Tuesday, October 27, 2020

ANS -- VOTE!!!

I want to remind all of you, if you haven't already, please vote!  It is very important -- our country and our world are at a crossroads.  Remember the article called the Two Moral Modes?  Well, we are choosing which moral mode will dominate -- the one that believes in the Golden Rule, or the one that believes anyone who isn't in my in-group is a resource for exploitation.  We are choosing cooperation or competition.  We are choosing love or greed.  
We are also choosing between representative democracy, or fascism.  
Please choose wisely, and then VOTE!!!
--Kim

Sunday, October 25, 2020

ANS -- What Donald Trump Understands about American Men

Here is an article from MS. magazine, about why Trump appeals to, especially, white men.  And why the hold he has on them is starting to break.  
They write about his appeal as a hyper-masculine figure, who white men are afraid to repudiate for fear of looking less masculine.  But, in my estimation, Trump is no "alpha male", as one of his followers crowed, but is an "alpha adolescent", while Biden is the real alpha, adult, mature male.  Trump is a kid's idea of a big man, not a mature man of wisdom and self-control.  

 

--Kim


What Donald Trump Understands about American Men

10/22/2020 by JACKSON KATZ

Trump understands something fundamental about manhood in a patriarchal culture: A lot of men fear being 'unmanned' more than they value democracy.

A Trump supported at a rally in Phoenix in June 2016. (Gage Skidmore / Flickr)

Donald Trump's many shortcomings of character, empathy and intellectual depth are well known. But he has one quality—aside from his inherited wealth—that has gotten him very far in life, most recently in politics. 

He possesses an intuitive grasp of the deep-seated desires, frustrated dreams, and seething resentments of millions of American men, especially white men. 

He might not identify with most of them: He admires rich tycoons and sports heroes, and regards most working and middle class men as losers.

But he knows why these men identify with him, and throughout his long career as a bombastic real estate developer and reality TV star, he found ways to monetize their affections. With his turn to electoral politics in 2015, it was only natural he would seek to alchemize their fascination with him into political support.

Trump's unexpected victory in the presidential election of 2016 was the result of a constellation of historic cultural and political forces.  But practically speaking, he won because he was able to win the votes of an overwhelming majority of the white male vote.

Just look at the numbers.  Among college-educated white men, Trump beat Hillary Clinton 51 percent to 36 percent. For white men with a high school education, he won by a stunning 71 to 23 percent margin—the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980.

The only way he can win this time is by preserving and expanding this dramatic level of support. In fact, one of the most striking features of the 2020 election is the enormous gender gap. In a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, Joe Biden led by 23 points among women, while the candidates were tied among men.  

Most analyses of this gap focus on Trump's tanking support among women, especially suburban white women. Trump's standing among men—especially white men, his biggest supporters—is treated as a given and is rarely discussed in any depth. 

Political scientists and media commentators have long noted that Trumpism as a political movement is not as much about issues as it is about identity. This point was driven home during the Republican National Convention, which was such an unapologetic vehicle for Trump's cult of personality that the GOP didn't even bother to offer a party platform.

The conventional wisdom about Trumpism is that it's driven by white racial resentment, whether in the form of opposition to immigration from south of the border, or old-fashioned anti-Black racism that sadly—more than half a century since passage of the Civil Rights Act—has never really gone away.

But, as a just-released documentary called "The Man Card" that I helped produce makes crystal clear, Trumpism is not just a white identity movement; it is a white male identity movement.

Trump speaking at the South Carolina Freedom Summit on May 9, 2015. (Michael Vadon / Flickr)

Donald Trump knows this. He figured out a long time ago that by presenting himself in the media as a kind of throwback playboy and tough-guy businessman, he could appeal to millions of white men—and a much lesser but still notable number of white women—who respond positively to that retro performance.

There is little evidence that Donald Trump cares even a little about the lives and daily struggles of white working and middle class men. But he instinctually understands that countless men—in an era of feminism and increasing gender fluidity—crave respect as men and long for the return of old-fashioned patriarchal authority.

