Dems Rebuild

[knapplc]

It's just weird to see that in this thread. I don't think the Democrats would be building around such a "joke," or using Kathy Griffin in any way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But since this has been brought up here, does Griffin get charged with a crime for threatening Trump? Last time I checked, that's a felony.

 

Maybe not charged, but maybe a phone call from the Secret Service with a "suggestion" not to make such images? I'm no fan of Trump, but I'd be completely fine if they leaned on her a little. This kind of thing isn't remotely funny.

[zoogs]

I can see how there's concern that this sort of stunt captures the Democrat zeitgeist (as it were) of the day.

 

I don't know, it might? People are angry. Anger is not the same as fear, but it also turns people stupid and asks them to switch off their brains. I just watched some uncomfortable Keith Olbermann performance art in which he puts on his pious man face and bellows for ten minutes with no content. You know, the same thing he always does.

 

I think I have more of a problem with that, for example, than what Kathy Griffin did. Art is transgressive, and I think she was trying to challenge the idea that we should accommodate this President with the normal decorum. To her own disservice, she went about it in a disgusting and counterproductive way. That it totally backfired can be no surprise.

 

But is there too much anger and hate clouding opinions on the left? That point, to agree partially with BRB, seems quite plausible.

[knapplc]

And now she's apologized. I'm getting so sick of apologies from celebrities and athletes, and the fetish the press has of covering those apologies.

 

For me, Joe Average in middle America, what the heck does that apology mean? She isn't sorry for what she did, she's sorry she wasn't praised and adored for doing it. Most of these apologies aren't to convey sorrow, they're part of the life cycle of this particular brand of marketing. Celebrity X does something asinine, everyone agonizes over it, and they get publicity out of it. They're the bad boy/bad girl for a while, then they "apologize" and that gets them another round in the press. And the press has more content.

 

I'm getting triggered by these dumb apologies. Enough.

[Moiraine]

Call me when she has a talk show with millions of followers who actually care what she says.

[Danny Bateman]

Nah, Knapp, you encapsulated my thoughts pretty well.

 

I probably fit the mold of the mainstream Dem constituency moreso than most on the board, as does zoogs. We both think this is heinous and wrong, and I've yet to see anyone applaud this move. It was wrong when they did this to Obama, wrong if anyone did it to W before that, and it's still wrong now. And you all know how I feel about Trump. I don't afford him much slack, but this is unquestionably one area I always will.

 

Thanks for railing on the stupid outrage-apology cycle. This is pretty much the same as Trump's post-Access Hollywood tape apology. Could not be more transparent that he didn't really believe the words he was sayings and I assume Griffin doesn't either. If we're being honest, it's overthinking it to assume her message had some deeper meaning. She was likely doing it to just generate publicity, which, of course, pays.

[zoogs]

I think she actually does have some meaning here, intended or not. The correct reaction is that this is a no-no: you cannot threaten somebody, period. We value human life. Everyone knows this basic, fundamental principle.

 

So, what do we do when we encounter someone who doesn't value human life? Who actively charts a course that devalues, demeans, and destroys it? Do we still go, "Hey now. This is a person's life we're talking about; we must not demean or even joke about threatening it"?

 

I think the answer is of course yes. Because when they go low, we go high. Hate is an ugly road to go down. But as we gather in affirmation of the sanctity of life, I do hope we contemplate deeply the ruinous, catastrophic course our President and his political allies are now charting in concert, and the lives both here and abroad that will be derailed or ended because of it.

[Huskerzoo]

Neuroscience has proven to us that effective storytelling works much, much better at changing people's minds and opinions than data, numbers and statistics do. We are storytelling machines - all our entire existence really is is 86 billion neurons telling a story to themselves through feedback loops.

 

It's no surprise that a compelling, concise counter-narrative won enough people over to capture the Presidency. But it is a sobering reality of how those opposed to the demagoguery and xenophobia and general asshattedness of Trump/what he represents need to be able to offer their own cohesive counter narrative, that is for something tangible and concise, instead of just being against the other thing.

Would love to see that citation. Neuroscience is pretty limited on what it can tell us. Right now it's a big deal to discriminate between two different songs. To show that one narrative is more convincing via neuroscience is probably an over generalization.

[Landlord]

 

Neuroscience has proven to us that effective storytelling works much, much better at changing people's minds and opinions than data, numbers and statistics do. We are storytelling machines - all our entire existence really is is 86 billion neurons telling a story to themselves through feedback loops.

 

It's no surprise that a compelling, concise counter-narrative won enough people over to capture the Presidency. But it is a sobering reality of how those opposed to the demagoguery and xenophobia and general asshattedness of Trump/what he represents need to be able to offer their own cohesive counter narrative, that is for something tangible and concise, instead of just being against the other thing.

