(Part 2) Top products from r/AskTrumpSupporters

Great questions. I don't think there's an easy or foolproof answer to them.

>should lay people who have zero expertise in a field trust such general academic consensuses as being broadly correct?

Broadly correct? I would think that's a solid way to look at things. I'm in agreement with you.

>Are there good reasons for non-experts to be skeptical about the scientific consensus on vaccines, climate change or evolution?

"Good" reasons? Eh........I'll give a few scattered thoughts here:

• Some people are just going to be contrarians. I don't have any sources to link at the moment, but I think we've all encountered this at some point.
  
• Other people, often those who feel they have been marginalized by society (ex. white people who watched their friends go to college but couldn't go themselves—I'm referring to my own mother in this case), have a deep longing for "secret knowledge" and the sense of power it brings. Michael Barkun's A Culture of Conspiracy gives one of the breakdowns of this phenomenon while Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American History (1966) shows that none of this is new. For people who usually possess traits we associate with intelligence (they are intensely curious and often willing to reading extensively) but who feel like they have been unfairly excluded from the centers of intellectual life, the idea that that everyone but them has it wrong is a bit intoxicating. Especially when a small groups of other marginalized people begin listening to them. I am not justifying this phenomenon—it probably shares some of the same social DNA as the incel movement—but I am trying to humanize it.
  
• In addition to these two groups (contrarians and the intellectually marginalized), we might also add those people who have been turned off by the fervency and (please, don't throw anything at me) fundamentalist fanaticism of some popular science devotees. While 99% of modern people simply go about their days with a fairly healthy view of science and knowledge, we are all aware of the loud fringe who wants to paint anyone who disagrees with them as a "science denier" and launch social media crusades against them. Again, I'm trying to use a scalpel here and not a broad brush—it's the militant defenders of Scientism who have (like their religious counterparts) managed to turn some people off.
  
• Then there are what I like to "gut thinkers." These often genuinely good and kind-hearted people often make decisions (like whether to vaccinated their kids or not) based on emotion rather than strict reason. For them, there is nothing in the world more important than their child and the idea of their child being harmed by something they chose to do terrifies them. While they might not ever realize it, they operate in a similar fashion to those people in the "Trolley Problem" who refuse to pull the lever and save some lives because then someone would be dying as a direct result of their action. These people often hear conflicting stories (vaccines are safe vs vaccines cause illnesses) and it troubles their gut to the point where, rather than sitting down to rationalize a solution, they avoid the issue or default to whatever option requires the least amount of direct action.
  
• Lastly we might add those people who would otherwise accept scientific findings but who have one or two core beliefs or predispositions that can complicate things. For example, while we commonly label American fundamentalists as "anti-science," anyone working in that field knows from the work of the eminent George Marsden that they are rather ardently pro-Baconian science—meaning that they absolutely love empirical, directly observable science based on inductive reasoning. What they reject is deductive science and its long-range projections both forwards and backwards in time. I can say from experience that understanding this and acknowledging it in discussions with these people does wonders for the conversation and really disarms a lot of suspicion.
  
• I don't know that there is a perfect solution here, but one possible approach would be to start affirming "folk culture" within modern society. I'm literally just tossing this one out here and I expected it to be a bit controversial, but maybe it will stimulate some discussion. In essence, we (as modern, scientific Westerners) usually don't find it problematic to acknowledge, accommodate, and affirm indigenous forms of knowledge. In fact, we often condemn those who try to "Westernize" others for being colonial or destroying culture. For those who belong to tribes or ethnic enclaves, practicing non-scientific forms of knowledge is seen as a good thing by most of the intellectual elites in the West. But for those born into Western society, there is little socially-acceptable opportunity to seek out and develop alternative forms of knowledge. Perhaps creating a safe social arena for such a "folk culture" to re-emerge could give these above groups a healthy and socially legitimate avenue for exploring and fulfilling some of their deep unmet needs without the subversiveness that presently undermines a lot of the good work that science is doing.

> Kinda but these people are against universal healthcare and certain other social programs.?


Read the literature, the demographic Trump attracted support socialized policies (medicare, social security, etc.) but only for those they saw as worthy, which brings in a racial dimension.

It's hard not to take a shotgun approach to what you wrote, due to the sheer volume. Nonetheless, you wrote so much, and even included links to material to read out from your argument, so I feel like I owe you a response. Most of it will be a correction of your premises, because that is what I do.
 
Now then, I don't speak for conservatives, because I am not one. I'm a classic liberal, one who believes that all views have merit, and that most personal beliefs are built around a self-serving worldview. In other words, all of us, without exception, are full of shit. The difference between you and me and the New York Times, however, is that the Grey Lady has a much larger following (and the guts to feature Steve Bannon in an ad boldly stating "know they enemy"!!!)...so they have a claim to objective truth and are supposed to uphold standards of objectivity. So their arguments--including the one that goes "the black experience today is uniquely shaped by slavery"--gets special scrutiny.
 