Unlike the former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan, who in the late 1970s tapped into the all-American cowboy archetype and fashioned himself as a John Wayne-like character who would restore national greatness by riding into town to rescue the culture from the feminizing forces of weak-kneed liberalism, Trump knew when he got into politics that he was more believable as a kind of anti-hero.

As New York Times television critic James Poniewozik put it, in order for Trump to have been elected in the first place, a large enough portion of America had to "accept the sales pitch" that the president did not need to be "morally admirable, or trustworthy, or empathetic, or self-sacrificing, or curious, or self-reflective, or capable of acting as though other people's interests were as important as his own—as long as they believed he could do the job they wanted done."

That job was reclaiming white men's cultural centrality at the end of a dying era. As Poniewozik notes, "From his earliest days in the tabloids, the character of Donald Trump was a performance of hyperbolic maleness." 




In the 2016 campaign he implicitly and sometimes explicitly ran on masculinity "as an idea, a Strangelovian value, a vital essence to be preserved." He marketed himself as "a political Viagra pill for a following anxious about its potency."

Trump's white male voter base had already been primed for his arrival by the rapid growth of  conservative media over the past generation, starting with the meteoric rise of right-wing talk radio host Rush Limbaugh in the late 1980s, and the creation of the Fox News Channel under the leadership of Roger Ailes in 1996. 

From the very beginning of his thirty-year run as the undisputed king of talk radio, Limbaugh, an exceptionally talented vaudevillian showman, made the denigration of feminists and an unapologetic celebration of old-fashioned white male authority central features of his bloviating and boorish stage persona. Not surprisingly, his large audience consisted mainly (but not exclusively) of white men, especially those over fifty years of age.

This was the same demographic that Roger Ailes targeted with Fox News, which became a vehicle for Ailes's brand of angry and paranoid conservatism, in which white men were the victims of condescension and contempt from sneering elites whose liberalism, multiculturalism and feminism were "wussifying" a once-great country.

These media-savvy entrepreneurs understood that millions of white men felt disrespected and adrift in a changing country and were ready to fight back—if only they could find the right political champion to channel their resentments. 

Donald Trump was that champion. For a time, his relentlessly aggressive attacks against his opponents and constant rhetorical bullying effectively silenced most opposition on the right, or in the Republican Party.  No one wanted to be the next "Low-energy Jeb," or "Little Marco"—2016 GOP rivals who Trump not only defeated, but emasculated.

A protest against Trump, May 2017. (CC)

Trump might not be a sophisticated political thinker or student of history, but he understands something fundamental about manhood in a patriarchal culture: The system remains in place because a majority of men fear being "unmanned" and losing the respect of other men more than they value abstract concepts like commitment to scientific reason, equal justice under law or even democracy itself. 

It takes a great deal of self-confidence and even courage for men to withstand attacks on their good standing in the brotherhood. And as the former Republican congressman and TV host Joe Scarborough says, "We have learned all too often during the Trump presidency that there are few courageous leaders within the Republican congressional caucus or behind the pulpits of the evangelical community's most powerful churches."

But the popularity of a bully is fragile because it is based on others' perceptions of his strength, not the real thing.  And so the tide began to turn against Trump once he started to show signs of electoral vulnerability.

After a chaotic term marked by deep corruption and perpetual scandal, and above all by his egregiously incompetent leadership in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the voices of his critics began to grow louder.

Long before his foray into electoral politics, the bombastic real estate developer and reality TV star had been the object of ridicule and derision among progressives and especially among feminists, who were more contemptuous than impressed by his deep misogyny and cartoonish displays of masculine bravado. But something shifted when they were joined by a growing number of white men, including those with traditional "masculine" credentials. 

When retired military leaders began to publicly criticize the president, including some who had worked directly with him in the White House, they provided cover for other white men to do so. They could now oppose Trump and not have to worry that doing so would make them appear soft and "unmanly"; their criticisms of him could instead be understood as stemming from differences with him on policy, and disapproval of his temperament and style of leadership.

