Who wins in a vote between right-handers and left-handers?

ace has a typically excellent essay up about the problems with the Donald, beyond him dropping “F-bombs” in a public speech.

But Trump is also  doing something essential to winning without physical conflict:  attacking with the left’s own weapon.  No, not the F Word; emotional appeals.

As I continually argue, leftists ignore reason when reason isn’t on their side.  It’s why they’ve become so amazingly stupid.  So why waste a heartbeat on “rationally” debating them?  Emotion and social pressure are their weapons.  Those, they can’t ignore.

So naturally rational people never use their weapons against them.  Why?  “Rational” and “intelligent” aren’t synonyms, apparently. 

As with hands, people have two mental sides, one of which dominates.  There’s a right and left hand, and there’s a rational and emotional side.  Every person is this way.  And every person includes independent American voters.  Tea Partiers are trying to convince emotional Americans using reason.  Statists use emotion on the emotional. 

Guess who wins.

Our side could use emotional tactics to bolster the rational arguments.  I contend we should.  Yes, yes, it’s distasteful.  But you don’t leave vomit laying around just because the cleanup is disgusting.  Will you let the Ruling Class enslave your family because emotional appeals seem so tawdry?  

Rational people think a logically unassailable argument should be enough.  It is, for them.  So when it fails to work with the emotional they assume the problem is communication.  They keep rephrasing the same flawless arguments while wondering why it never works.  Meanwhile statists use every trick at their disposal to win the undecided with emotion.   

You know how, when it comes to handedness, there’s a lot more righties than lefties?  Well, guess what?  The division between rational and emotional folks isn’t 50/50, either.

Are you starting to see the problem yet?

ace isn’t keen on “populism”, and if that means “Cult of Personality” politics, I’m no fan either.  He makes very sharp observations about Trump’s methods being no different than Obama’s.  Cult of Personality crap is completely out-of-bounds for rational people, as it should be reflexively for any American.  But emotional argument…why not use it in addition to that logically unassailable position?  Distasteful, yes.  Manipulative, even?

Since it feels manipulative to a rational person, I guess it is.  But to the emotional you’re not being manipulative, you’re speaking to their interests.  Have you ever had an emotional person get mad at you for succeeding in a logical argument?  That is, you used logic, as always.  But this time they had an unwanted epiphany, and saw the error in their argument.  That’s when they feel manipulated.  Rational creatures feel manipulated by emotional pressure.  Emotional folks feel manipulated when logic takes them from where they want to be. 

You’re one sort or the other.  So does this ring true to you?        

Paul Ryan’s got the logical argument down pat.  It doesn’t need fine-tuning.  What’s needed is to win the emotional independent voters.  Who outnumber the rational ones, I remind.  

He could start with, “The government doesn’t let me borrow money and put the debt on my children.  But that’s exactly what it’s doing.”  But what he really needs to say is:

We are enslaving America’s children.

“This is nothing short of slavery.” 

“Slavery slavery slavery.”

Statists can’t ignore that the way they do reason.  “How dare you?!”  And then Ryan whips out the charts showing every squalling babe is $50,000 in debt and Ryan’s opponents are arguing to add $5,000 to that every year.  Let them explain why it isn’t slavery.  Insist they explain to America why the government can do to its children what gets its citizens thrown in prison and called monsters. 

Slavery slavery slavery.  This debt is slavery.  Ryan’s got the charts to prove it. 

Of course “progressives” and the Ruling Class will scream bloody murder.  That’s a feature, not a bug.  Let’s help all independent voters see these folks in their full-throated, spittle-flecked glory. 

The purpose isn’t to win over the Ruling Class and its remoras.  They hate you already, and for very good reason.  Slavers should hate good Americans. 

And millions of those wishy-washy independent voters are good Americans.  These are the folks who decide elections.  I have logically concluded that involuntary debt is slavery.  I think that.  Get “emotional America” to feel it and the war is over. 

Our political master class is now so spoiled, stupid and hateful, defeating it really would be this simple.  We employ reason, which they’re abandoned, and from there make our appeals just as emotional as theirs.  It would destroy this pathetic Ruling Class. 

Which is a bunch of slavers, I remind you.

Advertisements

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Who wins in a vote between right-handers and left-handers?

  1. Mountainbear says:

    About Trump I only say: he is a screamer. He likes to scream, likes to hear himself talk.

    Has he uttered even one word about…

    The unemployment?
    The border to Mexico?
    The deficit?
    The spending?
    The war?
    The American allies?
    Anything of actual value?