I'll try to keep the rest of this short. You have a coherent tale that has explanatory power, but it's very one-sided in its line of argument. (How are we definition "whiteness," for example? This book says the Irish overcame discrimination through entree into the political realm; I like that argument better than "they joined forces with their white oppressors" but it's no more or less true...just convincing to me. If Jews are white, then why does anti-Semitism still exist? Moreover, Richard Spencer and the cast of degenerates that make up 4Chan's /pol/ message board not get the memo?)
 
Still, you are allowed to believe what you want and what is convincing to you, despite my objections. It is good and healthy to do so.

Oh man! I'm in my element! I just finished reading Empire of Wealth! I'm gonna feel really smart now.

We actually did not go off of the Gold Standard until 71. It was proposed as one of several solutions to crazy inflation partly due to social programs implemented by progressive legislation. The economy was booming but LBJ was a child of the New Deal and thought the same solutions would work in a different climate.

The Federal Reserve was established in 1913, not 1929. It is the third iteration of a central bank in our country. The Fed did not limit the lending power of banks until during the Great Depression. Alexander Hamilton was a huge proponent of central banking and his central bank helped stop 2 runs on gold. Both eliminations of regulated banking in our country have been followed with recessions.

Hoover / Roosevelt increased our currency supply to pay for Public Projects. However it was a combination of import tax, deficit increase, and increased cash to pay tor these projects. They didn't just distribute printed cash to the wealthy.

I take it that you do not support the Federal Reserve and would like to reestablish the Gold Standard? Do you know of any existing models / specific time periods where this has worked out?

EDIT:

I read a bit more about the gold standard from some of the questions on the http://www.igmchicago.org economists panel.

What it comes down to for me is that commodities in a global economy, are volatile in value. New gold reserves and extraction methods could be discovered by a competing world power tomorrow. For a smaller, more isolated economy, you could base the value of your currency off of a limited commodity. That is how the system could function in a time when our economy was a) more isolated and b) lending non liquid assets without regulation.

...and that is the current state of America. I didn't make it this way, but it is the situation. People want to be entertained and amused ('ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!'), even when it comes to serious matters like government. Neil Postman said it already, we are 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'.

don't do too much work, the article you linked was plenty. In any case, in the same situation as Boehner, Gingrich used all the leverage he had available to get things done. Since he had to work with a Democratic president, he had to forge cross-party alliance. They did objectively accomplish a lot together. I don't know if their partnership was as deep as this book claims, but I think saying Gingrich was only partisan undersells how two of the most powerful politicians of that time had to find common ground for the sake of progress.

https://www.amazon.com/Pact-Clinton-Gingrich-Rivalry-Generation/dp/0195322789

Read the creature from jekel Island to redpill yourself. Gold standard has issues in particular the limited amount of Gold (After WWII the US had almost all the world's gold read the Lords of Finance for argumesnts against Gold standard). However almost anything would be better than the current system in which bankers effectively own the world and are always the hidden power behind the throne due to their ability to create money.

One of the major issues was that they wouldn't revalue the price of Gold as they were printing money (Gold was always $70 and they could have created a new standard pricing Gold at $400). So old way was not ideal but it could be made to work. (Don't ask me how) Current system also tends to favour boom and bust cycles and not stability.

I am happy he has brought it up as the current financial system needs complete overhaul.

I'm from California and I see what you're saying, with people equating Trump to Hitler and things like that, which I personally think is insulting for people who were actually affected by the Holocaust and things like that. I've literally heard some people say that Trump was going to put gays and immigrants into internment camps once he was elected, which is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I think Facebook is purposely designed to be an echo-chamber, so that it guarantees people stay on there longer. The more you see people that agree with your views, the more likely you are to use their platform, the more you use their platform the more Facebook learns about your likes and dislikes and the better they can show you things that you like and remove things you dislike, and the cycle continues
Here are some interesting sources that talk about how social media acts as an echo chamber of sorts:?

https://www.amazon.com/Filter-Bubble-Personalized-Changing-Think/dp/0143121235

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/07/24/486941582/the-reason-your-feed-became-an-echo-chamber-and-what-to-do-about-it

?

So 3 of these examples are legal questions.

Putting aside ROSS for the moment, can I ask you a very hypothetical question?

If we made an AI which could review evidence and determine signifigantly better than humans whether a crime was comitted, would you be against robo-jury? If so, then what is your justificaiton?

(And FIY, I will be moving the goalposts on this question as we continue :)

also, check out love and sex with robots. The author does not see this as a bad thing.

