Be Excellent To Each Other

I don't know. I suspect you have to play the long game, though. It's already too late to change it for this election. I am sure you don't get anywhere without at least attempting to understand the psychology of the "other side."

I see this said quite a bit, yet I haven't once seen any indication that the psychology of the 'other side' is any less than fully understood. Addressing it is the problem, not understanding it.

Yeah, with Brexit you knew that there was an excellent chance that someone who voted leave was at least a bit of a racist fuckwit, whereas anyone who votes for Trump definitely is. So about half of the American electorate are thick, racist scum. I used to wonder how the whole Nazi thing ever could have happened, couldn't quite grasp it because I believed that the massive majority of people were decent. Brexit and now this has shattered that illusion. It doesn't even really matter any more who wins or loses this election because it's not all going to just go away. The Republicans will just field a slightly less insane far-right bastard for the next election and win then.

I don't think that's the case at all. The vast majority are thick and racist. And it's not difficult to work out why. They're being told every single day by the media and by their politicians that they should be afraid. They should be afraid of terrorism. They should be afraid of losing their jobs. They should be afraid of homosexuality causing the collapse of the family unit. They should be afraid of chemicals, and by extension scientists. They should be afraid of intellectuals, and academics. They should be afraid of external cultural influences. They should be afraid of everything that isn't a group or trait they directly identify with.

Born racist? How so?

Base tribal instincts leading to a fear of people who look different?

So why do babies/young infants not prefer people of the same race, if you discount close family members who they'd show preference for through personal familiarity?

So I'd say that there is an inbuilt capacity for racism but am still very much dubious of the notion that racism itself is innate.

Here's some science.

http://www.berkeleywellness.com/article ... orn-racist

The dude's book looks interesting as hell. too.

So why do babies/young infants not prefer people of the same race, if you discount close family members who they'd show preference for through personal familiarity?

Why does basically every society world-wide, throughout history, exhibit at least some degree of distrust of outsiders, if not outright hatred and racism?

Here's some science man talking about it.

http://www.berkeleywellness.com/article ... orn-racist

The dude's book looks interesting as hell. too.

The first thing to understand is that the “in-group” and “out-group” distinctions that we talked about before, that define “us” and “them,” are highly malleable. Whether it’s race, class, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, research shows that the specific identities that we are prejudiced toward or against can change.
That’s an important finding. A few years ago, research that made headlines seemed to suggest that we are hardwired to be racist. Scientists found that when research subjects were asked to make distinctions between photos of black and white faces, a part of the brain called the amygdala lit up. The amygdala is part of the limbic system, an evolutionary early part of the brain, so the findings seemed to show that biases are a very basic, primitive response. But we’ve since discovered that the amygdala lights up when people are asked to make almost any kind of socially relevant distinction, positive or negative. When research subjects are asked to distinguish between team members and nonmembers, for example, the amygdala lights up. So the current scientific understanding is that we’re hardwired to make distinctions that are helpful in navigating our social world, but not to be racist per se.

Because foreigns be backward

Especially the Kernish.

That isn't science. It's psychology.

Says the guy with the red shirt...

fly pimp

He used to make fruit flies fuck for a living.

He used to make fruit flies fuck for a living.

...
One of the new Ops girls who started the other week used to do that, too.

Huh.

...
One of the new Ops girls who started the other week used to do that, too.

Huh.

This description covers something like a third of genetics research, though. It's not exactly uncommon.

This description covers something like a third of genetics research, though. It's not exactly uncommon.

At one conference meeting when a speaker said Labour must win some Tory votes, someone shouted out: “Why? We don’t want Tories!” So I find myself arguing dry psephology against passionate conviction. It’s depressing, but here’s the Fabian Society’s analysis: Labour needs 104 seats in England and Wales and 40% of the vote to win. In the marginals, four out every five of the extra votes must come from those who were Tory last time. Even if the young are energised and turnout soars to Scottish referendum heights, it gets nowhere close. Even if every single Liberal Democrat and Green vote went Labour, that only gives 29 seats. Even if Ukip were crushed, its vote divides equally Labour and Tory. As Labour wins radical votes, it risks losing moderate votes to the Tories: 2% went that way last time. Read the research yourself and groan. It hurts.

In one fraught conversation after another, I try all this on Corbyn believers but to no avail. No compromise, blocked ears, total denial of electoral facts, a post-truth conviction. You can hear this non-meeting of minds everywhere at this conference, a shutter of incomprehension dividing the two sides. “But we can convince them! People will listen!” They do think Corbyn will be the next prime minister, because conviction moves mountains. These are likable people, and I envy their certainty – the way you can envy the religious their delusions.

When they say "must win 104 seats", that is 104 more seats? There is a group delusion going on and it is hard to think we are here after the good stuff from 1997 onwards.

It would have to be, right?

It would have to be, right?

I did have a head scratch at that when reading her comment piece - it wasn't dreadfully clear and I did think surely she can't be so nuts as to think you can win with 104 seats.