G
Gjestemedlem
Gjest
liten godbit her...
|
Diskusjonstråd Se tråd i gallerivisning
-
- Ble medlem
- 05.11.2009
- Innlegg
- 1.921
- Antall liker
- 1.199
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Why the Sanders ‘revolution’ failed
He wasn’t too populist. He wasn’t populist enough.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/04/09/why-the-sanders-revolution-failed/
Bowing to the inevitable, Bernie Sanders dropped out of the presidential race yesterday, clearing the way for Joe Biden to become the Democratic Party nominee.
Sanders fared better than many had expected a self-proclaimed ‘democratic socialist’ could in the US. It was just a few weeks ago that he was considered the frontrunner after winning early primaries. He attracted passionate fans who filled his rallies, including young people drawn to this 78-year-old. He accumulated the largest financial support, based on individual donations. Sanders has been a major influence on the party’s policies, too. His fellow Democrat nominees adopted his ideas for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal and ‘free college’, either outright or a variation on them.
But that was not enough, and his campaign quickly crashed. Biden won by a landslide in the South Carolina primary, and then swept most states on Super Tuesday in early March. There is some evidence that the sharp swing towards Biden was really a ‘Stop Bernie’ movement, as Democrats were scared by the prospect of Sanders as their nominee.
There were clear limits to Sanders’ electoral appeal, which emerged even in the states where he won. He promised a ‘political revolution’ based on a massive increase in voter turnout. But even younger people didn’t come out to vote for him in big numbers. He claimed to represent workers yet couldn’t win their votes, especially among white workers in the south and Midwest, and black workers nationally. At the same time, he was not attractive to the moderate suburban voters who have shifted towards the Democrats in recent years. For all of Bernie and his supporters’ complaints about the Democratic establishment undermining him, it was the rank-and-file voters – not the party bureaucrats – who rejected Sanders as the nominee.
Since his emergence on the national stage in 2016, Sanders has often been labelled as a ‘populist’. But by 2020 it became clear that his politics were not in sync with the masses, and more in tune with the upper middle-class. Sanders constantly rails against Wall Street and ‘the billionaires’ (he had to stop referring to ‘millionaires’ when it became known that he was one himself), and perhaps some think that’s evidence of a populist message. But most ordinary people are not obsessed with the wealthy and don’t bang on about evil bankers; that’s a view more likely to be found among the small enclaves of envious professionals who don’t think it’s fair that some people earn more money than they do and are pricing them out of certain neighborhoods.
Similarly, one of Sanders’ most prominent policies was ‘free college’, meaning free tuition at state universities. But ‘free college’ is not a top priority for working-class families, given that most do not send their kids to college, and that message did not resonate with them. Instead, Bernie’s policy would be more of a benefit for the upper middle-class, who predominate among the one-third of the college-aged who receive a degree. A truly pro-worker policy would focus on supporting an array of career alternatives, including funding for non-college job training, skilled trades and apprenticeships.
In 2016, it appeared that Sanders was making a pitch for workers of the industrial heartland and rural areas, many of whom ultimately swung to vote for Trump. For example, he argued for trade protectionism for manufacturing, saying it would protect workers from unfair, low-wage competition (a position shared by Trump). Yet, by 2020, appeals to workers in economically damaged regions of the country were missing from Sanders’ headlines. Instead, he called for a Green New Deal and a national ban on fracking, which was a direct threat to eliminate millions of jobs in these hard-hit areas.
Over time, Sanders increasingly took onboard the identity politics and cultural views of the woke left, further distancing himself from the working class. In 2016, he was criticised by sections of the left for excessive focus on economic issues, for neglecting race and gender issues, and for excusing a misogynist culture around his ‘Bernie bro’ supporters. By 2020, however, Sanders changed his tune, and seemed at times to be actively presenting himself as the candidate of hipster Brooklyn and Oakland.
From his stress on climate change to his call to ‘abolish ICE’ (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), from his embrace of gun controls to his promotion of minority groups like Native Americans — this all contributed to the perception that Bernie had changed and was now beholden to the woke. His campaign tiptoed around racial identity politics. According to his communications director, Sanders ‘didn’t want to speak on behalf of people of colour’, because he ‘does not have those experiences’. To top this off, Bernie’s selection of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar as high-profile stand-ins seemed to reinforce the impression that he was more aligned with woke activists than working people.
Sanders did have an opportunity to win over working-class Trump voters, but you can understand why he didn’t. His opposition could have focused on Trump’s unfulfilled promises to working people across the country, from jobs in the Rust Belt to urban revitalisation. Instead, he joined the establishment Democrats in promoting Russia-gate hysteria. He introduced his own bill condemning Russia and Trump, claiming (falsely) that Putin had stolen the election from Hillary Clinton. Sanders then led the calls to impeach Trump. Impeachment was the biggest test to US democracy in many years – threatening to overturn the people’s vote on flimsy grounds – and Sanders failed it.
Indeed, a positive emerging from the new populism, in the US and globally, is a demand from working people for more of a democratic voice. Yet Sanders’ brand of ‘democratic socialism’ never really connected with that emerging desire. His vision is mostly a conventional welfare-state one, which traditionally has been an elite strategy of buying support at times of social distress. While the US safety net could definitely use some repair, Sanders’ message is not one that engages with the desire for greater agency.
Today, most working people are more concerned with being part of a dynamic economy, having good jobs and supporting their families, than they are about relying on the state handouts that Sanders or others may promise. They want to have a voice in determining their lives – at their workplace, in their towns, at the ballot box. They do not want a politician like Sanders deciding to eliminate an industry that employs them, without even asking them. And they want to be free to express and debate different cultural beliefs, without the likes of Sanders’ woke allies telling them to watch their words.
Some will say that Sanders lost because he was too populist. The truth is, he wasn’t populist enough.
Sean CollinsGGjestemedlem
Gjest
That 5G coronavirus conspiracy? It was me
Outside my day job at the Financial Times, I’ve been working flat-out to undermine new technologies
https://www.ft.com/content/58148406-79bc-11ea-9840-1b8019d9a987GGjestemedlem
Gjest
There's a lot to learn about blue eyes and those who peer out at the world through them. Whether it's due to weird scientific facts, related health conditions, or just plain genetics, people who rock those baby blues are just a little bit different than their darker-eyed friends.
Even though they may appear to be blue, these icy-cool peepers aren't actually blue at all. It might sound crazy, but there's no such thing as blue pigment when it comes to our eyes — you're either melanated, or not very melanated at all. And, according to Gizmodo, if you're melanated in each layer of the iris like the majority of humans around the world, then you would have brown eyes…that are actually brown — no optical illusions there.
So if there's no pigment in the front layers of the iris of blue eyed-people, what is it that makes them look blue? According to the American Academy of ophthalmology, blue eyes look blue for the same reason that both the ocean and the sky appear to be blue: it's simply a trick of the light. This is called the Tyndall Effect, which is the way that light scatters in blue eyes, giving rise to the blue appearance.
Watch the video for more about the truth about blue eyes!
remember this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress
Kanskje noe her?
Sist redigert av en moderator:SSlubbert
Gjest
Mens alle gnåler om Trump, en artikkel om hvordan coronaepidemien håndteres av myndighetene bl.a. i Kina, Russland og Venezuela:
Coronavarslerne myndighetene vil true til stillhet.
I et forsøk på å kneble kritikere og ha kontroll over informasjonen som kommer ut til befolkningen, har myndighetene i flere land allerede arrestert personer som har uttalt seg kritisk om landets coronahåndtering.
