We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Etiquette Question: Okay, I realize I needed to change my "Kayne" sig line. but is it okay to eat at Jean Georges?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You have to be mad.

Trump and Co. haven't met truth. They don't know what truth is. They've been lying their asses off since the 70s and long ago forgot how to even recognize something close to the truth.

Ironic use. "Truth" in this age is what your target audience wants to hear.

Regarding objective truth, it still exists, but it doesn't much matter. I know it when I see it. You know it when you see it. But of what value is it when people are so polarized they adhere to narratives regardless of whether they're factual?

This semi-famous statement, credited to many and claimed by none, seems increasingly less cynical and more factual every day:

"The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't
deposit the truth in a bank. You can't pay rent with the truth. You can't
buy groceries with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will
hang around your neck like an albatross-all the way to the homeless
shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country
that are really interested in the truth about their government can support
people who would tell them the truth, you got another thing coming.
Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested
in the truth don't have money."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ironic use. "Truth" in this age is what your target audience wants to hear.

Regarding objective truth, it still exists, but it doesn't much matter. I know it when I see it. You know it when you see it. But of what value is it when people are so polarized they adhere to narratives regardless of whether they're factual?

This semi-famous statement, credited to many and claimed by none, seems increasingly less cynical and more factual every day:

"The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't
deposit the truth in a bank. You can't pay rent with the truth. You can't
buy groceries with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will
hang around your neck like an albatross-all the way to the homeless
shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country
that are really interested in the truth about their government can support
people who would tell them the truth, you got another thing coming.
Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested
in the truth don't have money."

Each time I engage with you on Trump, I see more and more of the parallels to 1930s Germany, Italy and Spain.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Each time I engage with you on Trump, I see more and more of the parallels to 1930s Germany, Italy and Spain.

You realize I'm actually on your side here. I was being ironic when I used "speak truth" to the old. The joke is that Trump spoke "truth" to the old and scared which they wanted to hear. It's not actual truth, of course.

But given the public's distaste for actual truth, and desire to instead trade in narratives, I have to ask, somewhat earnestly, "What's the value of truth anymore"?

Seriously. Put aside the typical adversarial bent of conversation here and assume I'm asking the question without any bias of any kind. "Truth is worth _____ right now?" Or perhaps more significantly, fill in this: "Truth is likely to go [up/down] to [x] degree in value in the near future."

Consider this argument: https://www.fastcompany.com/40565050...reputation-now

Isn't truth increasingly uncomfortably close to, if not fused with, or all but eaten by, branding/messaging/spin/tribal dog-whistling?

Even when it's factual, is it not gilded or massaged to suit the audience?

ETA: Your reference to Goebbels is apt. But to find the real villain, you have to go back to Bernays. The Big Lie is an American concept, born on Madison Avenue, a few minutes from Trump Tower.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I really like the little knife-twist where the good Father points out that religious bias played a role in his dismissal.

I want to see what iron 'stache does with this in his race against Paul Ryan.

Sometimes God works in plain sight.

1. Isn't Ryan Catholic?

2. Ryan is retiring so 'stache and the other people (a nazi on the GOP side and at least one Dem woman) are running for an open seat.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize I'm actually on your side here. I was being ironic when I used "speak truth" to the old. The joke is that Trump spoke "truth" to the old and scared which they wanted to hear. It's not actual truth, of course.

But given the public's distaste for actual truth, and desire to instead trade in narratives, I have to ask, somewhat earnestly, "What's the value of truth anymore"?

Seriously. Put aside the typical adversarial bent of conversation here and assume I'm asking the question without any bias of any kind. "Truth is worth _____ right now?" Or perhaps more significantly, fill in this: "Truth is likely to go [up/down] to [x] degree in value in the near future."

Consider this argument: https://www.fastcompany.com/40565050...reputation-now

Isn't truth increasingly uncomfortably close to, if not fused with, or all but eaten by, branding/messaging/spin/tribal dog-whistling?

Even when it's factual, is it not gilded or massaged to suit the audience?