Okay, thats the meat of it I suppose. That also answers the other question I was hoping to as vis a vis what is you understanding how dominant political power functions to insulate ideology. All I can say is that in my world you are the dreaded reality of a neo-liberal society. The result of the deconstruction of the individual's democratic influence on politics through their labor or through community solely relying on the spectacle of a sham electoral process, but I don't think you really care what I think.

You may never see it yourself, but I think over the coming years you might get a peak under the curtain of how oppression functions. I guess try talking to people on the otherside? I have witnessed oppression, I've seen state violence with my own eyes so forgive me if I think this way of thinking is not grounded in reality. Here's a parting gift, Some books (and a movie) that will really piss you off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBmN7icFRw
(I hope this movie doesn't turn you into a monster)

https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ghost-Story-Arundhati-Roy/dp/1608463850

https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283273

Keep doing you, never want to meet you

Yes I am. Illegals have no right to vote or participate in anything, full stop. Allow me to point you to this treatise on what happens when you let liberals push something small, like a school board election.

The fact that you're one rural American with a degree in history does not change the fact that rural America as a whole has a literacy problem. It's not prejudice to point out the fact that the education system is failing rural Americans.

Also, are you seriously trying to say that "When Google Met Wikileaks" and "Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail '72" is...highbrow reading or something? I'm a little confused by the assertion, especially when it's followed by the little "what's the last book you've read" jab. I've got a couple of David Brock's books shipping out to me but I'm not exactly going to hold those up as a grand show of literacy any more than I'd claim that the action/thriller novel "Hit List" (unrelated but eh, I do not recommend) I finished a few days ago proves I'm a supremely literate person with a firm grasp on the nuances of the language, or the fact that I read "Jurassic Park" and "The Lost World" for the umpteenth time a week ago because I like to periodically revisit Crichton's work. Unless you're just listing off book titles to prove you...read, period? Which if so, congratulations I guess, but that wasn't my point in the least and a singular, solitary point of data to the contrary does little to refute the issue I brought up. (As an aside, illiteracy is an issue in the inner cities too as well, which also has to be dealt with, though the mechanisms to do so are going to have to be separate than the ones to deal with the issue in rural America because the underlying catalysts tend to differ slightly for each, I simply brought up rural America because in sheer numbers uneducated rural Americans make up the most of the illiterate demographic.)

>You seem to think English is not important to integrate into our society. You come across as willfully ignorant perhaps because of youth, lack of real world experience, or maybe you are a contrarian. The real world demands the ability to communicate effectively. Knowledge of the local language is important to be able to do that. I cannot say it more plainly than that.

No, I simply live in a world where I'm not going to demand more of an immigrant than I am someone who lives in the rural south or the inner city. Sorry, but I'm just not. I don't think by virtue of being born on American soil that this gives someone in the rural South or the inner city any more right to be illiterate and have a weak understanding of the native culture, and so I'm certainly not going to single out immigrants, many of which who haven't even begun learning our language until well into their adulthood, and put undue scrutiny on them and hold them to a higher standard.

Very succinct and efficient post!

I also suggest reading The Big Short (the movie helps as well, but comes across as very anti-wall street while the book helps you understand wall street decision making), as the 2007-8 housing market crisis really is still relevant and directly effective Fed Rev policy.

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0

The government is not innocent in this as well, as bond institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were both equally culpable, hence why they no longer exist.

I finally started reading "The Tiger" by John Valliant.

Awhile ago someone posted a TIL and linked to an excerpt of the book, and it was riveting. So I bit the bullet and bought the book, but hadn't found the time to actually start it until a few days ago.

Thus far it has been phenomenal... I can't put it down. And it's added a few reasons to the list of Why you shouldn't fuck with tigers.

I saw an interview he did about a book of his, couldn’t tell you when or where but the thesis is basically that Reagan was so successful compared to Goldwater because he moved to the center on economic issues.

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
This is being made into a documentary check for release time.

Ideally the role of the mainstream media would be to aggressively pursue the truth regardless of ideology. We have never had an ideal mainstream media, it has long been filled with ideologues pushing their agendas.


While I'd not say they are the enemy of the people exactly, they certainly are not serving our interests.

if you are curious what destroys civilizations there's a book on the topic with some research / ideas on the topic https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Succeed-Revised/dp/0143117009

the thesis of that book is resource appetite exceeding supply causes a dramatic collapse.

so you favor a homogenous culture? ideologically or racially?

Our inventory is old, not as safe as we think it is and desperately needs updating.
read Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety and lose days of sleep afterwords wondering how we made it this far without an accidental detention.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the notion of "personal responsibility." A notion that, for many conservatives, seems to break through the clouds and let the heaven shine in. I want you to question, for a moment, this way of thinking.