Land som har innført tiltak for å sensurere informasjon om pandemien, straffe journalister og andre som kritiserer statens tiltak er for eksempel Ungarn, Venezuela, Thailand, Kambodsja og Kina.
– Vi vet at myndighetene allerede har arrestert enkeltpersoner, sier Gerald Kador Folkvord, politisk rådgiver i menneskerettighetsorganisasjonen Amnesty International Norge, til VG.
lese i disse hjemmetider. et innlegg og tre tilsvar.
The Philosophy of Anger
There are two problems with anger: it is morally corrupting, and it is completely correct.
opplysende uten å bli oppløsende. avslutningen på selve innlegget:
Nietzsche, Foucault, and Girard contributed to a strand of cultural criticism often invoked in support of attitudes of cynicism, misanthropy, and pessimism about the human condition. They are seen as radicals. In my view, however, all three are to be faulted for their timidity. It is striking the degree to which each writer held himself at a safe anthropological distance from the dark side of morality he so accurately described. If they had stepped inside their own theories, they would have immediately drawn the simple, devastating conclusion that it is impossible for humans—you and me and the three of them included—to respond rightly to being treated wrongly. We can’t be good in a bad world.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Norge er i ferd med å bli mer som USA
Samfunnsdebatten hardner til, og meningsmotstandere stemples som løgnere. Jeg har sett hva en slik gift kan gjøre med et samfunn.
Sigurd Grindheim
https://www.bt.no/btmeninger/debatt...ocial&utm_source=Facebook&#Echobox=1587584806
Er det noen sammenheng mellom partipolitisk tilhørighet og frykten for en bestemt sykdom? Kunne man tenke seg at Høyre-folk var de eneste som ville ha influensavaksine, mens Arbeiderparti-folk mente den var unødvendig?
Slik har situasjonen utviklet seg i USA. Demokrater har tatt koronaviruset langt mer alvorlig enn republikanere. Mange velger å ikke ha tillit til høyt formelt kvalifiserte leger, fordi de går imot partiet de stemmer på.
USA er så delt at landet i realiteten består av (minst) to befolkningsgrupper som gjensidig ser på hverandre som en fiende; en fiende som er farligere enn fremmede makter som står og sikter på landet med atomvåpen.
Når Donald Trump kaller massemediene en fiende av folket, blir halvparten av amerikanerne rystet, men den andre halvparten synes han har sagt noe meget klokt og forstandig. Det amerikanske samfunnet har blitt så polarisert at det ikke lenger finnes noen felles grunn.
Der noen holder seg til fakta, holder andre seg til «alternative fakta». Det noen kaller nyheter, avfeies av andre som «fake news».
På flere og flere områder velger folk hva de vil tro på, avhengig av om informasjonen kommer fra noen de er enige med eller ikke.
Etter å ha bodd nesten 20 år i USA, har jeg nylig flyttet hjem til Norge. Og jeg er glad for å ha kommet tilbake til et samfunn som fortsatt er veldig annerledes enn det jeg opplevde i USA.
Samfunnet vårt er preget av tillit. I en krisesituasjon har vi tillit til at politikerne gjør sitt beste for å fremme hele folkets sikkerhet, uten at partipolitiske hensyn får forrang. Når vi opplever nasjonale kriser her til lands, fører det oss nærmere sammen, ikke lengre fra hverandre.
Samtidig uroer enkelte tendenser meg. For det er flere ting som tyder på at Norge er i ferd med å bli mer som USA. Samfunnsdebatten hardner til.
Meningsmotstandere stemples som løgnere, og som aktører som har en hemmelig plan om å ødelegge det samfunnet vi er glade i. Et av de viktigste nyordene i det norske språk begynner på «snik-».
Valget av Donald Trump til president har mange forklaringer. En av dem er at en broket allianse av kulturkonservative var blitt lei av å bli latterliggjort, belært og ignorert når avgjørelsene skulle tas. I Donald Trump så de en anledning til å hevde seg, og til å styrte den liberale makteliten som hadde tredd sine beslutninger ned over hodet på dem.
En viktig forutsetning for maktovertakelsen er at de tidligere makthaverne blir sett på som en fiende, som må bekjempes for enhver pris. For å holde liv i denne forestillingen er det nødvendig at samfunnsdebatten er så hard som mulig.
Når jeg ser noen som gjør narr av Trump, får jeg derfor lyst til å spørre: Hvorfor hjelper du ham til å bli gjenvalgt?
For det er det de gjør. De bekrefter oppfatningen om at det er mange fiender der ute, fiender som hater det Trumps velgere står for. Og det er denne frykten som driver dem til å stemme på Trump.
Jeg håper ikke slike fiendebilder vil gjøre seg gjeldende her i Norge, og jeg håper ikke det blir umulig for meningsmotstandere å ha en samtale. Jeg ønsker meg et samfunn der det er lov til å diskutere alt, og der minoriteter har anledning til å fremme argumenter for syn nesten ingen deler.
Jeg ønsker å høre fra dem som mener at fellesskapets oppleste sannheter er så gale at de er direkte skadelige. Men jeg blir urolig når jeg får høre at vitenskapelig konsensus er et bedrag, og at meningsmotstandere må avvises uten argumentasjon fordi de er løgnere.
Jeg håper ikke denne giften får infiltrere det norske samfunnet.
Derfor blir jeg urolig når jeg ser at politisk ukorrekte synspunkter avfeies med latterliggjøring. Det er en slik strategi som fører til at synspunktene heller fremmes i lukkede rom; rom som utvikler seg til ekkokamre, der ekstreme meninger får utvikle seg.
Når jeg leser slik latterliggjøring, får jeg lyst til å spørre: Ønsker du deg et samfunn der ytterliggående synspunkter lever sitt eget, isolerte liv? Der de kan vokse seg sterkere og mindre mottakelige for motargumenter?
På den andre siden leser jeg innlegg av dem som representerer en minoritet i samfunnsdebatten. Noen ganger antydes det at meningsmotstandere er motivert av et irrasjonelt hat mot dem som tenker som artikkelforfatteren.
Da får jeg lyst til å spørre: Ønsker du deg virkelig et samfunn preget av en slik grad av mistillit som du gir uttrykk for her?
Ønsker du deg et samfunn der du må sjekke hvilket parti piloten stemmer på før du kan sette deg på et fly? Eller der du må finne ut hvilken ideologi legen har før du våger å ta medisinen du fikk resept på?SSlubbert
Gjest
Godt innlegg, men å slenge ukritisk rundt seg med kommuniststempel faller vel også inn under problemet han beskriver?GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Opinion: The coronavirus wisdom of Stephen Colbert and Rousseau
Cristina Burack
As many European states begin relaxing restrictions in the COVID-19 outbreak, we'd do well to think like the comedian and philosopher, says Cristina Burack. It can help avoid a false dichotomy between liberty and health.
https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-the-coronavirus-wisdom-of-stephen-colbert-and-rousseau/a-53214270
What do an American comedian and an 18th-century French philosopher have to do with the coronavirus? These past days, when I've read the latest coronavirus news, I can't help but think of Stephen Colbert and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. An odd couple perhaps, but one that can help reframe how we think about the pandemic and restrictive measures.
Coronavirus debates have frequently presented society's health and individual liberty as diametrically opposed. Only at the cost of individual freedom to move around, pursue our professions and make self-determined choices can widespread health be preserved. In this light, even the requirement to wear a face mask in public spaces, which all of Germany's 16 states have individually promised to institute, could seem like another rights curtailment to some — the next evolutionary step in government-mandated restrictions.