Image description: the upper half of a person, standing in front of the capitol building in washington dc. their back is to the camera and they are wearing an olive green bomber jacket and a red hat that reads "trump" on the back.A supporter at Donald Trump's inauguration, January 2017 (Anthony Quintano / Flickr)

If Donald Trump loses to Joe Biden on November 3, as most polls say is likely to happen, it will be because tens of millions of women and people of color turned out to reject his misogyny and racism, his scapegoating of immigrants, and his sowing of conflict and division—as well as his general managerial ineptitude.




But it will also be because they were joined by a critical mass of white men, who were able to resist the pressures imposed on them by the forces of white male identity politics in order to vote for the greater interest of the country and its people. 


Sunday, October 11, 2020

Re: ANS -- How Your Brain Responds to Inequality

Hi all -- There seems to be an attachment called Two Monkeys at the bottom of this.  I did not put it there.  I don't know how it got there.  I am suspicious.  Has anyone opened it without incident?
--Kim

On Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 2:08 PM Kim Cooper <kimc0240@yahoo.com> wrote:
This is a short article about your brain's response to unfairness/inequality.  By a brain scientist.  
I want to add that this response may be the reason we need to de-humanize The Other in order to treat them unfairly.
--Kim


Image for post
Image for post
Image: Malte Mueller/Getty Images

This is a modified excerpt from Inside Your Head 🧠, a weekly newsletter exploring why your brain makes you think, feel, and act the way you do, written by me, Elemental's senior writer and a former brain scientist. Subscribe here so you won't miss the next one.

Of all the brain-exploding aspects of These Times, the thing that infuriates me the most is the unfairness of it all: who suffers disproportionately, who skates by unaffected, and who gets away with things that no one should get away with. The injustice and double standards in this world make me furious.

Turns out there's an evolutionary reason that being treated unfairly is so rage-inducing — in fact, it's one of the most primal sources of anger.

The phenomenon is called inequity aversion. Simply put, if you invest the same amount of effort as someone else, you should receive the same reward. This expectation can apply to equal pay for equal work, equal protection from the police officers your taxes have paid for (assuming you've paid them), or equal representation in the legal system you've adhered to in good faith. When this expectation is violated, you get mad.

Inequity aversion occurs in children as young as three and even in some species of animals, such as monkeys, birds, and dogs. The universality of the response suggests that anger in the face of unfairness is innate.

There's an amazing video exemplifying inequity aversion in its simplest form from the research of primatologist Frans de Waal. In the clip, two monkeys perform a task in a lab. At first, the monkeys are given the same reward for the task — a piece of cucumber — and everything is peachy. But then the reward changes, and one of the monkeys receives a grape instead, a much sweeter treat. When the monkey still receiving the cucumber discovers the inequity, it THROWS THE CUCUMBER AT THE SCIENTIST IN PROTEST.

De Waal proposes that inequity aversion arose in humans and other species to reinforce cooperation. Cooperative societies, whether they're animal or human, depend on social contracts founded on fairness in order to function. If the social contract is broken, the unfairness is met with protests and punishment to nip the bad behavior in the bud.

Separating us from our primate cousins, humans don't just get angry when we ourselves have been cheated; anger in the face of inequity can be felt on someone else's behalf, too. Our preference for fairness causes us to punish those who have committed an injustice, even if we weren't the victims. In fact, we're so obsessed with fairness, we will pay a personal cost to avoid inequality for others.

In your brain, an area called the anterior insula gets turned on when you perceive unfairness. This region is involved in feelings of empathy, as well as a sense of disgust, suggesting you might actually be repulsed by inequality. The amygdala, an emotion-processing region, also gets activated in response to injustice, triggering feelings of anger.

When you feel the hot fire of injustice spreading across your cheeks, try slapping a bag of frozen peas on your face to cool off. Seriously. The cold shock will activate the "mammalian diving response," which shuts down your body's panic mode. This evolutionary response would ordinarily be triggered by jumping into a cold body of water, forcing the body to conserve energy and focus on breathing, but you can use the technique to chill out emotionally, too. Or you could just start chucking cucumbers.






