Most people believe that they are moral, but few are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are willing to dismiss others who disagree with them, much less refuse to talk or listen to them. How do people become so convinced of their own godlike omniscience and beneficence that they are willing to write off millions who disagree as evil or stupid? Nature, nurture, or some combination? Is it that they’ve lived their lives in intellectual bubbles never having heard a rationally expressed view that differed from their own?
There is a lot of self-curating of information. A structure of built-in discounting and ignoring that much of both modern media and modern academe encourages and plays to.
Z-man “conservatives are cheering that Harvard replaced their black lesbian president with someone who looks like he is from an antisemitic pamphlet. Meanwhile the public schools are full of pedophiles and drug dealers. No one should care about Harvard’s president, but they should care about who is running the local schools.”
> No one should care about Harvard’s president, but they should care about who is running the local schools.
And that attitude is why conservatives keep losing. In the long term Harvard has a lot more influence on how the local schools are run than the local school board for a given year.
Your assertion about Harvard (et al.) has an element of "that sounds 'sort of' reasonable, but still seems incomplete to address the full reality". My attempt to understand this may be off from what you intended. Can you amplify how one side "has a lot more influence". Policy, actual administrative practice, measurements or metrics of results (types and magnitude), political or "semi-religious" emotional devotion, etc. ???
For example, all this "trans" nonsense didn't come from local school boards.
The way this works is that teachers and school administrators come out of colleges of education, where they are taught either by people from the Ivy Leagues or by people who were taught by people from the Ivy Leagues. The most prestigious of the Ivy Leagues is Harvard.
School boards my pass some policies but they're still stuck with the same teachers and administrators.
Quite correct. Additionally, the college educated classes tend to look up to the heads of the most prestigious schools, and what the educated there say. What the high priests of left wing academia say is morality becomes so to that circle.
When your starting position is “we want to screw the other guy over there,” most people are going to smell a rat, not to mention be annoyed at being dragged into a fight that is not theirs.
Also, when progressives seem to think that aristocracy is a good idea, RUN.
The House of Lords analogy is apt. Hereditary privilege is now being fused with dysfunction. The leadership of the indigenous communities collect the rent on the social problems that they are ostensibly trying to solve. They are the perfect partner for a political class that thrives on problem management, rather than problem resolution.
My own experience has been that conservative tyoes in the US (1) have been interested in a winning team-orientation .. being associated with the most successful influencers (teams, business leaders, churches, etc) which require taking the lowest social risk. This has caused real dissonance over the past 30 years, especially when the winners started showing up to work wearing flip-flops making millions of dollars per year.
But on reflection about our Progressives (not actual liberals), the same incentives seem to play out but with the caveat that the association must remain understated in order to extract highest value (eg my thoughts are valuable and not cheap imitations).
Conservatives will say “winning team” while progressives would never say that outloud but expect you to understand their nuanced, fashion-like social coding. Only recently has the term “progressive” become outwardly fashionable and I’ve thought that this is to deflect from the “Liberal” or more so, “Woke” terms of derision.
(1) - “conservative” like “liberal” are now very different here in the US. Some US conservatives align well within the historical (eg Burkean) context whereas I don’t see any relationship between Liberal and Progressive other than (ironically) what used to be seen as elevating individual expression over the conserved standard. One could argue that traditional progressive issues (abortion, sexual orientation along with free speech) used to be complementary, but that’s either not the case or, the group has become much more important that the individual.
The non-viable communities enable Left and Right to maintain the status quo at a national level. If the population of the remote communities settled in major provincial centres or in capital cities the resulting crime wave would quickly lead to a breakdown in race relations. The complacent consensus on indigenous affairs would be unsustainable if people in Sydney or Melbourne faced the sort of behaviour that people endure in Tenant Creek etc.