A lesson in improv
Cue Stephen Colbert. After graduating from Northwestern University, Colbert launched his performing career in Chicago's improv scene. When he went back to the university to deliver the 2011 commencement speech, he reflected on relationships in improv:
"One of the things I was taught early on is that you are not the most important person in the scene. Everybody else is. And if they are the most important people in the scene, you will naturally pay attention to them and serve them. But the good news is you're in the scene too. So hopefully to them, you're the most important person, and they will serve you."
This statement contains wisdom we can extract and apply to the current situation, especially as the first European nations experiment with relaxing restrictions. People will be encountering one another again in public spaces — sharing the stage, so to speak. We must think like improv actors: How can I serve the most important person in the scene? In other words, how can I best protect you? A generous helping spirit has shone time and time again during the pandemic, but prioritizing the other must imbue all our actions for the foreseeable future as we begin to interact again.
One way is to adamantly maintain a 2-meter distance to all others. Another is strictly adhering to wearing a mask. Research has shown that a simple mask won't do much to protect you from being infected, but it can effectively prevent you from infecting others. You protect me in my daily life and I, in turn, protect you in yours. Seen through the Colbertian improv lens, restrictions are no longer restrictions: They are guarantees that every individual in the scene can participate to the fullest extent possible.
Read more: Coronavirus antibody tests and immunity certificates pose ethical and scientific problems
'Forced to be free'
However, for this to work, everyone must buy in. That's where Rousseau comes in. In The Social Contract, his monumental treatise from 1762, he lays out how individuals invest political legitimacy into a "sovereign" that enacts the general will for the common good. But, as he admits, "individual self-interest may speak to [a person] quite differently from how the common interest does."
Such differing self-interest is arguably especially high in Germany, which has so far been spared the horrific death tolls of other nations. Many may believe the worst is past and want to return to their old uninhibited life or think everything is under control and simply let down their guard. Where I live, the throngs of bare-faced individuals out and about certainly suggest this.
Enforcement of restrictions is needed. Or to use Rousseau's terms, we must be compelled to obey, for this "means nothing less than that each individual will be forced to be free." According to him, enforceable rules enhance our liberty since they secure us against "personal dependence." Whether verbal reminders from authorities, barred entry or even fines, the restrictions of this next phase in the coronavirus fight must be enforced. Only then can they save every person from having his or her individual right — including the right to not be harmed by another — infringed by someone else's whims. Enforced obligation of coronavirus restrictions maximizes the rights of individuals across society.
Compelled to prioritize one another
"Life is an improvisation," Colbert went on to say in his commencement speech. "You have no idea what's going to happen next and you are mostly just making things up as you go along."
This definitely sums up the present. No one knows what course the virus will take in Germany over the next few weeks. However, we do know that through our actions, each of us can do a lot to protect one another — and consequently ourselves — if reciprocity is forcibly mandated. So let's keep improvising, with Colbert and Rousseau in mind, and make sure everyone else around us is the most important person in the scene.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Verdt å lese, og ganske dagsaktuelt
The Culture-War Has Begun Due To Social Distance
https://golfshub.info/the-culture-war-has-begun-due-to-social-distance/
Vis vedlegget 581955
For Geoff Frost, the primary sign of the coronavirus culture war came last weekend on the golf links. His club, located in an affluent suburb of Atlanta, had recently introduced a slew of latest policies to encourage social distancing. The communal water jugs were gone, the restaurant was closed, and golfers had been asked to limit themselves to at least one person per cart. Frost, a 43-year-old Democrat, told me the club’s mixture of younger liberals and older conservatives had always gotten along just fine—but the rules were proving divisive.
At the golf range, while Frost and his like-minded friends slathered available sanitizer and kept six feet apart, the white-haired Republicans appeared to the enjoyment of breaking the new rules. They made a show of shaking hands and complained loudly about the “stupid hoax” being propagated by virus alarmists. When their tee times were up, they piled defiantly into golf carts, shoulder to shoulder, and sped off toward the primary hole.
Frost felt conflicted. He wanted to encourage the lads, a number of whom he’d known for years, to be more careful. “I care about their well-being,” he told me. “But it’s a troublesome call, just personally, because it’s become a political thing.”
For a quick moment earlier this month, it seemed as if social distancing could be the one new a part of American life that wasn’t polarized along party lines. Schools were closed red states and blue; people across the political spectrum retreated into their homes. Though President Donald Trump had played down the pandemic initially, he was beginning to take the threat more seriously—and his media allies followed suit. Reminders to scrub your hands and avoid crowds became commonplace on both Fox News and MSNBC. those that chose to ignore this guidance—the spring-breakers clogging beaches, the revelers on Bourbon Street—appeared to try to so for apolitical reasons. For the foremost part, it seemed, everyone was on an equivalent page.
The consensus didn’t last long. Trump, having apparently grown impatient with all the quarantines and lockdowns, began last week to involve a fast return to business as was common . “we cannot let the cure be worse than the matter itself,” he tweeted, in characteristic caps lock. chatting with Fox News, he added that he would “love” to ascertain businesses and churches reopened by Easter. Though Trump would later walk them back, the comments depart a well-known sequence—a Democratic backlash, a pile-on within the press, and a rush in MAGA-world to defend the president. because the coronavirus now emerges as another front within the culture war, social distancing has come to be viewed in some quarters as a political act—thanks to signal which side you’re on.
Some of the more brazen departures from public-health consensus have carried a whiff of right-wing performance art. Jerry Falwell Jr., an outspoken Trump ally and president of the evangelical Liberty University, made headlines in the week for inviting students back to campus over objections from local officials. The conservative website The Federalist published a trollish piece proposing “chicken-pox parties” as a model for strategically spreading the coronavirus. Throughout the conservative media, calls to reopen the economy—even if it means sacrificing the sick and elderly—are gaining traction.
“I would rather die than kill the country,” Glenn Beck declared on his radio show.
“Those folks who are 70-plus, we’ll look out of ourselves,” Texas elected official Dan Patrick said on Fox News.
Dennis Prager, a conservative commentator, even compared outbreak-mitigation efforts to Nazi appeasement: “That attitude, that the sole value is saving a life … it results in cowardice. It has to. nobody can die? Then it’s not a war.”
This dynamic is playing calls in small ways across the country. Bret, a sales representative from Plano, Texas, who asked that I not use his surname, proudly told me how unfazed he and his conservative neighbors were by the threat of an epidemic. In his view, the recent wave of government-mandated lockdowns was a product of panic-mongering within the mainstream media, and he welcomed Trump’s involve businesses to reopen by Easter.
When I asked whether the virus had interfered together with his lifestyle, Bret laughed. “Oh, I’m getting to the shooting gallery tomorrow,” he replied.
Was he worried that his friends might disapprove if they found out?
“No,” he told me, “around here, I buy far more of individuals saying, ‘Why don’t you go Saturday so I can go, too?’”
Terry Trahan, a manager at a cutlery store in Lubbock, Texas, acknowledged that a particular “toxic tribalism” was informing people’s attitudes toward the pandemic. “If someone’s a Democrat, they’re gonna say it’s worse,” he told me, “and if someone’s a Republican, they’re gonna say it’s bad, but it’s recuperating .”
As an immunocompromised cancer survivor, Trahan said he’s conversant in commonsense social-distancing practices. But as a conservative, he’s become convinced that a lot of Democrats are so invested within the concept the virus is going to be disastrous that they’re pushing for prolonged, unnecessary shutdowns in pursuit of vindication.
Among experts, there’s a firm consensus that social distancing is important to containing the spread of the virus—and they warn that politicizing the practice could have dangerous ramifications. “This may be a pandemic, and shouldn’t be played out as a skirmish on an area playground,” Dina Borzekowski, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, recently told Stat. (For the instant, at least, the scientists seem to possess brought the president around: Yesterday, Trump announced he was extending social-distancing guidance until the top of April.)