ETA: Your reference to Goebbels is apt. But to find the real villain, you have to go back to Bernays. The Big Lie is an American concept, born on Madison Avenue, a few minutes from Trump Tower.

I know "both sides" is your brand, but what are the truths that the Dems refuse to accept?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I know "both sides" is your brand, but what are the truths that the Dems refuse to accept?

That neither party has truly transformative solutions that are necessary, and that Democratic solutions, while more inclusive, are just fiddling at the margins.

R: Eat cake.
D: Here's a little something for you.

R/D: Now excuse us, so we can serve our corporate/special interest owners.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I know "both sides" is your brand, but what are the truths that the Dems refuse to accept?

You're not "rust bucket," so maybe you didn't see it, but Obama and Clinton (both) and algore and JFK all flooded michigan with ads about how they'd bring back good manufacturing jobs.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That neither party has truly transformative solutions that are necessary, and that Democratic solutions, while more inclusive, are just fiddling at the margins.

R: Eat cake.
D: Here's a little something for you.

R/D: Now excuse us, so we can serve our corporate/special interest owners.

I think there is some truth to this. Sadly, I think it's all a game to them. New representatives get elected with good ideas/intentions, but are immediately "advised" that party comes before constituents, and that beating the other side is all that matters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize I'm actually on your side here. I was being ironic when I used "speak truth" to the old. The joke is that Trump spoke "truth" to the old and scared which they wanted to hear. It's not actual truth, of course.

But given the public's distaste for actual truth, and desire to instead trade in narratives, I have to ask, somewhat earnestly, "What's the value of truth anymore"?

Seriously. Put aside the typical adversarial bent of conversation here and assume I'm asking the question without any bias of any kind. "Truth is worth _____ right now?" Or perhaps more significantly, fill in this: "Truth is likely to go [up/down] to [x] degree in value in the near future."

Consider this argument: https://www.fastcompany.com/40565050...reputation-now

Isn't truth increasingly uncomfortably close to, if not fused with, or all but eaten by, branding/messaging/spin/tribal dog-whistling?

Even when it's factual, is it not gilded or massaged to suit the audience?

ETA: Your reference to Goebbels is apt. But to find the real villain, you have to go back to Bernays. The Big Lie is an American concept, born on Madison Avenue, a few minutes from Trump Tower.

We seem to live in a world where people are more interested in arguing over whether reality is relevant rather than over what it is, and as long as that is the case, we are Wiemar.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That neither party has truly transformative solutions that are necessary, and that Democratic solutions, while more inclusive, are just fiddling at the margins.

R: Eat cake.
D: Here's a little something for you.

R/D: Now excuse us, so we can serve our corporate/special interest owners.

I think Dems are actually trying to solve real problems, like how to get healthcare to people and how to maximize the US' role in a global economy. I'd love for these to seem sexier than they are, but getting a large pool of people from $10 an hour jobs without benefits to $15 an hour jobs one with health care is indeed transformative.

Cutting corporate taxes in half and eliminating healthcare insurance is not.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You're not "rust bucket," so maybe you didn't see it, but Obama and Clinton (both) and algore and JFK all flooded michigan with ads about how they'd bring back good manufacturing jobs.

It's the "manufacturing" component of that that is hardest.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

1. Isn't Ryan Catholic?

2. Ryan is retiring so 'stache and the other people (a nazi on the GOP side and at least one Dem woman) are running for an open seat.

I forget he was retiring - but yes, he is Catholic, there are a lot of Catholics in his state, but it may be we don't get to pin this one on anyone who matters in November.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That neither party has truly transformative solutions that are necessary, and that Democratic solutions, while more inclusive, are just fiddling at the margins.

R: Eat cake.
D: Here's a little something for you.

R/D: Now excuse us, so we can serve our corporate/special interest owners.

Okay, but we'd likely be at '90s levels of employment (prime age epop) if we just hadn't done (mostly state and local level) austerity after the Great Recession. In other words, we're within the margin.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You're not "rust bucket," so maybe you didn't see it, but Obama and Clinton (both) and algore and JFK all flooded michigan with ads about how they'd bring back good manufacturing jobs.

Helpful context, but do you think they believed that?