After the Telegraph revealed a £2bn bill for UK consumers following the introduction of post-Brexit border checks, Brexit supporters are furious that people keep pointing out that the things they w…
They’ll keep doing it as long as supposedly good people fail to stand up to them.
Guarantee most that pipe off so much would grumble and huff off if they were laughed at and told to fuck off. At least unless they were there to do something, like protest a children’s book reading.
I think many conservatives are “good” (to the extent that any of us are, really), kind-hearted people. The movement itself is not, but the people who believe in it tend to fall for certain types of errors, e.g. being gullible.
Though many are not that way, and liberals also tend to fall for different types of errors, ironically also being gullible if we think our leaders give a damn.
The important thing is that our overlords want to keep us at each other’s throats, as if it is two parts of the common man that are fighting against one another, when really it is the wealthy who regardless of which side wins the election, swoopes in to buy the political players and get their own interests, at the expense of the common man.:-(
There is a fascinating video series on YouTube by Innuendo Studios called The Alt-Right Playbook that explains far better than I what I am attempting to convey.
Basically, it is not nearly as simple as that - yes there are elements of the conservative movement that use violent propaganda, but often it “hides” its true intentions well, and instead merely talks about the love, peace, and saving little babies aspects. Once you get drawn into those, the layers of the onion begin to peel back, and you get drawn in deeper, and deeper still, but at first, it is important to note that they have candy-coated “nice” versions as well. This makes it far more dangerous than it would be otherwise, if it were instead just straight-up Nazi propaganda visible to everyone from the start.
And yes, “collaborators” hurt people, arguably more so than full-on true believers, if only b/c there are so very many more of the former compared to the latter. Please note that I did put the word “good” in double-quotes, thereby calling into question whether it could fully apply - and yes I realize I am being inconsistent in that, b/c I also put the word “collaborators” that way too, that time more for the different reason of emphasis, but hopefully this deeper explanation helps to clarify. i.e. intentions matter, for some things. e.g. these self-described “good” people may not deserve to be killed for their involvement in their crimes, though neither should they be allowed to retain a leadership position, especially over & above those of us who… you know, actually read books & know stuff. This is why I did not put the word kind-hearted in double-quotes, in the sentence overall of “many conservatives are… kind-hearted people”, b/c that one I truly do believe in. i.e., kind-hearted, not necessarily clear-thinking, as those are entirely disjunct concepts.
As is often the case, Truth is somewhere in-between the extremes. They can be “good” as in kind-hearted people, yet “bad” at fulfilling a leadership role, at the same time. And they can also be gullible, as too can liberals - we should all strive to not fall into those, or any, traps imho.
Simple: when someone decides to put them in charge. Before then, they are simply “folk”, and since intelligence is to a large degree domain-specific (in contrast to attitudes such as wisdom, the willingness to learn from mistakes, either made by oneself or others), someone could be perfectly happy, willing, and capable of e.g. oh let’s say running a farm, or doing a minimum wage job such as working at a fast-food restaurant. But that does not necessarily translate well into “citizenship” i.e. voting (+ other things too, but that is the main, minimum-entry one), which requires a level of education in the complex matters of economic policy, foreign affairs, or hrm… I dunno, maybe starting with the ability to simply name the 3 main branches of government?
It is dangerous for them to vote yes, but they do not know that. Would you ask your dog to fly? Or your car to “do more with less” as in go a greater distance with less gasoline?
i.e., don’t hate the playa, especially instead of working to change the game.
They’ll keep doing it as long as supposedly good people fail to stand up to them.
Guarantee most that pipe off so much would grumble and huff off if they were laughed at and told to fuck off. At least unless they were there to do something, like protest a children’s book reading.
I think many conservatives are “good” (to the extent that any of us are, really), kind-hearted people. The movement itself is not, but the people who believe in it tend to fall for certain types of errors, e.g. being gullible.
Though many are not that way, and liberals also tend to fall for different types of errors, ironically also being gullible if we think our leaders give a damn.
The important thing is that our overlords want to keep us at each other’s throats, as if it is two parts of the common man that are fighting against one another, when really it is the wealthy who regardless of which side wins the election, swoopes in to buy the political players and get their own interests, at the expense of the common man.:-(
When does a good gullible idiot listening to violent propaganda become not good?
Because they’re ALREADY hurting people. A lot of people.
There is a fascinating video series on YouTube by Innuendo Studios called The Alt-Right Playbook that explains far better than I what I am attempting to convey.
Basically, it is not nearly as simple as that - yes there are elements of the conservative movement that use violent propaganda, but often it “hides” its true intentions well, and instead merely talks about the love, peace, and saving little babies aspects. Once you get drawn into those, the layers of the onion begin to peel back, and you get drawn in deeper, and deeper still, but at first, it is important to note that they have candy-coated “nice” versions as well. This makes it far more dangerous than it would be otherwise, if it were instead just straight-up Nazi propaganda visible to everyone from the start.
And yes, “collaborators” hurt people, arguably more so than full-on true believers, if only b/c there are so very many more of the former compared to the latter. Please note that I did put the word “good” in double-quotes, thereby calling into question whether it could fully apply - and yes I realize I am being inconsistent in that, b/c I also put the word “collaborators” that way too, that time more for the different reason of emphasis, but hopefully this deeper explanation helps to clarify. i.e. intentions matter, for some things. e.g. these self-described “good” people may not deserve to be killed for their involvement in their crimes, though neither should they be allowed to retain a leadership position, especially over & above those of us who… you know, actually read books & know stuff. This is why I did not put the word kind-hearted in double-quotes, in the sentence overall of “many conservatives are… kind-hearted people”, b/c that one I truly do believe in. i.e., kind-hearted, not necessarily clear-thinking, as those are entirely disjunct concepts.
As is often the case, Truth is somewhere in-between the extremes. They can be “good” as in kind-hearted people, yet “bad” at fulfilling a leadership role, at the same time. And they can also be gullible, as too can liberals - we should all strive to not fall into those, or any, traps imho.
I am aware of how manipulation of morons works.
My question was when do you consider dangerous useful idiots as actually dangerous?
Simple: when someone decides to put them in charge. Before then, they are simply “folk”, and since intelligence is to a large degree domain-specific (in contrast to attitudes such as wisdom, the willingness to learn from mistakes, either made by oneself or others), someone could be perfectly happy, willing, and capable of e.g. oh let’s say running a farm, or doing a minimum wage job such as working at a fast-food restaurant. But that does not necessarily translate well into “citizenship” i.e. voting (+ other things too, but that is the main, minimum-entry one), which requires a level of education in the complex matters of economic policy, foreign affairs, or hrm… I dunno, maybe starting with the ability to simply name the 3 main branches of government?
It is dangerous for them to vote yes, but they do not know that. Would you ask your dog to fly? Or your car to “do more with less” as in go a greater distance with less gasoline?
i.e., don’t hate the playa, especially instead of working to change the game.