Of course, not everyone who flouts social distancing is making a political statement. Many need to work because they can’t afford to; others are acting out of ignorance or illusion. Beyond personal behavior, there’s a legitimate debate to be had about the way to balance economic demands while combatting a worldwide pandemic.
Still, the polarization around public health seems to be accelerating: In recent days, Republican governors in Alabama and Mississippi have resisted calls to enact more forceful mitigation policies. Polling data suggest that Republicans throughout the U.S. are much less concerned about the coronavirus than Democrats are. consistent with a recent analysis by The NY Times, Trump won 23 of the 25 states where people have reduced personal travel the smallest amount.
Some of this is often likely shaped by the very fact that the foremost serious outbreaks thus far within the U.S. are concentrated in urban centers on the coasts (a pattern which will not hold for long). But there are real ideological forces at work also.
Katherine Vincent-Crowson, a 35-year-old self-defense instructor from Slidell, Louisiana, has watched in horror this month as businesses round her city were forced to shut by state decree. a lover of Rand, Vincent-Crowson told me Louisiana’s shelter-in-place order was a daunting example of state overreach.
“It feels very militaristic,” she said. “I’m a bit like, ‘What the hell, is that this 1940s Germany?’”
But once we spoke, she seemed even more aggravated by the “self-righteous” people on social media who spend their time publicly shaming anyone who isn’t staying locked in their house. “It really jogs my memory of my kids who tattle on their siblings once they do something bad,” she said. “I’m a libertarian … I don’t adore being told what to try to to .”GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Intervju med en hedersmann, og kanskje et par hint her til hvorfor alternative ideologer frykter ham så mye at de må ty til mistenkeliggjøring, ryktespredning og tilgrising.
---
Å bli oljefondsjef er et verdivalg for Nicolai Tangen
Nicolai Tangen skal gi bort eierandeler i hedgefondet for å bli minoritetseier. Nå skal han skape verdier for det norske folk.
AV HANS CHRISTIAN PAULSEN OG ERLEND BERGE
https://reportasje.vl.no/artikkel/1...angen-denne-jobben-har-jeg-ikke-tenkt-a-miste
alternativ link for den som synes det er litt for skummelt å lese VL:
https://www.dagsavisen.no/nyheter/i...-er-et-verdivalg-for-nicolai-tangen-1.1706557
– Jeg kunne satt meg på båten min og drukket vin. Jeg kunne levd herrens glade dager livet ut. Men jeg vil heller bruke det jeg kan om kapitalforvaltning til å gjøre noe positivt for samfunnet og for Norge. Å komme hjem og ta denne stillingen er et verdivalg om hva jeg vil bruke livet mitt på, sier Nicolai Tangen i et eksklusivt intervju med Vårt Land.
Med verdivalg mener Tangen to ting. For det første flytter han fra hjemmet sitt i London for å ta jobben som sjef i Oljefondet.
Det første året uten sin kone, som skal være igjen i London med *deres yngste sønn. Han har ett år igjen av skolegangen.
I tillegg er det et valg som vil få betydelige økonomiske konsekvenser. Dagens Næringsliv har beregnet at han vil tape 13 milliarder kroner på å bytte jobb.
Tangen sitter i hjemme- karantene i Oslo og snakker med Vårt Land via Skype. Han kaster *stadige blikk ned på telefonen.
Det har stormet rundt Tangen den siste uken, særlig på grunn av det mye omtalte «drømme*seminaret» i Philadelphia.
Han tviler *likevel ikke på om det var riktig å ta jobben.
– Jeg er tvert imot enda mer «keen» på denne jobben enn jeg var før. Nå skal jeg jobbe døgnet rundt for å bevise for det norske* folk hvorfor jeg ble valgt, sier *Nicolai Tangen.
– Jeg har ikke gjort noen formelle feil
– Er du redd for å miste jobben før du begynner?
Tangen ler og smiler, men blir med ett alvorlig i blikket.
– Jeg har ikke tenkt å miste denne jobben, nei. Og jeg er ikke redd for det. Jeg har ikke gjort noen formelle feil her, sier Tangen, og legger til at han planla seminaret flere år før han ble kontaktet om sjefsjobben i Olje*fondet.
– Jeg har tenkt å sitte i den *stolen i begynnelsen av september, sier han bestemt, og sikter til dagen han formelt overtar *jobben etter Yngve Slyngstad, som har ledet Oljefondet de siste tolv årene.
Fondet er verdt omlag 10,5 tusen milliarder kroner, investert utenlands i aksjer, obligasjoner og *eiendom.
Interessekonfliktene
Tangen går fra en posisjon som en av de fremste innen internasjonal finans*forvaltning. Siden oppstarten for 15 år siden har fondet hans, AKO Capital, i snitt utklasset markedet.*
Ifølge Kapital var Tangens formue i 2019 på 5,5 milliarder kroner. Flere har vært bekymret for at formuen kan skape interesse*konflikter når han blir sjef i Olje*fondet.
– Er det noe du gjør nå, eller tenker å gjøre, for å klargjøre at det ikke er interessekonflikter?
– Ja, det er det absolutt. Dette* er ting som vi snakket om i *ansettelsesprosessen, og som vi ble enige om at skulle være på plass i god tid før jeg startet i *jobben. «Compliance-menneskene» i AKO og «compliance-menneskene» i Norges Bank jobber nå sammen for å finne en struktur på mine investeringer som gjør at dette blir problemfritt.
«Compliance-mennesker» *betyr enkelt forklart folk som jobber med at ting er i overensstemmelse med lover, regelverk og interne standarder.
– Det de kommer fram til, blir naturligvis offentlig når det er klart. Jeg er ganske sikker på at folk kommer til å være fornøyde når de ser det. Men en sånn prosess er ikke gjort over natten. Det tar rett og slett litt tid, fordi det er komplekse, juridiske ting som skal på plass.
Gir fra seg kontrollen i AKO Capital
AKO Capital er et fond som investerer i en rekke selskaper som de tror vil stige i verdi over tid. Målet er å kjøpe aksjer som er for lavt priset av markedet, for så å selge når verdien stiger til «riktig» nivå.
Innvendingene mot Tangens eierskap har i stor grad dreid seg om at fondet hans er registrert i skatteparadiset Cayman-øyene.
Å kvitte seg med hele fondet mener han ikke er et godt alternativ.
– Når du selger den typen *firmaer, selger du som regel bare 20 prosent av det. Derfor vil ikke det være noe særlig poeng i det. Du vil aldri få solgt et helt slikt firma.
– Dette må du forklare. Hvorfor ikke?
– Det er et firma som er avhengig av de som jobber der, av de som overtar etter meg. Det er menneskene og arbeidsmetoden som er verdien i selskapet. Men jeg skal gi bort en større del av firmaet til andre ansatte når jeg nå slutter.
– Hvorfor gjør du det?
– Rett og slett fordi jeg ikke skal jobbe der, og da fortjener jeg mindre av overskuddet.
– Får du det tilbake når du er ferdig?
– Nei.
– Gir du fra deg kontrollerende aksjemajoritet?
– Min eierandel går ned i forbindelse med at jeg trekker meg ut. På sikt går jeg nok ned til en minoritet, ja. Kontrollen og styr*ingen vil uansett bli håndtert av andre enn meg så lenge jeg sitter som sjef for Oljefondet.
Folkets tillit viktig for Tangen
Den siste tidens søkelys på Tangen har gjort han til et samtaleemne i det ganske land.