    Nope. He’s just screaming.

    Does he have any solutions?

    Nope. He’s just screaming.

    Okay, so he was screaming about the oil prices. And? His solution? None at all. He completely ignores why the oil prices are where they are. Instead he’s trying to threaten OPEC with a power he doesn’t have, never will have, even as POTUS won’t have. If I was running an OPEC country, you know what I’d do now?

    I’d say “Oh yeah? You stupid American, let’s see what you’re going to do about this!” and raise the prices. I’d push for it in whatever council the OPEC is running. And then I would go on the news and mock Trump and America for listening to this empty suit.

    I fear this might come down to Obamaism vs Trumpology. Both cults may fight each other.

    These days, sometimes I think that maybe it’s time to revive the spirit of 1789 a bit again and maybe whip out a guillotine to threaten our so called “leaders” a bit with making them a head length shorter if they continue to piss on us.

    • wormme says:

      If we’re going to reprise a “blast from the past”, why go with the 1789 approach when the 1776 is also available?

      You’re certainly right about Trump. He would be a less bad President than Obama, and that’s it. Not really the change I’m hoping for.

      • Mountainbear says:

        The problem is: will the 1776 approach work?

        Cause if it doesn’t, and frankly, with the people we have in charge right now it won’t work…

        • wormme says:

          What the Ruling Class forgets is, most of the military has “red state” values. They ignore this because military personnel aren’t free to voice objections as I am.

          I’m completely confident that the military won’t stage a coup. But what happens when elements within America begin fighting each other? The Ruling Class and their financial parasites get their asses handed to them. What are they going to do, employ the military against fellow citizens on American soil? That’s where the military will balk. Ordering it to do so would just guarantee the Ruling Class’s overthrow.

          In America, at least. I freely acknowledge I don’t have the feel of your European situation.

          • Mountainbear says:

            You’re lucky with your military in the US. The Japanese are similar there. I don’t see Japanese troops ever move against the Japanese people. There is too strong a bond. My friends who’re serving in the JSDF… none of them would ever do that. The F2 pilot I know would probably rather kamikaze into the Diet building and kill whatever politician who gave the order to bomb Japanese people.

            Over here… oh dear. Germany will reduce its troops further to below 200,000. A few years ago, the first Eurofighters that were handed over to the Germans couldn’t fly in winter, since it was too cold. There are regiments in the German army, which have 12 RPGs per year to train with. And what they’ve done with one of the new helos… oh dear. They can’t afford the missiles for it. The German military has been completely castrated.

            Same in Austria. We have restrcuctured it to a point that I have absolutely no idea where I would have to go in case of a war. My old unit is gone, cut apart, different companies moved to different parts of Austria, it’s nuts. The number of troops will be reduced further. We’ve been selling and wrecking barracks, but we bought the Eurofighter. It took us into the 21st century to replace our WW2 GI style helmets. And from what I hear there are HUGE problems with… how to put this nicely… with the islamic master race in our draft system. Huge problems. The guys are undisciplined, lazy, and harrass the “infidel” recruits. The ministry closes both eyes and ears and smiles and nods saying “Everything is fine.” And they talk about making a professional army, like in the US, which, likely, will be filled with more “perfect” examples of said “master race”. The last thing I want is potential jihadis operating our tanks. Mind you, in my draft time, we had fellow recruits with “migration background”. One of my squad mates was black. Epic guy. But he was fully integrated not only into our society, but also our unit. We didn’t see him as black. He was a comrade, a brother. Those mohammedans, on the other hand, see themselves mainly as whatever country they came from. Turkey’s Führer Erdogan has said repeatedly that integration is a crime against humanity. Most Turks in Germany see themselves primarily as Turks and then Germans (if at all.) And those people are then supposed to defend us? Oh dear…

            From the UK I’ve heard that soldiers are really not happy with their SA80s in combat. Funding for the British military has been cut over the past decades, it’s almost perverse. The Brits are building a new carrier, but, right now, can’t afford planes for it. Right now it’s effectively a huge battering ram.

            A friend of mine is in the ADF in Australia. He sings similar songs. The Aussie government bought new tanks and replaced their Leopards. The M1 is a good tank, but they didn’t buy all the nice, fancy stuff for it, like reactive armor. And, according to him, the Aussie army is massively understrength (some politicians say they’re overstrength) and has significant issues with their heavy armor (some tanks, according to him, can’t even shoot their cannons.)

