going. If I’m right, you’re in the middle of trying to make a pseudo intellectual defense of white nationalism. I’ve read this gobbledy#### nonsense before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I have no idea who you are, but I’m pretty sure I know where this is going. If I’m right, you’re in the middle of trying to make a pseudo intellectual defense of white nationalism. I’ve read this gobbledy#### nonsense before. 

No, I'm about to make the argument the book really wanted to make but got lost in one chapter where they chose to discuss what they felt was a noncontroversial subject among psychometricians. The science, they thought, had been settled, and why not include it? 

But spare me the indignation please. I've personally heard the author talk about a wide range of things and can assure you that his Vietnamese daughter he gave birth to while having met his first wife in the Peace Corps would be awfully surprised to find him a white nationalist 

Edited by Encumbrance
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomorrow we will manage to discuss exactly what this divide is, what it will do, and how seismic it will be in determining the future of life and politics...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

As a matter of fact, timschochet, IQ determinism or fatalism, as this is sometimes called, favors the Jews above all else. 

I don’t care who it favors. I’m pretty sure it’s racist crap.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

I don’t care who it favors. I’m pretty sure it’s racist crap.

You're really not sure of anything. It is racialist in a way, but in a way much like they Study European and West African sprinters. It's uncomfortable, but likely true. Here's what's important: What if I told you tomorrow that we only discuss other things besides race. The main and central theses of the book were radically different than people think. And you're making some strong accusations while couching your rhetoric in "pretty sure's" and other hedges. 

I assure you that I don't care about group, race, and IQ when it comes to the importance of IQ and heritability. Only as far as welfare and entitlement programs target those groups as if they didn't have different needs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murray  -- Herrnstein is now deceased -- is a paleolibertarian of all things, bordering on classical liberal to an extent. He's a Never Trumper and pretty wide-open minded about a lot of things we accuse him of.  

eta* And let's get it over with: I'm not here to harp on race or subtly troll people as a member of the alt-right. I'm a classical liberal and believe all men are created and should be treated equally in the sphere of negative rights. They should also be treated equally in certain positive rights and privileges, but that's a thornier issue of outcome and result.  

Edited by Encumbrance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, the alt right loves to cling onto IQ "studies" during the 70's and 80's that "prove" that African and Hispanic countries have IQs far lower than White and Asian countries.  In some cases the study shows average IQ's lower than 70 vs the average white IQ of 100.  On the "real" IQ test, a score of 70 would put someone at the very low normal range and bordering ######.  To suggest that this is the Average IQ for a country is obviously ludicrous but yet the alt right trumpets these as to why European countries are more advanced and stable than African/Hispanic countries.

Just the fact that so many in our country grasp onto nonsense like this shows that our country is far more backwards than we'd like to think. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

Yea, the alt right loves to cling onto IQ "studies" during the 70's and 80's that "prove" that African and Hispanic countries have IQs far lower than White and Asian countries.  In some cases the study shows average IQ's lower than 70 vs the average white IQ of 100.  On the "real" IQ test, a score of 70 would put someone at the very low normal range and bordering ######.  To suggest that this is the Average IQ for a country is obviously ludicrous but yet the alt right trumpets these as to why European countries are more advanced and stable than African/Hispanic countries.

Just the fact that so many in our country grasp onto nonsense like this shows that our country is far more backwards than we'd like to think. 

You don't know the first thing about psyshometricians or IQ testing. I'm not wasting my time on this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Encumbrance said:

You don't know the first thing about psyshometricians or IQ testing. I'm not wasting my time on this.  

I know enough that to suggest the intelligence of an entire country is borderline ###### is beyond idiotic.

The AVERAGE IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Encumbrance said:

No, I'm about to make the argument the book really wanted to make but got lost in one chapter where they chose to discuss what they felt was a noncontroversial subject among psychometricians. The science, they thought, had been settled, and why not include it? 

But spare me the indignation please. I've personally heard the author talk about a wide range of things and can assure you that his Vietnamese daughter he gave birth to while having met his first wife in the Peace Corps would be awfully surprised to find him a white nationalist 

Yeah, Murray touches on the heritability of intelligence in both Coming Apart and when discussing “Super Zips” as a contributing factor for the stark success divide between the upper and lower classes.

Murray now intentionally and specifically avoids race when discussing intelligence as a factor in success because once race is introduced (or even Murray himself) some people refuse to consider the intelligence divide topic and worse — go out of their way to make it impossible for others to discuss the topic.

Edited by Gary Coal Man
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the sooner we all figure out that there are two sets of rules the better. We the people need to enforce one standard and we can not do it while divided by the ones who are benefiting from the current system. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gary Coal Man said:

Yeah, Murray touches on the heritability of intelligence in both Coming Apart and when discussing “Super Zips” as a contributing factor for the stark success divide between the upper and lower classes.

Murray now intentionally and specifically avoids race when discussing intelligence as a factor in success because once race is introduced (or even Murray himself) some people refuse to consider the intelligence divide topic and worse — go out of their way to make it impossible for others to discuss the topic.

