|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
At this rate Julian Assange's big bomb is going to be a Hillary Clinton sex tape.
|
On October 01 2016 10:31 TheYango wrote: At this rate Julian Assange's big bomb is going to be a Hillary Clinton sex tape.
Hillary was in the room filming Bill and Monica.
|
On October 01 2016 10:31 TheYango wrote: At this rate Julian Assange's big bomb is going to be a Hillary Clinton sex tape. Trump is Chelsea's father BOOM
|
This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles.
|
Germany's economy ministry believes a Donald Trump presidency would severely damage the U.S. economy, according to an internal memorandum reported by Der Spiegel magazine on Saturday.
The ministry expects "shrinking gross domestic product, fewer jobs and higher unemployment," in the United States if the Republican candidate were to implement his campaign pledges, the magazine cited the memo as saying.
Trump, a billionaire businessman seeking his first public office, has proposed tax cuts worth $4.4 trillion and wants to curb government regulation and take a tougher stance on negotiating trade deals.
He says his economic plan would produce annual economic growth of 3.5 percent and create 25 million jobs over a decade. But some economists have questioned the assumptions underpinning the plan.
Trump's pledges are "not feasible", Spiegel cited the memorandum as saying. Moreover, the plans would violate international or U.S. law and could be "no basis for a realistic economic policy."
A spokeswoman for the German Economy Ministry declined to comment on the Spiegel report.
Last month, economic research firm Oxford Economics projected the U.S. economy could be $1 trillion smaller than otherwise expected in 2021 if Trump becomes president.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-germany-idUSKCN12138F?
|
Germanys economic ministry should probably focus their attention on Deutsche Bank and not what Americas GDP will look like in 2021
|
The 2021 bit is a different analysis by Oxford Economics as it clearly says in the last sentence.
|
On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing.
|
On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing.
Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid.
|
On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times.
|
Trough some sort of mail leaks it has become known george soros is funding a new left wing party in my country with a lot of money. The tentacles of the left have no boundaries.
Just wanted to share, don't think this is relevant here
|
On October 01 2016 23:47 GoTuNk! wrote:Trough some sort of mail leaks it has become known george soros is funding a new left wing party in my country with a lot of money. The tentacles of the left have no boundaries. Just wanted to share, don't think this is relevant here  I would say that's the tentacles of rich americans, rather than the left specifically. america's got a lot of money, so a lot of them go and support stuff in other countries.
|
While Donald Trump is busy making fun of people for being fat or ugly or anything superficially below a "10", Hillary Clinton is focusing on real substance and making sure that those with disabilities don't become disenfranchised socially, medically, or economically.
Why You're Not Hearing About Hillary Clinton's Radical Disability Proposals
On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton appeared before a crowd in Florida to make a policy speech on a subject that rarely gets this level of dedicated attention: Economic empowerment for the disability community. With headlines like CNN's "Clinton ignores Trump, delivers speech on helping disabled," it was clear that the media didn't really know what to do with this development, treating Clinton's opponent, rather than the substance of the speech, as the news.
The disability community is still very much treated as a niche or specialized interest, despite the fact that the Census estimates some 20 percent of the population is disabled and a recent Rutgers study found that one-sixth of the voting population is disabled. The mistake that many media outlets are making is assuming that disability issues aren't of interest to nondisabled people — but they should be, and Clinton's policy proposals on disability issues should be getting national attention. In this case, her remarks were particularly unusual. Disability is often consigned to speeches about health care or social services, but the candidate chose to frame disability from an economic perspective, focusing on full inclusion for disabled people in the economy, rather than promoting limiting and sometimes patronizing benefits programs.
Clinton hit the "big three" when it comes to the economic issues disabled people themselves are fighting for — showing that her campaign is listening.
Her speech itself was a mixed bag. It included the obligatory inspiration porn (individual stories about disability used in an appeal to emotion) and an overview of her disability rights talking points, clearly targeting a nondisabled audience.
The fact that Clinton has disability rights talking points, though, is remarkable. Many of those same points appeared in the DNC platform this year, highlighting the influence the disability community managed to exert on shaping core party policy. In her speech, Clinton hit the "big three" when it comes to the economic issues disabled people themselves are fighting for — showing that her campaign is listening.
1. The Subminimum Wage
Many members of the general public are not aware of the exception in the Fair Labor Standards Act that allows employers to pay certain disabled people subminimum wage, a practice justified with the claim that they can only do some of the work that a nondisabled person can. Another common exception is the "wait wage," which allows employers to underpay tipped employees — several states, including Maine, have challenges to the wait wage on the ballot this year. The subminimum wage is inherently dehumanizing and insulting, but it's also used as a tool for economic exploitation, and that's why Clinton has vowed to abolish it.