Most people believe that they are moral, but few are so convinced of their own righteousness that they are willing to dismiss others who disagree with them, much less refuse to talk or listen to them. How do people become so convinced of their own godlike omniscience and beneficence that they are willing to write off millions who disagree as evil or stupid? Nature, nurture, or some combination? Is it that they’ve lived their lives in intellectual bubbles never having heard a rationally expressed view that differed from their own?
There is a lot of self-curating of information. A structure of built-in discounting and ignoring that much of both modern media and modern academe encourages and plays to.
Z-man “conservatives are cheering that Harvard replaced their black lesbian president with someone who looks like he is from an antisemitic pamphlet. Meanwhile the public schools are full of pedophiles and drug dealers. No one should care about Harvard’s president, but they should care about who is running the local schools.”
> No one should care about Harvard’s president, but they should care about who is running the local schools.
And that attitude is why conservatives keep losing. In the long term Harvard has a lot more influence on how the local schools are run than the local school board for a given year.
Your assertion about Harvard (et al.) has an element of "that sounds 'sort of' reasonable, but still seems incomplete to address the full reality". My attempt to understand this may be off from what you intended. Can you amplify how one side "has a lot more influence". Policy, actual administrative practice, measurements or metrics of results (types and magnitude), political or "semi-religious" emotional devotion, etc. ???
For example, all this "trans" nonsense didn't come from local school boards.
The way this works is that teachers and school administrators come out of colleges of education, where they are taught either by people from the Ivy Leagues or by people who were taught by people from the Ivy Leagues. The most prestigious of the Ivy Leagues is Harvard.
School boards my pass some policies but they're still stuck with the same teachers and administrators.
Quite correct. Additionally, the college educated classes tend to look up to the heads of the most prestigious schools, and what the educated there say. What the high priests of left wing academia say is morality becomes so to that circle.
When your starting position is “we want to screw the other guy over there,” most people are going to smell a rat, not to mention be annoyed at being dragged into a fight that is not theirs.
Also, when progressives seem to think that aristocracy is a good idea, RUN.
The House of Lords analogy is apt. Hereditary privilege is now being fused with dysfunction. The leadership of the indigenous communities collect the rent on the social problems that they are ostensibly trying to solve. They are the perfect partner for a political class that thrives on problem management, rather than problem resolution.
My own experience has been that conservative tyoes in the US (1) have been interested in a winning team-orientation .. being associated with the most successful influencers (teams, business leaders, churches, etc) which require taking the lowest social risk. This has caused real dissonance over the past 30 years, especially when the winners started showing up to work wearing flip-flops making millions of dollars per year.
But on reflection about our Progressives (not actual liberals), the same incentives seem to play out but with the caveat that the association must remain understated in order to extract highest value (eg my thoughts are valuable and not cheap imitations).
Conservatives will say “winning team” while progressives would never say that outloud but expect you to understand their nuanced, fashion-like social coding. Only recently has the term “progressive” become outwardly fashionable and I’ve thought that this is to deflect from the “Liberal” or more so, “Woke” terms of derision.
(1) - “conservative” like “liberal” are now very different here in the US. Some US conservatives align well within the historical (eg Burkean) context whereas I don’t see any relationship between Liberal and Progressive other than (ironically) what used to be seen as elevating individual expression over the conserved standard. One could argue that traditional progressive issues (abortion, sexual orientation along with free speech) used to be complementary, but that’s either not the case or, the group has become much more important that the individual.
Well they all ❤️ money.
Horseshoe stock is rising fast and I doubt it’s a bubble.
Yes it’s stopped working, the distraction .
🧲 rises.
The Enlightenment does not die well, one wonders if it ever lived well...
Not if you pay them to stay in non viable communities, no.
The non-viable communities enable Left and Right to maintain the status quo at a national level. If the population of the remote communities settled in major provincial centres or in capital cities the resulting crime wave would quickly lead to a breakdown in race relations. The complacent consensus on indigenous affairs would be unsustainable if people in Sydney or Melbourne faced the sort of behaviour that people endure in Tenant Creek etc.