– Hvor viktig er tilliten det norske* folk har til deg i den jobben* du skal inn i?
– Den er veldig viktig.
– Hvordan tror du de siste ukene har påvirket tilliten?
– Det må nesten andre folk uttale seg om. Det er vanskelig å uttale meg om andre folk har tillit til meg. Det jeg har gjort, er å stå frem og være åpen og tilgjengelig for alle hele tiden, gitt all informasjon jeg kan. Og til slutt – og dette er viktig: Jeg har jo ikke gjort noe galt, sier Tangen.
Tilliten tror han kommer når alt er lagt frem og han leverer resultater.
– Når representantskapet og styret forhåpentligvis godkjenner ansettelsesavtaler og den typen ting, så håper jeg den tilliten kommer på plass. Da handler det om å levere, sier han.
Han angrer på én ting
Tangen mener bestemt at han ikke har grunn til å angre på noe fra tiden før han fikk jobben.
– Når jeg ser tilbake, var *arrangementet i Amerika litt vel påkostet. Det var fryktelig mye penger. Ellers angrer jeg ingenting av det jeg selv har gjort.
– Hva med plassering av penger på Cayman-øyene, burde du vært mer åpen?
– Jeg tror ikke det er så mye vi kunne gjort annerledes. Dette har vært jobben min, og det er industristandard å være registrert der. Jeg har hele tiden vært 100 prosent åpen med ansettelseskomitéen i Norges Bank om mine plasseringer.
– Kan du forklare, helt enkelt, hvorfor det er nødvendig å være på Cayman?
– Da vi startet AKO Capital for 15 år siden var det helt nødvendig, en forutsetning for å drive. Nå er 65 prosent av hedgefond*ene i verden der. Grunnen er at det er administrativt enkelt og at investorene unngår dobbelbeskatning, sier Tangen.
– Flere har indikert at du tar jobben for egen vinning, blant annet ved at det er en unik måte å utvide nettverket for en finansmann. Hva sier du til det?
– For det første: Det er bare noe sprøyt, sier Tangen.
Han mener konferansen i Philadelphia viser at han allerede «har et greit nettverk».
– For det andre: Jeg tenker ikke på mennesker som del av et nettverk. Å treffe spennende mennesker er det som gjør livet verdt å leve. Å sette sammen grupper av mennesker er det jeg har gjort hele livet, sier han.
Har ikke tenkt å endre stilen
Stilen til Tangen har fått oppmerksomhet de siste ukene, at tonen hans med maktpersoner har vært vel personlig og hjertelig, er noe av det som har gitt grobunn for *spekulasjoner omkring hans ansettelse.
Men han har ikke tenkt å endre seg nevneverdig når han blir sjef for Oljefondet.
– Jeg har tenkt å fortsette å være en hyggelig og sjenerøs kar. Men nå har jeg en annen hatt på enn som hedgefondsjef. Som sjef for Oljefondet er det helt andre begrensinger som legges på forbruk og måten jeg skal opptre på, sier Tangen.
– Kan det være noe med din filantropi, kall det gjerne «snillhet», som ikke passer helt med norsk kultur?
– Ja, jeg tror du har helt rett der, sier Tangen.
Han føler «enkelte eksperter» tillegger han motiver som han ikke har.
– Det er ingen i Norge som tror at man bare gjør noe for å være grei. Det er ingen som tror at jeg bare ville lage et «jækla» bra seminar. Jeg har ingen planer om å få noe tilbake hverken for kunstsilogaven eller seminaret i Amerika.
Tar jobben for å gi noe tilbake
Tangen ser på jobben i Oljefondet som en *mulighet til å gi noe tilbake til hjemlandet.
– Det er den norske stat som gjorde utdannelsen jeg fikk på Wharton, mulig. Nå kan jeg betale noe tilbake, sier han.
Wharton er handelshøyskolen ved Universitetet i Pennsylvania, et av de åtte prestisjetunge Ivy League-universitetene i USA. Tre års finansutdannelse der, som er det Tangen tok, koster en liten formue.
– Det var veldig sjenerøse støtteordninger for utdanning i utlandet den gangen. Å komme tilbake til start og runde av *karrieren i Oljefondet, det føles veldig riktig, sier Tangen.
Gir bort pengene
Tanken om at det er viktig å utjevne urettferdighet har han blant annet fått gjennom å se på egne barns privilegier. Han gjentar flere ganger gjennom intervjuet at han synes det er rart å bli mistenkeliggjort for å ha grådighetsmotiver, når han planlegger å gi bort pengene sine.
Tangen har blant annet signert «The Giving Pledge», et initiativ av Bill Gates og Warren Buffett, der han forplikter seg til å gi bort halve formuen til veldedighet.
I AKO Foundation, Tangens veldedige stiftelse, har han *etter eget sigende puttet inn nesten fem milliarder kroner siden den ble opprettet i 2013.
– Vi har hovedvekt på unge jenter i det globale sør. Vi har også programmer for vanskeligstilte barn i England, sier han.
Han er opptatt av at barn skal ha så like muligheter som mulig.
Tangen uttalte under offentliggjøringen av at han fikk sjef*stillingen, at han var for hundre prosent arveavgift.
Han presiserte senere at han snakket om sine egne barn, og at det ikke var en politisk uttalelse.
– Skal barna virkelig ikke arve noe etter deg?
– De skal få sko og utdannelse.
– Noen veldig fine sko, da?
– Vanlige sko, men en veldig fin utdannelse, sier Tangen.
Middelklasseoppvekst
Tangen beskriver seg som et «kremmertalent», som tidlig fattet interesse for å gjøre en krone om til to. Han plukket blomster som han solgte på torget og samlet inn tomflasker på Start-kamper. De pengene begynte han å investere i finansmarkedet som 16-åring.
Han vokste opp i det han beskriver som en helt vanlig middelklassefamilie i Kristiansand. Men han skynder seg å legge til at han kommer fra «et møblert hjem, altså».
Tangen har flere ganger nevnt moren. Til VG sa han at det er moren som har lært ham å gi bort det fineste han har.
– Hun er et kulturelt menneske og interessert i kunst. Det var hun som vekket kunst*gleden i meg. Hun er også den mest gavmilde personen jeg har truffet. De som var på besøk hos oss kunne ikke kommentere at noe var fint, for da fikk de det med seg hjem, sier han og smiler.
At han har studert hele livet, tror han også skyldes moren.
– Hun tok hoveddelen av sin utdannelse som voksen. Vi studerte egentlig sammen, jeg som barn og hun som voksen. Det er nok noe av det mest inspirerende som har skjedd meg, sier Tangen.
I ungdommen var han aktiv i det kristne skolelaget.
– Jeg var bønn- og misjonssjef i skolelaget. Jeg må være så *ærlig og si at det har rent litt vann i bekken siden den tid. Jeg har fremdeles et livssyn, men det har utviklet seg, sier Tangen, og *legger til at dette er noe han ikke vil si så mye om.
– Men jeg tror at det finnes allmenngyldige etiske og moralske regler, uansett hvem du er og hvor du er, er det ganske klart hva som er rett og galt. Uavhengig* av om du er kristen eller ikke.
Middelklasseoppvekst
Tangen beskriver seg som et «kremmertalent», som tidlig fattet interesse for å gjøre en krone om til to. Han plukket blomster som han solgte på torget og samlet inn tomflasker på Start-kamper. De pengene begynte han å investere i finansmarkedet som 16-åring.
Han vokste opp i det han beskriver som en helt vanlig middelklassefamilie i Kristiansand. Men han skynder seg å legge til at han kommer fra «et møblert hjem, altså».