It most commonly shows up in so-called "sheltered workshops," which claim to be supporting disabled people by employing them in jobs that usually involve simplistic, repetitive work. Goodwill is one of the most famous sheltered workshop employers and also one of the most notorious — NBC reported that they were paying employees pennies each hour in 2013.
People making subminimum wage cannot enjoy financial independence: The subminimum wage pushes disabled people who can and want to work onto public benefits, forces them to stay at home, and limits their choices. The Center for Poverty Research at UC Davis finds that disability poverty rates are double that of the nondisabled community in some regions, and the subminimum wage isn't the only reason why — but it's a factor.
By contrast, supported employment, in which disabled people work in community businesses with subsidized wages, allows people to be independent and also provides them with actual job skills.
2. The United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Did you know that there's a disability rights treaty ratified by nearly every country in the world except a handful of holdouts, including the United States? The document sets out some very basic social and political rights, including condemning disability-based discrimination, acknowledging that ability status evolves over time, explicitly expressing concerns about intersectional disability justice, and affirming that disabled children have a right to live in society. Congress refuses to ratify it, with excuses like the claim that the document could interfere with the function of the U.S. legal system.
The National Council on Disability and Human Rights Watch have both strongly urged the government to ratify, as doing so would take the discussion about disability rights in the United States to the next level. It includes policy guidance and recommendations that go beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, legislation that actually inspired the document. Ratifying would affirm a commitment to social inclusion and independence for disabled people, which is in line with the ethos of the ADA and subsequent litigation.
Clinton has vowed to pressure Congress to get it done, and it matters because it would bring the U.S. in line with many of our allies in expressly acknowledging the vital social and cultural importance of disability rights.
3. Autism in the Workplace
Autism is a popular cause in the United States right now, but much of the coverage focuses on autistic children. Autistic adults also exist (hi), and face a variety of social issues, including in the workplace. Clinton has laid out an ambitious job creation plan to address the problems faced by both autistic children and adults, and in doing so could build a framework for addressing other disabilities in the workplace as well. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network noted in January that Clinton has extensive and progressive autism-related policy proposals, and this speech followed in that vein by being explicit about economic inclusion.
In an election where the bulk of discussion about disability has surrounded Donald Trump's comments about a disabled reporter, with Bloomberg finding that six in ten voters found his comments offensive, disability is being reduced to a simplistic political blunt object: Donald Trump is mean to disabled people, so you shouldn't like him. Disability issues are much bigger and more complicated than that, though — Donald Trump may be a jerk, but the lack of disability-specific policy in his platform, paired with proposals that will be harmful for disabled people, is the real problem. Clinton is upping the stakes of the game, and it's time to start paying attention — and to start considering the disability issues she hasn't even delved into yet, like guardianship and voting rights, the Social Security benefits trap, sexual autonomy, and more. ~ https://www.bustle.com/articles/185607-why-youre-not-hearing-about-hillary-clintons-radical-disability-proposals
|
Norway28559 Posts
On October 01 2016 23:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times.
tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though?
At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.
|
On October 02 2016 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 23:37 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times. tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though? At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.  I was arguing the usefulness of partial sociopathic traits just yesterday  and tentative possibilities do have some value; since it's indicative of a real possibility, but diagnosis is unreliable from a distance. not sure if biology is gonna continue on our yesterday discussion leading into it.
|
|
On October 02 2016 00:34 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 01 2016 23:37 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times. tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though? At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.  I was arguing the usefulness of partial sociopathic traits just yesterday  and tentative possibilities do have some value; since it's indicative of a real possibility, but diagnosis is unreliable from a distance. not sure if biology is gonna continue on our yesterday discussion leading into it. This tentative discussion of possibilities actually normalizes ideas like ambition = sociopathic, calculated = sociopathic, undesriable behavior = mental illness and therefore does more harm than good, given that tentative possibilities of pathologies have no predictive value in evaluating someone's fitness for office.
|
On October 02 2016 00:57 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 00:34 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 01 2016 23:37 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times. tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though? At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.  I was arguing the usefulness of partial sociopathic traits just yesterday  and tentative possibilities do have some value; since it's indicative of a real possibility, but diagnosis is unreliable from a distance. not sure if biology is gonna continue on our yesterday discussion leading into it. This tentative discussion of possibilities actually normalizes ideas like ambition = sociopathic, calculated = sociopathic, undesriable behavior = mental illness and therefore does more harm than good, given that tentative possibilities of pathologies have no predictive value in evaluating someone's fitness for office. it sounds like you're not following the actual claims I made, and have confused them with what claims others were making somewhere else. and they do have predictive value for evaluating fitness, they're just far less predictive than if they were definitive diagnoses. So I assert your statement is without foundation, or at least strong relevance to the topic at hand.