Friday, October 09, 2020

ANS -- How Your Brain Responds to Inequality

This is a short article about your brain's response to unfairness/inequality.  By a brain scientist.  
I want to add that this response may be the reason we need to de-humanize The Other in order to treat them unfairly.
--Kim


Image for post
Image: Malte Mueller/Getty Images

This is a modified excerpt from Inside Your Head 🧠, a weekly newsletter exploring why your brain makes you think, feel, and act the way you do, written by me, Elemental's senior writer and a former brain scientist. Subscribe here so you won't miss the next one.

Of all the brain-exploding aspects of These Times, the thing that infuriates me the most is the unfairness of it all: who suffers disproportionately, who skates by unaffected, and who gets away with things that no one should get away with. The injustice and double standards in this world make me furious.

Turns out there's an evolutionary reason that being treated unfairly is so rage-inducing — in fact, it's one of the most primal sources of anger.

The phenomenon is called inequity aversion. Simply put, if you invest the same amount of effort as someone else, you should receive the same reward. This expectation can apply to equal pay for equal work, equal protection from the police officers your taxes have paid for (assuming you've paid them), or equal representation in the legal system you've adhered to in good faith. When this expectation is violated, you get mad.

Inequity aversion occurs in children as young as three and even in some species of animals, such as monkeys, birds, and dogs. The universality of the response suggests that anger in the face of unfairness is innate.

There's an amazing video exemplifying inequity aversion in its simplest form from the research of primatologist Frans de Waal. In the clip, two monkeys perform a task in a lab. At first, the monkeys are given the same reward for the task — a piece of cucumber — and everything is peachy. But then the reward changes, and one of the monkeys receives a grape instead, a much sweeter treat. When the monkey still receiving the cucumber discovers the inequity, it THROWS THE CUCUMBER AT THE SCIENTIST IN PROTEST.

De Waal proposes that inequity aversion arose in humans and other species to reinforce cooperation. Cooperative societies, whether they're animal or human, depend on social contracts founded on fairness in order to function. If the social contract is broken, the unfairness is met with protests and punishment to nip the bad behavior in the bud.

Separating us from our primate cousins, humans don't just get angry when we ourselves have been cheated; anger in the face of inequity can be felt on someone else's behalf, too. Our preference for fairness causes us to punish those who have committed an injustice, even if we weren't the victims. In fact, we're so obsessed with fairness, we will pay a personal cost to avoid inequality for others.

In your brain, an area called the anterior insula gets turned on when you perceive unfairness. This region is involved in feelings of empathy, as well as a sense of disgust, suggesting you might actually be repulsed by inequality. The amygdala, an emotion-processing region, also gets activated in response to injustice, triggering feelings of anger.

When you feel the hot fire of injustice spreading across your cheeks, try slapping a bag of frozen peas on your face to cool off. Seriously. The cold shock will activate the "mammalian diving response," which shuts down your body's panic mode. This evolutionary response would ordinarily be triggered by jumping into a cold body of water, forcing the body to conserve energy and focus on breathing, but you can use the technique to chill out emotionally, too. Or you could just start chucking cucumbers.






Saturday, October 03, 2020

ANS -- Trump’s Losing the Election — So He’s Declaring War on Democracy

Here is yet another dire warning from umair haque.  I think he's likely to be correct.  I don't know how Trump's illness is going to impact this.What do you think?
A lot of Americans never really believed in democracy.  we seriously should be teaching it in schools -- how it's done and why we chose it.  So many Americans seem to want the simplicity of a dictator.  
--Kim



Top highlight

Trump's Losing the Election — So He's Declaring War on Democracy

When a Head of State is Legitimizing Political Violence and Delegitimizing Democracy, You Should Be Very Worried

Donald Trump standing in profile in mid-speech, with the seal of the POTUS behind him
Photo Credit: Jim Watson

By now, you've probably heard what Trump said during the debate: he told the Proud Boys to "stand by."