          • wormme says:

            It was incredibly damaging to Europe for the U.S. to essentially take over its defense from the USSR. NATO, with us bearing most of the expenses, freed your governments to massively fund those socialist dependencies.

  2. Xpat says:

    I have been thinking of this (emotional, non-rational appeals) for a while, from a slightly different angle. It’s not only or even mainly emotion, so I think that you’r slightly off track with a reason vs. emotion model. What I’ve noticed is that it’s “memic”–based on memes. They are memes that, yes, certainly pack an emotional punch (and an important one) but more crucially deliver what appears to be comparable in substance to a rational argument. A well deployed meme will automatically sort out the data and present it in a single packet or gestalt that is already itemized, categorized, analyzed, and characterized (it’s not REALLY itemized, categorized and analyzed, but it IS characterized).

    Here’s an example: FDR/New Deal. Say what you will, that is a powerful meme. It’s been reinforced in people’s education and upbringing (including mine). It can be invoked instantly with great effect. Worm will have a huge disadvantage fighting against it–almost to the point that I’d advise “choose your battles”; where that meme is concerned, either take on something else or take a different approach. But I’m only using that as an example. Point is, memes are very potent, whether you like them or not, and not just because of their emotional appeal.

    The same qualms you might feel about fighting emotion with emotion apply here, where you have to fight memes with memes. But there is one advantage; if the meme is inaccurate or unfair, then one is doing something dishonest/unjust/wrong in deploying it. But if the meme is fair and accurate, in addition to being effective, then you need not feel the same queeziness using it. The test is how much you can back up the meme after you put it out there. Instapundit uses memes all the time, in a fair and accurate way, and also often flips memes on progressives–throws the same memes back at them. Palin’s “death panels” was a very effective meme. Etc. etc.

    Now: “Slavery, slavery, slavery!” Worm characterizes it as an emotional appeal, which it no doubt is. But what it also is, and perhaps more importantly, is a meme. I’m not sure if it’s effective–as a meme it may lack some oompf in itself, and offhand I’d say it is not enough. “Generational theft” was a good meme, though I’m not sure it has an indefinite shelf life.

    Anyway, if you think about it this way, it might become less about matching emotional pitch and hysteria levels (and conservatives will always lose that battle, because the excitement level of conservatives is judged–to put it mildly–so much differently). It is about recognizing memes and responding to them, possibly with new memes, possibly with progressive memes themselves, which can be thrown back at progressives to show up blatant internal contradictions.

    Incidentally, I really started thinking about this in relation to Richard Dawkins (aoplogies to nonbelievers–you can skip this bit). To me, he was increasingly shrill and incoherent about religion, yet increasingly effective. Why? I wondered. Then, I realized, he really does BELIEVE his meme theory–I was in some doubt about that, actually. (I personally think meme theory is a complete dud as an evolutionary theory, but as a media theory or a theory about how conventional wisdom is passed along, it works very well, at least at the descriptive level.) What Dawkins does is keep hammering on a few powerful memes: for instance, science vs. religion, science vs. religion, science vs. religion. Anyone moderately informed about history knows that this is grossly inaccurate (modern science emerged out of educational institutions set up by religion, etc. etc.). But the science vs. religion meme is too powerful and useful for Dawkins, and he’s not going to give it up lightly. He’s going to repeat it, strengthen it, reinforce it. There’s a whole cottage industry of Christians (many of whom I admire greatly) responding to Dawkins at the level of rational argument, but I wonder if Dawkins isn’t chuckling at them. Yet, suppose that every time Dawkins said “Inquisition, Inquisition, Inquisition!” (a powerful meme) the response was “Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot!” In fact, I’m not confident that’s the right approach in Dawkins’ case, BUT it IS important for believers to grasp the memic nature of his rhetoric.

    • wormme says:

      I probably should have stuck with my standard rational/social deviation instead of saying rational/emotional. Using social desire as anti-reason actually seems to model things more accurately.

      The “meme” paradigm itself is very old, it’s just in my youth it was called “repetition, repetition, repetition!” It certainly applies to any sort of real-world debate, rational or otherwise.

      I find it funny, in a sad way, that Dawkins acknowledged the theoretical possibility that Earth life could have been by alien intellect.

      Where I hammer him, and any atheist, is in the memes of “right and wrong” and “humans are just animals”. If there is no God then might makes “right”. Period. They can complicate their “theology” as much as they like to paper over that, but I will always hammer them with it. Morality is what beta humans came up with to compete with alphas without getting their butts kicked. The conspiracy of mediocrity.