Would love to see that citation. Neuroscience is pretty limited on what it can tell us. Right now it's a big deal to discriminate between two different songs. To show that one narrative is more convincing via neuroscience is probably an over generalization.

 

 

 

Here's links to two actual studies done on the idea:

 

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/J2007OBHDP_DAS_sympathy.pdf

http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_role_of_transportation_in_the_persuasiveness_of_public_narratives.pdf

 

 

 

Here's links to some helpful articles:

 

https://blog.bufferapp.com/science-of-storytelling-why-telling-a-story-is-the-most-powerful-way-to-activate-our-brains

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/stories-vs-statistics/

https://www.fastcompany.com/3015140/once-upon-a-time-at-the-office-10-storytelling-tips-to-help-you-be-more-persu

 

 

 

Also, anecdotally, think about the difference between statistics showing how violent crimes have declined consistently for a long time and are the lowest they've been in ages, vs Fox News and Trump fear mongering that the world is going to hell and getting worse and worse. Which gets people on board more?

[knapplc]

HuskerMax contributor Dave Feit had a solid observation today.

 

 

Other than the last 24 hours, when's the last time you thought about the existence of Kathy Griffin?

[Landlord]

Still confused why this is being linked to the Democratic Party.

[Huskerzoo]

 

 

Neuroscience has proven to us that effective storytelling works much, much better at changing people's minds and opinions than data, numbers and statistics do. We are storytelling machines - all our entire existence really is is 86 billion neurons telling a story to themselves through feedback loops.

 

It's no surprise that a compelling, concise counter-narrative won enough people over to capture the Presidency. But it is a sobering reality of how those opposed to the demagoguery and xenophobia and general asshattedness of Trump/what he represents need to be able to offer their own cohesive counter narrative, that is for something tangible and concise, instead of just being against the other thing.

Would love to see that citation. Neuroscience is pretty limited on what it can tell us. Right now it's a big deal to discriminate between two different songs. To show that one narrative is more convincing via neuroscience is probably an over generalization.

 

 

 

Here's links to two actual studies done on the idea:

 

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/J2007OBHDP_DAS_sympathy.pdf

http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_role_of_transportation_in_the_persuasiveness_of_public_narratives.pdf

 

 

 

Here's links to some helpful articles:

 

https://blog.bufferapp.com/science-of-storytelling-why-telling-a-story-is-the-most-powerful-way-to-activate-our-brains

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/stories-vs-statistics/

https://www.fastcompany.com/3015140/once-upon-a-time-at-the-office-10-storytelling-tips-to-help-you-be-more-persu

 

 

 

Also, anecdotally, think about the difference between statistics showing how violent crimes have declined consistently for a long time and are the lowest they've been in ages, vs Fox News and Trump fear mongering that the world is going to hell and getting worse and worse. Which gets people on board more?

 

 

Thanks. I would debate that any of this utilizes neuroscience to prove anything. The actual articles you linked are social psych and make sense. The other things just report more brain activation, which if we reject dualism, is more or less a "no duh" statement.

 

I'm in no way debating that stories vs statistics make a difference, that's a pretty well understood phenomena. It was when neuroscience was brought up that it piqued my interest.

[Danny Bateman]

HuskerMax contributor Dave Feit had a solid observation today.

 

 

Other than the last 24 hours, when's the last time you thought about the existence of Kathy Griffin?

 

Every New Year's Eve when I ponder why CNN thinks she makes a good duo with Anderson Cooper.

[BigRedBuster]

Still confused why this is being linked to the Democratic Party.

 

I didn't "link it" to the Democratic party.

 

My point in posting it in here (since it bothers people and I really couldn't find another good thread to put it in) is that as we move forward, the Democrats and liberal leaning voters are going to stir up emotions against Trump (and it's going to be really easy) so they can win as many emotional votes as possible in 2018 and 2020.

 

It's more of a "Stay classy Democrats" post.

 

I have no clue of she is a registered Democrat. But, she clearly is anti Trump.....which.....the Dems are too.

 

I had hoped that the Republican party and conservative voters would have been the grown ups in American politics and not revert to gross stupid stuff. That obviously didn't happen. Let's home the other side is now the grown ups.

[zoogs]

Sorry, I left LOMS post here by accident. It was in response to Rusty's post, which I moved down to the Woodshed.

[Landlord]

Huskerzoo, gotcha. Wrong language used on my part, although I do remember reading about a study where they had someone hooked up to an fMRI, and had others hooked up some other brain activity measuring devices, and they would have the woman on the fMRI tell a story and it would activate the same parts of the brain in the people listening, as if it was a shared experience. Or something like that -- can't find it now.

 

 

BRB, that Rusty troll idiot posted a picture of it with an insult towards dems or something so I was responding to him.