Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Autocrat's Language

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#81

Post by mirimir »

andrewem wrote: post #75
mirimir wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also loved the article. However, I thought that he was too hard on Trump, in his dissection of that interview. I'm certainly no Trump supporter. And yet, his comments about the missiles in Syria struck me as honestly reflective. Trump does bullshit a lot, and it's easy to make fun of him. But that's arguably more honest than typical Presidential rhetoric.

(As was noted elsewhere in the comments on this submission, the author is a woman, and quite well known - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masha_Gessen ) It's hard to know how to criticize your comment constructively, though one might say that it's not that "Trump does bullshit a lot", it's that he cannot escape bullshitting in any situation. He exists outside facts. If you think the author's criticism of Trump is too…

As I said, I'm not a Trump supporter. He's a demagogue. And worse, he's arguably the first "Reality TV" president, in that he honed his public persona for "The Apprentice". If Stephen Colbert wins in 202, he'll be the second. It's a strange world.

Anyway, it is refreshing to hear a US President reflect on the enormity of the power at their command, and on the risks of using that power. No matter how incoherent they may be.

I don't know whether Trump could escape bullshitting, if he wanted to. It could be entirely an act, designed for his target audience. But either way, what concerns me is that such a persona is so evidently popular.

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#82

Post by microcolonel »

jhbadger wrote: post #68
microcolonel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are a vast number of other popular right and far-right publications. There are many major funders (Kochs, Adelson, Mercers, etc.); The Kochs fund far-right publications? Which ones? They seem explicitly not far right, or even really right at all.

"Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. Yes, I know people will claim that it is "libertarian" but in practice there is little difference. The magazine recently published an article entitled "The Climate Alarmists Are Wrong", basically parroting Republican talking points claiming that the science is unclear on the issue (it isn't).

> "Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs.

I'm going to need you to substantiate your claim that Reason is a far-right publication, because it really seems like a centrist libertarian publication. They predictably project a pro-individual and pro-business (in that order) message, I've seen them argue for NAFTA (not popular with the right these days, which is more protectionist), they consistently argue against restrictions on social taboos (social controls being the primary distinguishing factor of the right).

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#83

Post by jhbadger »

microcolonel wrote: post #82
jhbadger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. Yes, I know people will claim that it is "libertarian" but in practice there is little difference. The magazine recently published an article entitled "The Climate Alarmists Are Wrong", basically parroting Republican talking points claiming that the science is unclear on the issue (it isn't).

> "Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. I'm going to need you to substantiate your claim that Reason is a far-right publication, because it really seems like a centrist libertarian publication. They predictably project a pro-individual and pro-business (in that order) message, I've seen them argue for NAFTA (not popular with the right these days, which is more protectionist), they consistently…

I already did. Sowing the seeds of doubt that climate change isn't a problem and/or not caused by fossil fuel use, as in the article I mentioned is pretty clearly far-right, not centrist at all.

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#84

Post by forapurpose »

rhizome wrote: post #62
forapurpose wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a world where the sinners have all the power. > In such a world, why would there be so many successful witch-hunters? Because neither group has all the power (and there are many other groups too). The allegory, as someone pointed out, and the reasoning are both stretched past breaking.

Because neither group has all the power About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might, but Nixon saw to that by inventing the War on Drugs.

> Because neither group has all the power

> About 45 years ago there was a chance that they might

There was no chance. In the 1972 election, Nixon was re-elected winning 49 states (not a typo - he won 49 of 50 states) and won the popular vote by 23%.

And that was while the Watergate scandal was exploding. Per Wikipedia, not long before the November election, "On October 10, the FBI reported the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee."[0]

There was no chance that the Democrats or anyone on the left was going to take "all the power".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and...

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#85

Post by microcolonel »

jhbadger wrote: post #83
microcolonel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Reason" is a far right-wing publication funded by the Kochs. I'm going to need you to substantiate your claim that Reason is a far-right publication, because it really seems like a centrist libertarian publication. They predictably project a pro-individual and pro-business (in that order) message, I've seen them argue for NAFTA (not popular with the right these days, which is more protectionist), they consistently…

I already did. Sowing the seeds of doubt that climate change isn't a problem and/or not caused by fossil fuel use, as in the article I mentioned is pretty clearly far-right, not centrist at all.

Firstly: debating the specifics of the impact of climate change, and the efficacy of proposed solutions is not a "far-right" position. The presentations given to the public on climate change are obviously intended to be more motivating (by being alarming) than accurate. The predictions are rarely born out by the observations, the crises are constantly averted through no human action.

The main point of this article is that there is no clear correlation between global mean temperature and the severity of hurricanes. If that's a far-right position, then where do the centrist positions start? Licking Al Gore's boot?

http://reason.com/archives/2017/09/13/thr-climate-alarmists-...

Re: The Autocrat's Language

#86

Post by adrianratnapala »

InternetOfStuff wrote: post #79
adrianratnapala wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, when I lived in Germany I heard "Leiter" a lot when I expected "Führer". To me it sounds like it should mean "conductor". Can real German speakers tell me if "Leiter" was always a very common word for this usage or merely a not-unreasonable word that won out post-war because it happens to be a bit like the English word? (In fact I suspect they are cognate, maybe that's why electrical conductors are sometimes cal…

Native speaker here. Führer and Leiter seem similar in meaning, but are really quite distinct, both in denotation and connotation. And, contrary to what grandparent poster said, Führer is by no means dead. "Führer" means guide. As in, a mountain guide ("Bergführer"), tourist guide ("Reiseführer" - both guide book and person), or driver of a vehicle: driving license ("Führerschein"). Similarly, "Anführer" is a leader…

Thanks for your explanation. It tallies well with what I observed living there.

But I still sense there is a post-war avoidance of the word: to you it might seem very common but I hardly ever heard it except as part of a larger compound. Compound words are so common in German, that the omission might not be obvious to people who are too familiar with it.

Post reply on HN