      • Xpat says:

        I don’t know what your theory of social deviation is or how it applies here. Sounds interesting! If you mean adopting world views that are socially acceptable and how that dynamic effects the “emotional” side of these issues, you are right, of course.

        I also agree with you that the new atheism and Dawkins don’t have too much behind them at all–your morality point being one among many, many others. That said, what I was trying to say is that Dawkins is nonetheless extremely effective. Lots of people have great, putatively effective arguments against Dawkins, because there’s just not that much to Dawins. BUT (and this is important, I think) he doesn’t have to care; he can hit enough people with enough potent and well honed memes. He doesn’t even have to create them. “Science could only emerge when humankind abandoned irrational religious belief system.” It’s patently false, historically inaccurate, mixes up terms dishonestly, etc. etc. BUT, it’s a powerful meme, a powerful narrative, that has been around for a few centuries. It has to be countered, I think, with other memes, not just arguments (but of course, memes that are backed up with arguments).

        I even agree that meme theory has just about nada behind it, as a theory. But my point was (probably very poorly expressed) that as an account of how ideas are transmitted and perpetuated, the meme is a pretty good working description. Another example: when Blogfather says, “Doesn’t fit the narrative” (e.g. in describing how the media will ignore some inconvenient data, like union goons beating up a black tea partier), it’s another way of saying, “Doesn’t fit the meme.” In fact, replace the word “meme” with “recieved narrative” and I think my point will be the same.

        Your post was (I think) about strategy, and my comment was just about how “memes” are definitely part of the strategy, arguably the main currency. Even if one chooses not to consciously deploy them, it has to be understood that they are being deployed constantly against you. Also, because of the power of memes, as memes, conservatives will underestimate the other side: “That’s stupid. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s transparently false. It’s self-contradictory.” Yes, but it doesn’t matter. The ridiculous argument may plug into a powerful meme, and that is what’s backing it up, and the conservative maybe just lost another round, without understanding why.

        • wormme says:

          I don’t think you expressed yourself poorly. I may not have responded to the main subject of your comment, but I can’t always control what shiny thoughts catch my eye and mind.

          Absolutely “memes” and “narratives” don’t need to be consistent. They just need two things; some powerful element, and repetition. Given that, people who judge (or vote) on the basis of what “feels right” are obviously much more vulnerable to false ideas than those who have to see an equation balanced.

          As far as political or civic strategy, mine is utterly simple and it never varies. It is a single axiom: “Maximize Liberty“. Anything else is merely a tactic and is subject to change, based on whether it furthers that sole objective.

          If you’re familiar with complexity theory, keeping rules simple and invariant permits for extremely complex yet intelligent behavior. Making rules numerous, complicated, and self-contradictory guarantees simple yet stupid actions. So I consciously honed my political philosophy to that single sharp point. My philosophy can be matched, but never exceeded, in self-consistency.

          I’m unaware of any other person on earth who can precisely quote their entire political philosophy. Never even heard of anyone knowing how many axioms they believe, much less what they specifically are. It’s why I sometimes seriously (but also jokingly) claim “the W.O.R.M. is smarter than x”, where x is between two and seven billion people.

          • Xpat says:

            Nice! But I wonder if the operating maxim (one rule) is sufficient to generate complexity in the Game of Life sense. Maybe you need one or two more maxims, somewhat in tension with the first one.

            I had to remember via Wikipedia, but the Game of Life has these rules:

            “1.Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if caused by under-population.

            2.Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives on to the next generation.

            3.Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.

            4.Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.”

  3. Xpat says:

    By the way, no doubt this is paranoid, but I think Trump’s goal is to discredit conservatism. As a “conservative” front runner, he’s already done a lot of damage. The longer he’s up there in front, the more damage he will do. All the unjustified slurs against tea partiers suddenly look much more credible when such a large plurality thinks this highly of Trump and this absurd new brand of populist demagoguery. I don’t think he plans or wants to be president. I think he wants Obama to win. Heck, he may have already done enough for that to happen. Major, major Trojan horse alarm going off in my brain.

    • Eric Wilner says:

      Xpat: agree completely. Trump is a crony corporatist, not any kind of conservative – but of course leftist orthodoxy declares “conservative” and “fat cat” to be synonymous, ergo, as far as the press is concerned, he must be the quintessential conservative.
      And I have no doubt that he plans to run as a spoiler, for the purpose of being a spoiler.
      Hmmm… what’s the modern equivalent of the Cross of Gold Speech? Expect it!

