On 11/11/19 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from promulgating > a prescriptive ideology. The point is to open up space for what might work, > and that which has yet to be falsified. The Trumpism behaviors are not drawn > from a complex data set.
Maybe not. But *how* do we open up that space for people who are dead set for Trump, against someone like Bill Weld or Joe Walsh? By the same token, how could we have opened things up for the Bernie Bros who were so against Clinton? Or the coming nastiness between whichever D's make it to the primaries? I mean, if ranked choice were more widespread, that alone would help a lot. The tendency to -isms is canalized by over-zealous reduction. My self-ascribed Christian neighbor (who doesn't seem to be a follower of Christ, but whatever) once gave me a book with a title like "Jesus: Insane, Liar, or God." The idea being that the 3 ideas were mutually exclusive. When Dave points out that membership in his set of disgruntled people isn't crisp, he's only reiterating the thread topic: how to integrate -isms. I made my lame attempt to talk to my neighbor about the Axiom of Choice, modal logics, etc. ... and of course failed utterly. And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self without killing them? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