|
On October 02 2016 00:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 00:57 Grumbels wrote:On October 02 2016 00:34 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 01 2016 23:37 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times. tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though? At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.  I was arguing the usefulness of partial sociopathic traits just yesterday  and tentative possibilities do have some value; since it's indicative of a real possibility, but diagnosis is unreliable from a distance. not sure if biology is gonna continue on our yesterday discussion leading into it. This tentative discussion of possibilities actually normalizes ideas like ambition = sociopathic, calculated = sociopathic, undesriable behavior = mental illness and therefore does more harm than good, given that tentative possibilities of pathologies have no predictive value in evaluating someone's fitness for office. it sounds like you're not following the actual claims I made, and have confused them with what claims others were making somewhere else. and they do have predictive value for evaluating fitness, they're just far less predictive than if they were definitive diagnoses. So I assert your statement is without foundation, or at least strong relevance to the topic at hand. They would have predictive value if they were real diagnoses, but your "oh I know enough about psychology to tentatively armchair diagnose from afar" scheme doesn't convince.
|
On October 02 2016 01:29 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 00:59 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 00:57 Grumbels wrote:On October 02 2016 00:34 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 00:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 01 2016 23:37 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 23:36 Ghostcom wrote:On October 01 2016 23:15 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 15:30 Grumbels wrote: This armchair diagnosing is really stupid, I have read theories that Bush, Obama, Trump, Cheny, Clinton etc. are all sociopaths or narcissists with a variety of evidence. I get that they are public figures and it is important to get a feel for their characters, but all these arguments tend to come down to them being ambitious and calculated. Duh, they are politicians, but it is not sufficient to diagnose them from afar, and often these theories don't have any value in explaining their behavior.
Clinton actually has a very good excuse, which is that she is an older woman in the public eye who would be ruthlessly attacked if she displayed any sort of real emotion and who is constantly harassed and accused of nefarious motives. See how the GOP blows up tiny health problems into a sexist attack on Clinton's mental and physical fitness for office.
And Clinton's policies are occasionally expedient, and clearly she is a consumate politician, but she has a long history of pet topics she advocates for and she has always been centerleft. If pressure from Sanders voters can edge her to more progressive economic policies then that is just politics as usual. As a politician you are beholden to the public, so she should actually adopt these policies as long as they are roughly compatible with her inclinations and principles. just because most armchair diagnosing is stupid doesn't mean all of it is. A few of us do know a fair bit about psychology, and enough to identify tentatively plausible diagnoses. admittedly most of the people who do it don't know what they're doing. Everyone who has has formal training in diagnostics knows that one should refrain from armchair diagnosing. It's downright stupid. hence why i'm noting tentative possibilities and including the necessary cautions. and it's all we got to work with at times. tentative possibilities are kinda meaningless though? At the same time sure, most high level politicians are likely to have some degree of narcissistic traits (I think we can extend this to 'most people who seek the public spotlight', not just politicians tbh) as well as some degree of calculating nature which shares some traits with the layman's understanding of what sociopathy entails. I'd argue that unlike the narcissism, a calculating nature (not to be confused with lack of empathy) is a highly positive trait for any statesman, whereas the combination of highly narcissistic and lacking of empathy constitute exactly the personality traits you want to keep away from positions of power. I make this statement without commenting on what politicians I personally think fit into each mold because for that I have no qualifications.  I was arguing the usefulness of partial sociopathic traits just yesterday  and tentative possibilities do have some value; since it's indicative of a real possibility, but diagnosis is unreliable from a distance. not sure if biology is gonna continue on our yesterday discussion leading into it. This tentative discussion of possibilities actually normalizes ideas like ambition = sociopathic, calculated = sociopathic, undesriable behavior = mental illness and therefore does more harm than good, given that tentative possibilities of pathologies have no predictive value in evaluating someone's fitness for office. it sounds like you're not following the actual claims I made, and have confused them with what claims others were making somewhere else. and they do have predictive value for evaluating fitness, they're just far less predictive than if they were definitive diagnoses. So I assert your statement is without foundation, or at least strong relevance to the topic at hand. They would have predictive value if they were real diagnoses, but your "oh I know enough about psychology to tentatively armchair diagnose from afar" scheme doesn't convince. you're just hating without regard for whether I have any actual ability or not. so I find your comments unhelpful and rude. You also failed to consider that I would actually backup my claims. You're being unconstructive.
|
|
|
|