Tangen har flere ganger nevnt moren. Til VG sa han at det er moren som har lært ham å gi bort det fineste han har.
– Hun er et kulturelt menneske og interessert i kunst. Det var hun som vekket kunst*gleden i meg. Hun er også den mest gavmilde personen jeg har truffet. De som var på besøk hos oss kunne ikke kommentere at noe var fint, for da fikk de det med seg hjem, sier han og smiler.
At han har studert hele livet, tror han også skyldes moren.
– Hun tok hoveddelen av sin utdannelse som voksen. Vi studerte egentlig sammen, jeg som barn og hun som voksen. Det er nok noe av det mest inspirerende som har skjedd meg, sier Tangen.
I ungdommen var han aktiv i det kristne skolelaget.
– Jeg var bønn- og misjonssjef i skolelaget. Jeg må være så *ærlig og si at det har rent litt vann i bekken siden den tid. Jeg har fremdeles et livssyn, men det har utviklet seg, sier Tangen, og *legger til at dette er noe han ikke vil si så mye om.
– Men jeg tror at det finnes allmenngyldige etiske og moralske regler, uansett hvem du er og hvor du er, er det ganske klart hva som er rett og galt. Uavhengig* av om du er kristen eller ikke.
Har studert kunsthistorie
Men så blir blikket fokusert igjen. Tilbake til historien om millionen.
– Etter hvert ble jeg tilbudt jobb hos det som var min største* kunde, Egerton Capital, som den gang var et av de første hedgefondene i Europa. Der var jeg partner i fem år og fikk litt for godt betalt. Det gjorde at jeg kunne slutte å jobbe, og istedenfor studere kunsthistorie på fulltid i to år.
Han tok en master på Courtauld Institute of Art i London.
– Jeg hadde samlet kunst i mange år. Det bygget seg opp et behov for å systematisere kunnskapen, etter å ha holdt på med det i en til to timer hver dag. Jeg tenkte at jeg måtte ta mulig*heten til å gjøre det på heltid, sier *Tangen.
– Hva er favorittboken?
– Anna Karenina.
– Den leste du på russisk?
– Jeg skulle ønske at jeg kunne svare ja. Men det har jeg dessverre ikke. Russisken har gått i glemmeboka. Nå er det så vidt jeg kan si «njet».
Få pengebingen til å vokse
Nå er det *Norges oljefond Tangen skal «studere».
– Frem til jeg begynner i jobben skal jeg sette meg inn i Oljefondet. Jeg skal forstå ordentlig hvordan hele økosystemet ser ut, sier han.
AKO Capital utelukker selskaper etter samme metode som *Oljefondet. Tangen sier at Oljefondets etiske standard og innvirkning globalt er noe av det som trigger han mest.
Men hovedmålet med jobben er klart: Den norske oljeformuen skal vokse.
– Jeg skal selvfølgelig tenke på hvordan jeg kan få den skuta til å seile bittelitt fortere, sier han.
Tangen beveger hendene raskt fram og tilbake.
– Den pengesekken er så stor at hvis vi får til å skape bare en liten meravkastning, så blir tallene helt enorme, sier Tangen.
Redd for å mislykkes?
Ti tusen milliarder, litt avhengig av valutakurser og markedsvigninger, det er et enormt ansvar.
Han snakker også varmt om mannen han skal ta over etter, og sier blant annet at det bør stå en statue av Yngve Slyngstad på Karl Johan.
– Er du redd for å mislykkes?
– Nei, jeg lever bare én gang. Samtidig jeg går inn i denne jobben med den største ydmykhet. Dessuten er ikke Oljefondet et «one man show», men består av utrolig flinke medarbeidere fra hele verden. Min jobb er først og fremst å utvikle organisasjonen og få det beste ut av mannskapet, akkurat som kapteinen på en seilbåt.
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
The rise of cutesy radicals
How primary-school drawings and facepaint became the aesthetic of the middle-class left.
The rise of cutesy radicals
How primary-school drawings and facepaint became the aesthetic of the middle-class left.
www.spiked-online.com
The cover of last week’s Radio Times features a badly painted rainbow with the words ‘Our NHS Heroes’ underneath. It reflects how such primary-school paintings, drawn by kids and hung in families’ front windows to express support for the NHS, have come to symbolise the lockdown era in the UK. They’ve supposedly become the unifying symbol of a nation stuck in a health crisis, but united in solidarity with frontline workers. But these kiddie rainbow paintings, often complete with ‘I Heart the NHS’ and ‘PPE Now!’ scrawled in crayon, also reflect the broader symbolism of middle-class radicals today.
These rainbow pictures are ubiquitous in many different parts of the country. But in well-to-do districts of north London, they seem to have replaced EU flags or Vote Labour posters as conspicuous symbols of a radical household. Still, it’s not clear how children’s paintings fit in with the Covid-19 crisis. Children are far less likely to contract the disease and suffer fatalities – it’s the old folk you have to worry about. It’s good to express solidarity with health workers and other key workers, but why use an eight-year-old’s rubbish daubing to do that?
The children involved here are themselves blameless, even if their grasp of a paintbrush is shocking. It is middle-class parents who have become oddly attached to primary-school aesthetics. It pops up everywhere. Long before the Covid lockdown, we were staring at children’s eco-doom posters held up at school strikes. They’re often seen on Extinction Rebellion carnivals and other protests against climate change, too. At the big People’s Vote demonstrations against Brexit last year, the combination of facepaint and homemade placards created a feel closer to a school outing than an edgy protest.
Primary-school imagery has also become a marketing device for big companies. Ice-cream company Ben & Jerry’s (part of the Unilever corporation) has long used kiddish paintings on marketing campaigns, including those associated with its One World / One Heart campaign. Then there is the Innocent Drinks company (owned by Coca-Cola), whose images and fonts resemble a primary-school reading book. Delivery service Ocado has a fleet of vans that resemble a children’s toy set – all blaring primary colours and ‘A is for Apple’ images.
The overall effect of all this is to make big companies appear like small cottage industries, and ones that also champion good ethical and environmental causes. Primary-school images, then, have become code for virtue. They are designed to make a political slogan or product appear unquestionably good and wholesome. There’s also a whiff of moral blackmail about such kiddie-designed propaganda. It smacks of ‘doing it for the kids’, and only a misanthrope could possibly object to that.
But there’s more going on here than a fad for cutsey aesthetics among so-called radicals. There’s an increasing desire among the middle classes for our lives to be similar to a child’s on a long summer holiday. Since the lockdown, this desire to retreat from adult domains of work, business and civic life has become more pronounced. Some will say social isolation is about saving lives, but for many middle-class professionals social isolation is good in itself. As one Observer reader put it in a letter to the paper’s advice columnist recently: ‘I know our freedom has been temporarily taken away from us. But I’m dreading the end of lockdown. For years I’ve craved a slower pace of life. Lockdown has allowed me to spend time with my family – and not on the relentless promise of success in my career.’ Others declare that the lockdown has enabled them to enjoy ‘floating along with my thoughts while having no obligations at all’.
Since the Sixties, middle-class radicals have viewed adulthood with disdain. This is because adulthood is interpreted as accepting a formal and regimented social existence. Childhood innocence is seen as preferable to the adult world of responsibilities and difficult decision-making. Covid-19 has provided some people with an ideal opportunity to live out such decadent fantasies, to turn their backs on adulthood and independence. No wonder primary-school paintings have become the symbol of our times.
Neil DavenportGGjestemedlem
Gjest
Litt vanskelig fysikk.. men om du klarer å henge med er dette pur gull.
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Litt seriøs nå.. viktig!