And yes, as you point out, his central thesis in many of his following works will be this stark cognitive divide, which he argues will show up with respect to income, jobs, down to where you live. And that has huge ramifications and has an entirely differing justification than that one earned these things by merit. If they're tied to IQ, and IQ is heritable, you just inherited a trait. You got luck.  It will, importantly, he notes, not be a meritocracy, which was long the justification for unequal outcomes. His question becomes then "what to do with that?" Chances are that if you're wealthy, or go to a good school, have a beautiful spouse that one thinks one has earned it with merit, when in fact it's often the opposite. You've really won the genetic lottery. So what Murray does is take IQ, measure it w/r/t successful endeavors and living, and says, "okay, what to do with these successes which are largely biological?" How to go about society then. His solution is paleolibertarianism, a branch of libertarianism that emphasizes behavioral and economic restraint, in short, an untroubled life via government intervention but also lived willingly in accordance with Western values. 

Edited by Encumbrance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Encumbrance said:

Tomorrow we will manage to discuss exactly what this divide is, what it will do, and how seismic it will be in determining the future of life and politics...

Let's all hope we actually do that, without copying/pasting from a book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

Let's all hope we actually do that, without copying/pasting from a book.

I'm doing this off of the top of my head I know it so well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the 8 years of Obama divided this country more than anything I've ever seen.

white vs black, rich vs poor, Christian vs muslim, gay vs straight, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, public vs police, citizens of this country vs illegally here people ... in those 8 years it seemed everyone learned to hate someone and self justify it

Edited by Stealthycat
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I thought the 8 years of Obama divided this country more than anything I've ever seen.

white vs black, rich vs poor, Christian vs muslim, gay vs straight, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, public vs police, citizens of this country vs illegally here people ... in those 8 years it seemed everyone learned to hate someone and self justify it

:goodposting:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I thought the 8 years of Obama divided this country more than anything I've ever seen.

white vs black, rich vs poor, Christian vs muslim, gay vs straight, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, public vs police, citizens of this country vs illegally here people ... in those 8 years it seemed everyone learned to hate someone and self justify it

lmfao.

Obama inherited a country about to go into a depression.  The first 2 years were spent climbing out of it and the last 6 trying to stabilize the economy.  Oh yea, he said police shouldn't shoot black people without cause, wow so divisive.  Oh, and he wanted healthcare for everyone.  The monster.

You folks act like you are simply without clue sometimes.

The biggest divide we have is educated vs uneducated and you can easily tell which side is which.  Luckily, economic realities are forcing more and more people to get educated so conservatives will all but be gone in 20'ish years. 

Edited by James Daulton
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I thought the 8 years of Obama divided this country more than anything I've ever seen.

white vs black, rich vs poor, Christian vs muslim, gay vs straight, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, public vs police, citizens of this country vs illegally here people ... in those 8 years it seemed everyone learned to hate someone and self justify it

So then that would that be a “no” that the true great divide is a Cosmopolitan Class that envisions itself as citizens of the world that are separate, distinct, and above the more patriotic lower classes?

And do you think Trump has lessened or furthered the divides you attributed to Obama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gary Coal Man said:

So then that would that be a “no” that the true great divide is a Cosmopolitan Class that envisions itself as citizens of the world that are separate, distinct, and above the more patriotic lower classes?

And do you think Trump has lessened or furthered the divides you attributed to Obama?

 

Sorry  - more patriotic? Can you expand on that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I thought the 8 years of Obama divided this country more than anything I've ever seen.

white vs black, rich vs poor, Christian vs muslim, gay vs straight, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, public vs police, citizens of this country vs illegally here people ... in those 8 years it seemed everyone learned to hate someone and self justify it

Maybe it's where I live or something but I never felt it was that bad.  It's possible it increased some but no where near the level it's at right now.  I really think the divide it at a level we have not seen in a very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, whoknew said:

 

Sorry  - more patriotic? Can you expand on that?

I'm guessing the people who use the phrase "Love it or leave it" all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the cosmopolitan divide is a fine theory and has been advanced independently by several scholars, including notably, the former head of the American Enterprise institute, Chris DeMuth, and the former Weekly Standard's Chris Caldwell, among others.  

Edited by Encumbrance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I thought the 8 years of Obama divided this country more than anything I've ever seen.

white vs black, rich vs poor, Christian vs muslim, gay vs straight, left vs right, liberal vs conservative, public vs police, citizens of this country vs illegally here people ... in those 8 years it seemed everyone learned to hate someone and self justify it

Identity politics will have that effect.

 

Hate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, identikit said:

Identity politics will have that effect.

 

Hate it.

But why do we have identity politics in the first place? It’s not something that arrived out of thin air. It’s come about due to bigotry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

But why do we have identity politics in the first place? It’s not something that arrived out of thin air. It’s come about due to bigotry. 

LOL

OK Tim.

You're the Labeler-inChief around here.

I'd say that qualifies as a source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a chance to argue a sociological cosmopolitan/cognitive/etc. division and we're going to do identity politics? Oh well...but I guess in a way the self is the last American frontier. To take one's identity, deconstruct, and then reconstruct it might take a truly pioneering spirit, only inward.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Sorry  - more patriotic? Can you expand on that?

Sure.  Passages from the OP speech:

- “This class lives in the United States, but they identify as “citizens of the world.” They run businesses or oversee universities here, but their primary loyalty is to the global community.”

- “But it’s about more than economics. According to the cosmopolitan consensus, globalization is a moral imperative. That’s because our elites distrust patriotism and dislike the common culture left to us by our forbearers.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.