      • wormme says:

        Had replied to xpat before seeing this. I agree; it’s all about the Donald’s ego. The only way he won’t run a third party is because he doesn’t see it as the best way to get attention.

        And you guys have just inspired a post. There’s a simple way to neutralize most of the danger of him going the third party route. It’s so simple and obvious there’s no way the Republicans will ever think of it. I may spam the big-name bloggers in the hopes of getting the word out.

    • wormme says:

      I don’t think his goal is to discredit conservatism, it’s to feed his ego. He’s following the path of least resistance to get maximum attention. So I’m not sure he wants Obama to win (he does know something about business) but he won’t care if Obama does. And this, even though he’s called Obama the worst ever.

      If his narcissistic itch still needs scratching come campaign time, of course he’d run a third party and hand the Presidency over to Obama. Who he’ll promptly start calling “worst…President…ever” again.

      He’s up there with Barnum, I’ll give him that. Utterly shameless. Just like Obama.

      • Don’t know what Trump’s motivations are, don’t care. What I want to know is, how are some conservatives taken in by this clown?? When I wrote my “Go Away Now” post about Trump, even a couple regular commenters came to his defense.

        Also, how does one take seriously a man with such an unsightly comb over? Dude.

        • Cathy says:

          A clown. Yeppers. But he’s also crazy like a fox. Comb-over has made tons of money so he’s got a gift for business. That does not equate with being a good leader of the free world.

          This is not an excuse, but a reason why people are taken in by him because they are HUNGRY for someone with leadership to step up to the plate. What Trump is doing just looks like courage or leadership I think.

          For me the big question remains: Where are those with courageous leadership and seasoned experience within the Republican party that are willing to step forward to run for POTUS by confronting the current administration?

    • Mountainbear says:

      I’m one of the last people to go for the conspiracy theories, but Trump’s sudden appearance was strange. And what was his topic? A non-issue. Still is. Now he wants Obama’s college records. I doubt that any of the 10+% unemployed in the US in the US care about those.

      At the same time he’s so very silent about the real issues.

      That’s… strange.

      • Xpat says:

        Yeah, and it one doesn’t have to posit a conspiracy, either. (Conspiracy of one?) Trump probably has the same values and outlook as a Soros, but more imagination and impishness. Isn’t this just an elaborate punking of Republicans/Conservatives? He’s probably got camera crews following him around documenting it, and when it’s all over he’ll have it edited into a movie: Superpunked. Or something like that. The campaign is a reality show, but with a specific goal/agenda. And I doubt anyone put him up to it–he’s doing it all on his own.

  4. Cathy says:

    First time visitor. Nice place. Like your left-hand right-hand discussion, but just keep in mind that ‘it takes two hands to handle a Whopper’ and I’m not trying to get naughty here.

    I’m in deep in conservative Republican and Tea Party venues. Retired, but have degrees and experience in both the business-information systems arena and also theological-religious organizational endeavors, including chaplaincy.

    I see the failure in some people who are not partnering from their various places on the spectrum to accomplish ONE GOAL. Most of those ‘some people’ seem to be entrenched Republicans who have overdeveloped their friendships and loyalties with people at the expense of the principles that originally brought them together. But some of us are working together to successfully accomplish healthy restoration of a conservative platform. We’re getting smart, staying focused, and using a variety of tools to effect change and take our party back.

    We can and will playfullyuse graphic and emotional language all the while our lovely and intelligent brains are spinning circles around mindless brainless oppositions. I’m having fun poking a wasp nest. We won’t win ’em all, but it’s a start.

    I’m also skeptical about Trump. A man who looks like he does, makes money like he does, and puts money and effort into the things he does, and talks like he does… Um. Everyone needs to be asking themselves, “What’s in it for Trump?” Fin.

    • wormme says:

      Hi, Cathy, thanks for joining in! And my apologies that this comment languished overnight before I could approve it. Any further ones should automatically go up, unless they have two or more embedded links. WordPress holds those up for approval.

      Yes, the primary problem with addressing the debt isn’t the Democrat statists, it’s the Ruling Class Republicans who give them cover. You’d have thought the 2010 primaries would get the point across, but it looks like more incumbents need tossing out to wails of “extremism”.

      The wasp nest analogy is apt, although poking them is no fun for me. In fact, if you use the search string “hive mind” on this site you’ll see I think insect swarms are nature’s best analogy to “progressives”. Great minds!

  5. Flounder says:

    Excellent post! Your logic is unassailable. But before I come on board, could you convince me emotionally?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s