--
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Michael Malice (Author, The New Right) about the eighth chapter of “Don’t Burn This Book”, entitled “Learn How To Spot Fake News’’. Special guest Michael Malice and Dave Rubin talk about the hypocrisy and double standards of the mainstream media. They discuss how the media which was quick to report on many disproved allegations against Brett Kavanaugh now seem to be ignoring the seemingly more credible allegations against the DNC presidential nominee Joe Biden. The same media that chanted #metoo and “believe all women” now seem silent when it is politically inconvenient. Dave discusses this hypocrisy and how it leads to the further erosion of trust in our media institutions at a time when we desperately need trustworthy media to make sense of our world. Dave also discusses how many people who were lied about by the media like Nick Sandmann, James Damore, Bret Weinstein, Lindsay Shepherd and Ben Shapiro have all emerged stronger afterwards. Dave also shares his own personal experience concerning a smear piece in the New York Times that was written about him.
influenser
en person hvis kompetanse består i likerklikk.
en god analyse av fenomet:
Lukten av Narcissus
Derfor kjennes samtidens mote ekstremt fristende og lammende døll, skriver Ragnhild Brochmann.
morgenbladet.no
Godt sagt
Flokken er på jakt igjen
Oslo-pressen er på jakt igjen, denne gang er byttet den norske industrien.nordnorskdebatt.no
Spot on
Venstresidens blindsone i innvandringsdebatten
Dagens politiske debatt om innvandring er innskrenket til spørsmål om «verdier», der all diskusjon er forbudt.www.aftenposten.no
- Ble medlem
- 19.09.2014
- Innlegg
- 21.970
- Antall liker
- 14.540
Denne er ganske bra - det er fra bloggen til en amerikansk forvaltningsrådgiver og formueforvalter, men akkurat denne posten handler ikke om finans, men om hvordan generasjoner former sin tid. En samtale med Neil Howe, en forfatter/demograf.
History Creates Generations, Generations Create History - Evergreen Gavekal
Neil Howe, author of “The Fourth Turning: What the Cycles of History Tell Us About America’s Next Rendezvous with Destiny” and managing director of demography at Hedgeye, joined Real Vision TV in February to discuss the demographic forces shaping the coming retirement crisis and the future of...
blog.evergreengavekal.com
We forget that at one point, state universities were very often free. I went to UC San Diego and UC Berkley and paid $85 a semester and guess who paid for it? The G.I. generation. And now Boomers and Xers are saying, no, no, pay for your own education and build your own infrastructure. We’re not going to build anything for you, but you have a lot of liabilities to us such as Social Security and Medicare. If I were a Millennial, I'd be outraged. Boomers were given everything publicly, never replaced anything that was built, and now they want to take all their marbles back from the generation that’s coming next.GGjestemedlem
Gjest
The tyranny of cancel culture
Trump is right: cancel culture is destroying freedom of thought.
The tyranny of cancel culture
Trump is right: cancel culture is destroying freedom of thought.
www.spiked-online.com
Trump is right. Cancel culture is the key weapon in the armoury of the intolerant. In his 4 July speech at Mount Rushmore, Trump talked about the ‘political weapon’ of ‘cancel culture’ – the totalitarian thirst for ‘driving people from their jobs, shaming dissenters, and demanding total submission from anyone who disagrees’.
On the cult of wokeness, the ideology of PC that says there is only one way to think about history, race, gender and myriad other issues, Trump declared: ‘If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted and punished.’
Anyone who has been awake at any time over the past four weeks will know that Trump is right. They will have witnessed the furious, misogynistic rage against JK Rowling for refusing to ‘speak the language’ of the new woke elites – in this case the eccentric, science-denying language of ‘genderfluidity’. They will have seen Britain’s foreign secretary Dominic Raab being mauled for days for refusing to ‘perform the rituals’ of the correct-think mob – in this case by taking the knee (that is, bowing down) to the slogan of Black Lives Matter and all the identitarian nonsense that lurks behind it.
And they will have seen black actor and TV host Terry Crews being denounced as a race traitor for refusing to ‘recite the mantras’ of the new identitarianism – in Crews’ case by expressing concern that the cry of ‘black lives matter’ might morph into a belief that ‘black lives are better’. In short, Crews was flirting with the great blasphemy of our time – the idea that ‘all lives matter’.
And yet what has been the response to Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech from the commentariat and the liberal elites? Sheer, bizarre denialism. They insist cancel culture is a myth. They say there is no culture war against the past or against ordinary people’s moral and cultural values. That’s a lie spread by right-wingers like Trump, they claim. In fact, if anyone is igniting a culture war, it’s Trump, they say. ‘Trump fuels culture war at Mount Rushmore’, as a New York Times headline put it.
Why is it a culture war when Trump criticises cancel culture and defends the American Revolution, but not a culture war when the New York Times launches a vast multimedia project to diminish the importance of 1776, the year America declared independence, and to elevate the importance of 1619, the year slaves first arrived in the US? Why is it a culture war when Trump encourages his supporters to stand up to the new authoritarianism, but not a culture war when the New York Times caves in to its young woke employees and sacks its opinion editor for the crime of publishing a wrongthink piece about the recent George Floyd riots? Why is it a culture war when right-wingers complain about intolerance and censorship, but not a culture war when the cultural elites enforce such things?
The reaction to Trump’s Mount Rushmore speech has provided a fascinating insight into contemporary wokeness, into the outlook of those convinced that they are in possession of all the correct thoughts and that they must now cleanse and reorder the minds of those who are not.
The most striking thing is the cognitive dissonance. Even as statues continue to fall, these people claim there is no culture war against the values of the past. Even as likenesses of George Washington are burnt and abused and monuments to Christopher Columbus are decapitated and daubed with slurs, they insist there’s no culture war – except from those who say ‘Leave the statues alone’, of course. Even as JK Rowling continues to be subjected to a slurry of misogynistic insults – telling her to ‘suck a lady dick’ or ‘fuck off and die’ – they claim there is no serious culture of intolerance. Even as people literally lose their jobs for criticising BLM, they say PC cancellation is a myth dreamt up by right-wingers.
It’s remarkable. And revealing. Such levels of self-deception, such a Kafkaesque ability to be simultaneously engaged in a war against history and wrongthink while publicly insisting that these things only exist in the fevered imaginations of the likes of Trump and the people who vote for him, speaks to the dangers of life in the echo chamber.
For when you inhabit a ‘safe space’, when you inoculate yourself against what you consider to be difficult, challenging or simply divergent points of view, a number of bad things happen to you. You become dogmatic, since you increasingly cling to your beliefs not because you have tested them in the public sphere (that’s too scary) but because you just know they are right. You become less adept at critical thought and critical self-reflection. After all, as Cardinal John Henry Newman put it, ‘The human intellect does from opposition grow’. Force-fielding oneself against opposition stunts one’s capacity to reason and change.
And you become unworldly. Divorced from reality. So blindly convinced of your own righteousness that you do not even recognise your censorship, your fury and your hatred for what they are. To you, they’re good, normal things. To you, it’s bizarre when someone accuses you of being engaged in vicious crusades of intolerance against people who merely disagree with you, because you believe that cancel culture is a decent thing, the right response to those who are morally fallen and who refuse to speak the language, perform the rituals and recite the mantras of political communities like yours. Life in the self-reinforcing chamber of correct opinion warps the human intellect to such a degree that the chamber’s inhabitants come to mistake their dogma for truth, their censorship for a public good, and their extraordinary cruelty against dissenters for essential moral correction.
