ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

How can you have an honest discussion if you and the other person you are talking with never admit to be wrong?

How can you lead anything if you can't admit you are wrong (either verbally or by changing your plan accordingly)?

"

The truth is that if you are unable to admit you are wrong, you are just gonna be heading straight into a wall. I'm gonna overstep my boundaries and say what I'd consider being impolite/displaced and say that this kind of stubbornness might have had to do with the unfortunate situation you found yourself into not so long ago.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Ja, das sagst du dir immer wieder.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

This is starting to get really dangerous and there an emergency should be declared. Emergency funding for food inspection that is. This could lead to hundreds of thousands of cases of contamination that reach the consumers.

Food inspection by the federal government: one of the stupidest things ever. This should be done on a state by state basis.

It is just insane how many different aspects of society the federal government dominates.

no it shouldn't. Otherwise you'd have a giant maze of complications when it comes to forbidden/allowed products for each states. It's one case where it's much better for it to be federal.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Has it occurred to you that, in saying the leaders' assumptions were correct, Arendt is herself being deeply cynical? Isn't believing such an assumption to be true "believing the worst?" Have you pondered that in expecting you to accept her conclusion based off her mere words, rather than painstakingly recreating her research, she is expecting of you a certain degree of gullibility? How would you react to the claim that Arendt's research had been debunked? Even as she describes the ingredients to successful propaganda, Arendt incorporates those ingredients in the description itself. She's describing both why the masses believed totalitarian propaganda and, more subtly, why you believe her. She understands your fear and is telling you that it is real.

"

Judging Arendt
There is an argument throughout the film about what kind of a person Hannah Arendt was: about how she lived, thought, wrote, spoke, and smoked. Arendt existed with others; she cherished her relationship with her loved ones, and found this to be at the root of her existence. We see the importance of this in a scene where her husband tries to leave the house without interrupting her while she’s writing. He says that philosophers should not be interrupted while they are thinking, and she replies, “But they cannot think without kisses.”

Arendt responded to the world around her in her quest for truth – not for eternal truth(s), but for the meaning found in one’s judgment of what appears to them. Many critics have taken issue with her shift from her analysis of the Nazi terror as ‘radical evil’ in The Origins of Totalitarianism to her later idea, the ‘banality of evil’, in Eichmann in Jerusalem. As we see in the film, this judgment on Eichmann was welcomed neither by Arendt’s close circle of friends, nor by the Jewish community, nor by The New Yorker readership at large. In fact, she was accused by Gershom Scholem of not loving the Jewish people (though in the film his words are uttered by Kurt Blumenfeld, at what we understand to be his deathbed). To this Arendt replies, “I only love my friends. This is the only love I am capable of.”

As she makes clear in The Life of the Mind, thinking is a faculty of the mind, and the (intellectual) mind is different from the soul that moves us, as the seat of the passions. For Arendt, a lack of human sentiment was not enough to explain evil. For her, our shared world can only be meaningful and good when we can be seen and heard by others. The principle of this involves not sentiment, but thought, whose reality can only tangibly appear in conversation, and can be maintained only when we keep this conversation going through our public use of reason. What Arendt does by way of Eichmann’s trial is to argue that evil lies not in the passions of a monster, but rather, in Eichmann’s inability to think with and for himself.

This film urges us to think, and it shows us that the stakes are high. One needs to have the courage to think, and to speak, and to make one’s thoughts public. Von Trotta shows us that Arendt would have been unlikely to give up this courage. To Heinrich Bluecher’s question as to whether she would have written what she had written had she known the consequences, she replies, “Yes,” and so affirms her responsibility to the world.

"

Khoranth wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

Food inspection by the federal government: one of the stupidest things ever. This should be done on a state by state basis.

It is just insane how many different aspects of society the federal government dominates.

no it shouldn't. Otherwise you'd have a giant maze of complications when it comes to forbidden/allowed products for each states. It's one case where it's much better for it to be federal.

Ridiculous. Who cares if different states are different?

I live in a state where fireworks are illegal, I can drive 10 minutes to a nearby state and by fireworks, the world hasn't ended yet.

"

EpicGoesXerxis wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

He's 'good' at it because he either realised or stumbled into a truth that the so-called Mainstream Media couldn't grasp, because it's comprised of relatively well-educated people: A lot of Americans are fucking stupid. You gotta talk dumb to get through to them, and Trump is the King of Talking Dumb.

What you see as genius, I see as simply square peg, square hole. He is the man of the moment because the moment is the result of years of America getting progressively more and more stupid and complacent and ripe for wholesale exploitation and manipulation.

.

Hah, you answered your own question and didn't realize it.

Mass media is making people stupid.

Need proof? We elected Obama. Twice. We elected GWBush. Twice. Almost elected Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney in the process.Almost elected Hillary Clinton, whose husband was elected. Twice. Not by the vaunted poplar vote, neither. never forget. With the exception of John Kerry, I wouldn't vote any of them for dog catcher. (You know Johnny boy wuvs duh wittle puppies...)

In a few weeks we will be holding another Super Bowl. Most of the country, sportsball fans or not, will be tuning in. Every two minutes or so, a break in the action will commence and the viewing public will be bombarded with slick imagery and memorable one-liners. The next day, they will begin an uptick of consumption in products, specifically those they've seen during the Super Bowl. For what is likely to go down as the most *mediocre Super Bowl ever, corporations will spend millins of dollars for 30 second commercial spots. They make their money back tenfold. (*take the under with your bookie)

Mass media isn't designed to make people smart. It's designed to make them buy stuff.

That's why there are commercials on cable news.