In other words, a head of state literally gave a fascist paramilitary hate group orders, in public, from the debate stage, to prepare themselves to cause unrest during an upcoming crucial election.

So. Should America expect political violence during the election? Just how unsettled should it expect the upcoming election to be? It's an ugly question. A disturbing one. But a necessary one.

What we survivors and scholars of authoritarianism can tell you is that when a head of state gives public orders to fascist paramilitaries just before an election, a society is in a very, very bad place. Democracy itself is under attack. Its rudiments are now under threat. The very last line — the line of organised political violence may be being crossed.

In case you think I exaggerate, let me give you a point of comparison. This is how the Islamic World melted down. Demagogues who were very much like Trump began to give public orders to fascist paramilitaries. They weren't called the "Proud Boys — they were called "The Army of the Pure" or "The League of the True" and so on. Only the names differ. the dynamic is precisely — precisely — the same. Authoritarian leaders form unofficial, extrajudicial alliances with fascist groups, who then attack democracy — by intimidating voters, bullying electoral officialsacting like vigilantes. That is precisely what is now beginning to happen in America.

Trump then "walked back" his comments, as American pundits say. What does it mean to "walk a thing back"? It means to have never said it. So Trump claimed that "he didn't even know who the Proud Boys are." How credible is that claim? They've appeared numerous times on Tucker Carlson's show, which is on Fox News, and we know that Trump watches both voraciously. Either Trump is the only person in America who doesn't know who the Proud Boys are, or he is lying. And given that lying is a pattern of behaviour, it's not exactly hard to conclude that Trump is doing another thing authoritarian leaders do.

The reason that authoritarians make alliances with fascist paramilitaries is very simple. They are not officially part of the government. So both can evade responsibility. The authoritarian can shrug and say "I had nothing to do with them," and the paramilitary can say, at the very same time, "we are only acting for the nation!" This game of double denial serves the purpose of insulating both. The authoritarian is not really held responsible for the violence he has caused, because it is done using unofficial actors, and the unofficial actors, at the same time, are not really held responsible, because the authoritarian is shielding them.

At the same time, something even more disturbing happened. It emerged that Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who shot protestors in Kenosha — assassinated them for political reasons — was to be shielded by Homeland Security. Homeland Security was to say that he was merely acting to defend small business owners.

Wait, what? Why should Homeland Security intervene at all? Isn't that far beyond its remit? Especially to justify fascist violence? Is it saying that when far-right extremists do political violence, that it will act to help them?

Ask yourself how strange and ominous this is. Why would a nation's internal security agency protect a young man who shot people, out of all the criminals in the land? There can only be one explanation: it sympathizes, or has been directed to sympathize, with his political aims. Because he shot protesters that the head of state has described as "radical leftists" who are "the biggest threat to our society," he is protected from the law…by the law.

This is an even more troubling that's being crossed. In this case, a head of state is not just giving fascist paramilitaries orders in public to prepare to do violence. He is protecting them after they have done violence.

It's impossible, really, to overstate the danger of this line being crossed. It is a very, very slippery slope, and the very first step down it is too much. What happens next? A Proud Boy assassinates a political opponent — and he's shielded, too? A group of fascists massacre protesters — and they are protected? You can imagine how fast and dangerous this spiral is. It is a spiral of lethal and very real violence.

Let me reiterate it, so it's crystal clear. The head of state is now protecting fascists who do political violence. He is abusing the institutions of the state to shield them from the law. This is one of the gravest abuses of power there can be. It makes a mockery of justice, constitutionality, peace, equality, freedom.

Beyond that, there is just civil war and atrocity, really. If a President protecting a fascist who has shot people in cold blood doesn't ring your alarm bells, what could?

Why is an administration protecting a fascist who has shot people in cold blood so dangerous? It creates a double standard — one set of rules for the fascists, and another for their opponents. The opponents — the ones on the side of democracy — take ever increasing risks. Their actions are criminalized, they are beaten and gassed and abducted by Trump's shock troops, and eventually they run the risk of being assassinated. Meanwhile, the fascists who do the violence are protected by the state — either they work for it, as the shock troops who abducted people in Portland, or they are shielded by it, like Kyle Rittenhouse.