In a sense we should sympathise with those who say cancel culture is a myth. Some of them are just lying, sure, desperately trying to deflect criticism of their immoral behaviour. But others say this because they are so lost in the increasingly unstable cult of hyper-fragility, and in the self-protecting campaigns of intolerance that go along with it, that they cannot see the wrongness of what they are doing. That’s bad for those of us who want to understand and challenge the new politics of unfreedom, and it’s bad for the deniers, too, who live in a fantasy world in which they are the decent, progressive ones on the right side of history, when nothing could be further from the truth. Such self-delusion is not healthy.
So let’s get things straight. Cancel culture is real and it is incredibly destructive. Here are just a small proportion of the people cancelled for wrongthink in the UK in recent years. Labour MP Sarah Champion lost her place in the shadow cabinet for daring to speak about working-class girls who were being raped by largely Muslim grooming gangs. Alastair Stewart lost his job at ITV News for a tweet that some wrongly said was racist. Same with radio host Danny Baker.
Maya Forstater has lost work for daring to criticise the cult of transgenderism. Selina Todd and Julie Bindel are No Platformed for the same thoughtcrime. Graham Linehan has been expelled from Twitter for likewise doubting the ability of men to become women. Toby Young lost education jobs after Twittermobs subjected him to a politically vindictive round of offence archaeology and dug up some old jokes he’d made. Baroness Nicholson was dumped by the Booker Prize for ‘transphobia’, a radio presenter on the Isle of Man was suspended for criticising the idea of white privilege (he’s now been reinstated), and a Welsh journalist was removed from the judging panel of a literary prize after he criticised BLM.
Here’s the critical thing, though: even when targets for cancellation don’t lose their jobs, cancel culture still has its desired noxious effect. It still chills public debate. It still sends a clear warning to the public: express these views and you could be punished; you might even lose your income. Indeed, the central problem with cancel culture is not what it does to individuals – awful as that is – but rather what it does to public life more broadly. Consider the case of JK Rowling. ‘She’s still a successful author. She hasn’t been cancelled’, say the misogynistic apologists for the abuse that she receives. Rowling, of course, is too much of a global cultural phenomenon to be cancelled. It doesn’t work on her. But what about people who share her views but do not enjoy her level of financial or cultural security? They will see her being subjected to rape threats, death threats, boycotts and defamation and conclude: ‘Expressing biological truths is too risky. I won’t do it.’
This is cancel culture’s most grotesque achievement: to chill everyday discussion; to make examples of prominent wrongthinkers in order to warn the entire population; to enforce and police parameters of acceptable thought and to make it clear that anyone who steps outside of them risks, in Trump’s words, being ‘censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted and punished’. It is real, it is wrong, and it is destructive. It harms individuals and it shatters liberty. It induces fear in ordinary people and it stultifies public debate. A healthy society is built on freedom, openness and the rights of dissent and intellectual experimentation. Cancel culture undermines all of those things. That’s why it must be defeated.
Brendan O’NeillGGjestemedlem
Gjest
Ikke alle er fanget i massehysteriet.
En brennmanet til Flokkdyret - BOK365.no
SOMMERGJESTEN: Sakprosa-nestor Alf R. Jacobsen er ute med ny bok om 9. april 1940. Sommerferien tilbringes på Costa del Sol.
bok365.no
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
It's time to speak out against cancel culture
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the...
www.spectator.co.uk
Byens blindsone
I storbyene i og utenfor Norge har media, spaltister, politikere og kommunikasjonsindustrien fått det privilegium å definere hva som er selvfølgelig, rettferdig, liberalt og klimavennlig. Alle oppegående må sørge for å henge med i den rådende identitetsdiskursen, knyttet til seksuell legning...GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Alex Iversen
I 1972 ble det funnet et forord George Orwell hadde skrevet til romanen Animal Farm, som aldri var blitt publisert. Det Orwell skriver om i forordet er primært britiske marxister som ikke ville vedkjenne seg, og snakke om, overgrepene til Stalin etter krigen. Men i denne teksten formulerer han noe vesentlig: at selvpålagt sensur, og frykt for å si det man tror/mener er sannheten fordi det sosiale presset kan bli for stort å bære, i demokratiske samfunn er et mye større problem enn direkte sensur fra myndighetene.
Det Orwell skriver kunne gått rett inn i den debatten som nå raser om ytringsfrihet og "cancel culture". Og det er like sant i dag, som det var da han skrev dette i 1945, for 75 år siden.
Et utdrag her:
---
"[T]he chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the M.O.I. or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country, intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.
The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban.
At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right thinking people will accept without question. It not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid‐Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness.
If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of Western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakeable way.
One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade liberal. Over and above the familiar Marxist claim that “bourgeois liberty” is an illusion, there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can defend democracy only by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who “objectively” endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. This argument was used, for instance, to justify the Russian purges.
These people don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you.
I know that the English intelligentsia have plenty of reason for their timidity and dishonesty; indeed, I know by heart the arguments by which they justify themselves. But at least let us have no more nonsense about defending liberty against fascism. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
- George Orwell
In 1945, George Orwell wrote an introduction to “Animal Farm.” It was not printed, and remained unknown till now. It appears here under Orwell's title: (Published 1972)
text of formerly unpublished introduction to G Orwell's Animal Farm, written in '45 under title Freedom of the Press; illuswww.nytimes.com
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Bra video og det er for meg helt uforståelig at ikke kommunismen blir sett på som en like grusom ideologi og styreform som nazismen. Røde flagg, hammer og sigd og hakekorsene hører alle hjemme på søppeldyngen.
Det skyldes at vi ikke har direkte erfaring med det; vi ble ikke invadert av kommunister.
Jeg har også inntrykk av at mange på venstresiden mener at saken i bunn og grunn er god, og at hensikten heliger middelet....GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Hjerneskadde progressive kommunistiske drittsekker har pønsket ut noe nytt:
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Til ettertanke..
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Litt om ondskap og flokkdyr.
GGjestemedlem
Gjest
Progressiviteten fortsetter...
Studenter: Vi krever å få en kunstutdanning tilbake for våre studielån.
I stedet får vi ideologi, politikk og indoktrinering.
morgenbladet.no
Meninger: Skal vi forby meninger vi er imot?
Hvis bare populære meninger blir beskyttet av loven, hadde vi ikke hatt behov for ytringsfrihet. Løsningen er ikke å forby ytringer – vi bør heller se på årsakene til et mer fiendtlig debattklima og forsøke å løse dem.
www.vg.no
- Ble medlem
- 19.09.2014
- Innlegg
- 21.970
- Antall liker
- 14.540
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8986109/acastro_170726_1777_0013.jpg)
Scientists rename human genes to stop Microsoft Excel from misreading them as dates
Microsoft Excel: 1 — Human Genetics: 0.www.theverge.com
The problem isn’t as unexpected as it first sounds. Excel is a behemoth in the spreadsheet world and is regularly used by scientists to track their work and even conduct clinical trials. But its default settings were designed with more mundane applications in mind, so when a user inputs a gene’s alphanumeric symbol into a spreadsheet, like MARCH1 — short for “Membrane Associated Ring-CH-Type Finger 1” — Excel converts that into a date: 1-Mar.
This is extremely frustrating, even dangerous, corrupting data that scientists have to sort through by hand to restore. It’s also surprisingly widespread and affects even peer-reviewed scientific work. One study from 2016 examined genetic data shared alongside 3,597 published papers and found that roughly one-fifth had been affected by Excel errors.Rrr30629
Gjest
Enig!
Villmarkens sønner
Nå er det all grunn til å frykte flere TV-programmer med gruelig kjedelige menn på tur.
www.nrk.no
-
Laster inn…
Diskusjonstråd Se tråd i gallerivisning
-
Laster inn…