This value is certainly grounded in something very real and true. We recognize that if people are not generally responsible this whole world will fall apart. Everyone needs to be a responsible person. They need to wake up and go to work and they need to take care of their children and possessions. They need to hold to a budget and have the will to deny themselves pleasure when it's in their own long term best interest. Someone who hasn't accomplished these habits is someone we would consider "immature" or childlike. In other words, they never learned, they never had to face punishment and "learn better."

We've also experienced personally moments in our lives where a lazy friend or relative has dropped the ball, made poor or reckless decisions, and as a result, caused us to suffer through no fault of our own.

I think that conservatives tend to take this character of immaturity, that anecdotally is certainly true of some immature people, and project it onto the poor populace at large, as well as anyone who has a grievance that they don't recognize as valid. (what grievances they do recognize, it turns out, has a lot to do with their own ingroup vs an outgroup, involving race and gender and nationality, etc, but that's another issue).

The result is that something true on a small intimate scale is mapped onto things that are much much larger and more complicated, like "black culture" and "black history." This leads to a very wrong narrative.

The idea that there might be something such as structures of power, or social and economic ideologies that perpetuate racism, can be dismissed as imaginary based on this simple narrative. Black poverty can instead be explained through a lack of "personal responsibility."

As evidence to back things up, you and other conservatives provide singular examples of people who have "beaten the odds," and pulled themselves up. Not all blacks were slaves, and not all do live or have lived in poverty. Isn't it the case that some black people are more well off than some white people? (Without asking, why are the odds so bad to begin with?)

Even though statistically, blacks have suffered and continue to suffer form poverty levels far beyond whites, the fact that some have beaten the odds prove that it's not impossible. How bad can discrimination really be?

Also, Asians! The reason we know why this whole business of racial decriminalization is imaginary is because Asians actually have higher per capital earning than even whites. Why? They work hard and they take advantage of the opportunities available to everyone in this country. And other ethnic groups were discriminated against as well? What about the Irish, Catholics, Slavs, or Jews?

This leads to the final claim, that life in general is hard. It should be, it has to be, otherwise we'll all become soft. And what happens when you have soft people? They become like children. They need to be taken care of. To only way to turn children into adult is to deny them. To force them to work harder, to appreciate what they have, to take personal responsibility. All of this is true when it comes to raising children, or dealing with a family black sheep, but when this is easily mapped onto large swaths of the population as an explanation for poverty and crime, well, we've short circuited.

(in fact, conservative policy tends to have the opposite effect, it actually gives people less ability to make better choices. Choices are not made abstractly, they are made by an embodied individual, and people already living in poverty live under stress, making choices you'll never have to make. And black people especially have lived under low level but constant psychological disparagement. This is changing, but to get a sense of it historically, Read Native Son, or anything James Baldwin, or The Souls of Black Folks).

Conservatives tend to think, aren't all these claims explaining black poverty really just an excuse? An excuse for a lack of personal responsibility? Typically what then gets blamed is "black culture."

I can see how this is a compelling narrative, especially if you are allergic to guilt or shame, but the reason why most of this is to me bullshit, or entirely irrelevant to policy, is because it ignores the specificity of black history. Every group that has faced discrimination in the US has a distinct history and that history matters. You can't just say well one race did fine while another one has floundered, so we can cross off race as a variable.

You have to look at each ethnic group's history to see what happened. Each story is complicated, and the real story of African Americans is incredibly complex. It's also probably the most interesting aspect of American history, to me at least.

In the case of both the Irish and the Jews, they eventually were able to disappear into whiteness. This book is especially telling: https://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095

as well as this one: https://www.amazon.com/Blackface-White-Noise-Immigrants-Hollywood/dp/0520213807

For both, their assimilation was aided by engaging in the national past time of discriminating against, you guessed it, black people. Setting themselves in opposition to them.

Whiteness as a category has been incredibly essential to American identity. This is argued famously in The Wages of Whiteness: https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Whiteness-Making-American-Working/dp/1844671453/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+wages+of+whiteness&qid=1567617090&s=books&sr=1-1

Basically, the book argues that American's came to be able to accept their position as wage laborers by identifying with whiteness, being able to contrast their position with that of slaves. At least they weren't slaves! At least they were white, at least they were better than someone.

This psychological drama has played out in politics and history ever since. I could go on and on and on. You might dismiss these books, and these claims, but you shouldn't. You should read and evaluate them for yourself. They are well sourced.

Basically, if there's one thing to take away here, it's that you should bracket the narrative that you have come to believe in, and you should open yourself to reading actual quality history about the black experience and race relations in this country.

A good place to start might be this book: https://www.amazon.com/Half-Has-Never-Been-Told/dp/0465049664

And if you want to find some free pdfs of these books. This is the go to site: https://libgen.is/

Just search, the books are in there.