This is serious, my friends. It is as serious as it can possibly get. What does all this, put together, tell us?

It tells us that this administration is committing to violence as a political tool during the upcoming election. I don't feel good saying that. But it's nonetheless true, so far as I can see. There is no doubt in my mind that all these disparate events together add up to one conclusion. The head of state has decided that using violence — by encouraging it, protecting it, and turning a blind eye to it — is a perfectly acceptable tool to help decide the election for him.

Let me repeat the dots, in case they're still not connected. One. The President gave a fascist paramilitary group orders in public, to "stand by." It's not credible in the least that he "doesn't know who they are" — we all do. Two, the fascist paramilitary responded to those orders, saying that it was indeed preparing itself. Three, America's internal security agency was ordered to create a pretext for a far-right wing extremist who just did horrific violence — a pretext to justify his actions, and shield him from justice.

None of those things should be taken lightly. They are not random events. Especially in the context they have: a President who has built camps, put kids in cages in them, separated families, created shock troops who beat and gas people in the streets for being on the side of hated minorities, has a system of gulags in which women's organs are being cut out (yes, really). All of this is a classical sequence: of authoritarian fascist implosion. It is a set of mounting political catastrophes that culminate in the largest one. That one tends to go like this.

An authoritarian head of state makes a certain set of alliances. Theocrats are chosen to capture the judiciary, because they create a pretext for abuses of power, legalising and normalizing it. Fascists are allied with on the ground, to do violence, and intimidate and bully a society into submission, especially during election time. Manipulating fascists and theocrats like chess pieces on a board, the authoritarian shatters what's left of a society's ability and capacity to resist and withstand abuses of power. He finishes seizing power, and retains it, often for life. Democracy comes to a sudden end, faster and more viciously than most thought possible.

All of that is what is happening in America now.

There is very little doubt that the President is now doing three things. One, he is counting on far right extremists to intimidate people with very real violence. He is sending two messages to them: "stand by," and we will protect you — so do your worst. Two, he is sending a message to people slightly less violent than that, mere fanatics. He is asking them to "watch" the polls — to essentially means to perform voter intimidation, which has already emerged in places like Fairfax, Virginia.

And three, he is sending a message to his base in delegitimising the vote. He is saying that we can seize power by any means necessary — if we want to. I will not accept the results if I lose — and I will rely on your violence to retain power. This society will be ours, if only we are fanatical and extreme enough, if we don't back down. He is saying to his base that democracy does not matter, and only their desire to rule as an extremist minority over a moderate majority does.

My friends, that is what authoritarianism is.

A society cannot be in a more dangerous place than America is now in. Short of civil war, short of atrocity, short of Holocaust — this is as bad as things can possibly get. The President has effectively declared war on American democracy. He has delegitimised the vote and the election — and legitimised violence and brutality, by calling for itencouraging it, and worst of all, protecting it.

This in not a drill, my friends. There are 33 days left until the election. They might well be the last 33 days of America as we know it. There is no exaggeration or hyperbole there. Take it from those of us who have lived this before. This is how it happens — so precisely that it's eerie.

Those of us who've lived all this before know what happens next, too. Today's paramiliitaries become tomorrow's SS's. Today's political violence becomes tomorrow's law. Today's president becomes tomorrow's dictator. Today's opposition becomes tomorrow's enemies of the state. Today's freedoms become distant memories. And today's democracy becomes a future where a society is ruled by the most fanatical, extreme, brutal, and ignorant of all, who hold the power of life and death over the rest, and demand absolute fealty and totalitarian purity in thought and action.

If you doubt that, ask yourself: did you think America would be here maybe five years ago? I didn't think so. You won't like where it is five years from now, if the fascists and authoritarians have their way.




This is not a drill. This is the real thing. It is happening here.

Do not let it happen to you.

Umair
September 2020