Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Left Has More Social Intelligence
More Republicans need to understand how to deal with the modern media intent on advancing their agenda. They have always been very bad at hand-to-hand combat with media Democrats. But Trump has been doing this kind of thing for his brand for decades.
Maybe that was the ‘signal’ some of the GOPers used to see him as such a Democrat. But he is only using their tactics and weapons, not their policy solutions. Just because the Germans used tanks and blitzkrieg doesn’t mean someone is a national socialist for using the same methods.
Russel Brand is very smart and savvy. I’m not for his socialist outcomes, but that’s not relevant to the main point he’s making.
Actors have a very strong understanding of people that most ‘normal’ people lack.
One of the biggest reasons the left hate him so much is because he’s so effective. Their previous Republican opponents never fought back where they live.
Published in General
Yes Kasparov is just such a dope:) There’s probably a German word for intelligent dummy.
The neocons split off from the Democratic Party when it was captured by the Left during the Vietnam War, and decided (or returned to its earlier view) that Communism was peachy keen: “liberals in a hurry” and “land reform” and “true democracy”, don’t you know.
From that point on, the Democrats kept doing their best to surrender in the Cold War, as they had in Vietnam.
Thus, the Cold War was won by the Republicans plus neocon Democrats, with Ronald Reagan, himself a kind of neocon, in overall command.
But it wasn’t just foreign policy that caused neocons to split off from the Democrats. Many were social scientists and scholars who realized that LBJ’s “Great Society” programs were not only ineffective, but damaging to the poor.
Of course, the Democratic Party and the Left always has the same, simple answer to a failing government program: spend more money. If you double the money and it still fails obviously you need to triple the money; if you triple and it still fails you need to quadruple; etc., without end.
It’s impressive that Russel Brand can so effectively discuss how to communicate but he has absolutely no knowledge of human nature and economics and that he is completely unaware of economics, human nature and crime in America. I have asked this constantly so forgive my repetition, why are leftists so confident in things that they have done absolutely no research in.
Because they’ve had it validated by others who have done absolutely no applicable research. But own a bong.
So the difference between conservatives and leftists is that leftists remember what they thought when they were high?
It’s so good to hear anything that is not negative about our prospects. Thanks.
Joseph Epstein called them Savant-idiots. (Sartre, Focoult, and I believe the essay itself was about Susan Sontag.)
If they did not, they would remember nothing at all.
I wouldn’t call it social “intelligence.” It seems to me that a big reason why the left is more successful at using tools like social media is that social media seems designed to treat people as groups, which the left also does, so it’s a more natural fit for them. Conservatives treating people as individuals, doesn’t translate nearly as well.
Scott Adams just calls them smart-dumb. Easy.
It’s because leftism is their religion, and those things they “know” about economics, human nature, etc, are their articles of faith.
How can you expect them to believe differently?
There are few places where they can learn the truth, and they are constantly urged to stay away from those.
Actually I think there are lots of places, such as libraries. But first they have to be willing.
Before I switched careers in my younger days, I was a librarian. I still occasionally keep a hand in, practicing what I call “guerrilla librarianship”. I find worthy books on the shelves, and borrow them for a week. That way, those books are less likely to be culled, when the library needs to free up shelf space.
But when I do this in the history or biography or social science or poli sci sections, I find books worth saving few and far between, greatly outnumbered by liberal and left-wing books which will tend to mislead their readers and are a net harm to the country.
Not surprisingly, public librarians are overwhelmingly liberal to leftist in political orientation. Even when they are not, the review sources they depend on for deciding which books to buy definitely lean to the left. Which is to say, good books will get bad reviews, and bad books, good reviews.
I don’t disagree with this comment, but it misses the point I’m trying to make. I’m saying they ( and I mean actors and comedians who are usually default leftists) understand people. Character, motivations, psychology etc. They study that stuff deeply. They pretend to be other people. Try doing that for a living and come back to tell us that you didn’t get any insights into human nature.
If you begin with a “deep” person, maybe so. But I think it’s pretty clear, from watching them and listening to them, that the vast majority of actors (and maybe most other entertainers too) are not particularly “deep” people to begin with. That’s why you get people acting in movies about farmers who then feel competent to lecture the rest of the country on farming. And lacking a strong self-identity could be a big part of that: if they had one, it would be far more difficult – perhaps impossible – to pretend to be someone else.
I dunno. What is a deep person? Actors understand interface and personality, but they also must absorb very deep themes in plays. Maybe you’re talking about famous Hollywood actors. I’m talking about most actors. And as well all know, most actors are not famous. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t actors. And acting is a skill, a craft, and an art.
Psychology endures in drama and theater. Literature also of course.
The Greek plays, all the way to modern theater – which is now film and TV – Gave us moral , or karmic, or just inevitable lessons of human weaknesses and inevitable results.
Christianity, Jesus Christ himself, told stories and parables. As a Catholic I’ve seen the shows.
Stories, shows, narratives, depictions, representations, rituals, ceremonies, lectures, presentations…it’s all a performance.
We are always trying to inform or teach each other. Which I find wonderful and enchanting.
Not a completely formed thought, but actors – good actors – are also good at convincing people that they’re someone/something they aren’t. i.e., good at fraud. They also might be good at – or become good at – convincing THEMSELVES they are someone/something they’re not. Such as experts at farming. Or government. Or “climate change.” Or what-have-you. I think @jameslileks has pointed out in the past that actors used to be looked down on. And that was probably better for the country than looking up at them, at least to the extent that often happens now.
Look up at the STORIES, not the actors.