Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Smorbun wrote:

You don't know what the "left" will do or not do. Have you admitted yet that you didn't know what "berated" meant? You are such a loser. You would rather have everyone know that you are an unwashed a**hole for berating your wife instead of just admitting you were too stupid to know what that word meant.

I am a wordsmith. I know what every word means. Smorbun it is time for you to grow up and cease (that means end) with the insults. I have been wondering why you, Flagpole and Trollminator always have to resort to insults when you have lost the argument. Take a look at this ...

Now that we've lived through an election largely fought—and won—on the basis of insults, it's time for an epidemiology of the put-down. What is the underlying psychology of insults—and why do they suddenly seem to be everywhere?

Motivated by Anger?

Chickens are famous for having a pecking order, in which the bottom chicken in the hierarchy is pecked by everyone else and the top chicken is not picked on by anyone. The chicken hierarchy is settled by physical aggression.

In a verbal society, such as the human one, physical aggression is less often used to settle issues of status: These are mostly deferred to verbal interactions. An insult can thus be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter.

If that logic is correct, we can assume that insults are often motivated by anger surrounding issues of status insecurity. Many insults are reactive: They are responses to real or imagined slights from others, such as a person accidentally cutting in front of someone else in a line.

We live in a period of extreme concern about how we are perceived by others; social psychologists are charting a steady increase in narcissism among college students.1 There is little consensus about why this is happening, but some scholars believe that the more children are measured on evaluative scales—aptitude tests, IQ scores, and GPA—the more sensitive they are to threats to their social rank.

Of course, this narcissism trend is only accentuated by social media, where participants are subject to unrelenting evaluation by other network members who encourage participants to inflate their egos, often at the expense of others.1 Concern with how one is perceived creates social insecurity that may be relieved by lashing out at other chickens (or people) in the area. Social networks are replete with individuals who deliver stinging rebukes because they enjoy doing so and because they are mostly exempt from the reprisals that one might expect for real-world put-downs.

Content: Status, Competence, Sex, and Hygiene

The purpose of a put-down is to reduce someone else in the imaginary status hierarchy. So it is hardly surprising that insults will often refer to a person's social status in terms of ancestry, lack of prestige, or membership in a despised out-group; for example, Nazis or vagrants. Otherwise, the content of insults across the ages is monotonously predictable: Many insults feature a sexual component, refer to sexual organs, or bring up shameful or ineffectual sexual behavior. In addition to status and sexuality, insults inflict shame by mentioning unappealing traits—fatness, shortness, baldness, spottiness, and contagious diseases.

Another way of taking a person down is by questioning their intelligence or general mental competence; for insult purposes, recipients are invariably "stupid" or "crazy."

The pecking-order logic of insults means that if the recipient is shamed, then the insulter rises in status relative to the victim: The insulter is the one doing the pecking rather than getting pecked. Not all insults are equal, of course: Some pecks miss their mark and have no impact upon relative status.

Smorbun wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I am a wordsmith. I know what every word means. Smorbun it is time for you to grow up and cease (that means end) with the insults. I have been wondering why you, Flagpole and Trollminator always have to resort to insults when you have lost the argument. Take a look at this ...

Now that we've lived through an election largely fought—and won—on the basis of insults, it's time for an epidemiology of the put-down. What is the underlying psychology of insults—and why do they suddenly seem to be everywhere?

Motivated by Anger?

Chickens are famous for having a pecking order, in which the bottom chicken in the hierarchy is pecked by everyone else and the top chicken is not picked on by anyone. The chicken hierarchy is settled by physical aggression.

In a verbal society, such as the human one, physical aggression is less often used to settle issues of status: These are mostly deferred to verbal interactions. An insult can thus be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the social status of the recipient and raise the relative status of the insulter.

If that logic is correct, we can assume that insults are often motivated by anger surrounding issues of status insecurity. Many insults are reactive: They are responses to real or imagined slights from others, such as a person accidentally cutting in front of someone else in a line.

We live in a period of extreme concern about how we are perceived by others; social psychologists are charting a steady increase in narcissism among college students.1 There is little consensus about why this is happening, but some scholars believe that the more children are measured on evaluative scales—aptitude tests, IQ scores, and GPA—the more sensitive they are to threats to their social rank.

Of course, this narcissism trend is only accentuated by social media, where participants are subject to unrelenting evaluation by other network members who encourage participants to inflate their egos, often at the expense of others.1 Concern with how one is perceived creates social insecurity that may be relieved by lashing out at other chickens (or people) in the area. Social networks are replete with individuals who deliver stinging rebukes because they enjoy doing so and because they are mostly exempt from the reprisals that one might expect for real-world put-downs.

Content: Status, Competence, Sex, and Hygiene

The purpose of a put-down is to reduce someone else in the imaginary status hierarchy. So it is hardly surprising that insults will often refer to a person's social status in terms of ancestry, lack of prestige, or membership in a despised out-group; for example, Nazis or vagrants. Otherwise, the content of insults across the ages is monotonously predictable: Many insults feature a sexual component, refer to sexual organs, or bring up shameful or ineffectual sexual behavior. In addition to status and sexuality, insults inflict shame by mentioning unappealing traits—fatness, shortness, baldness, spottiness, and contagious diseases.

Another way of taking a person down is by questioning their intelligence or general mental competence; for insult purposes, recipients are invariably "stupid" or "crazy."

The pecking-order logic of insults means that if the recipient is shamed, then the insulter rises in status relative to the victim: The insulter is the one doing the pecking rather than getting pecked. Not all insults are equal, of course: Some pecks miss their mark and have no impact upon relative status.

Oh, and by the way, stop plagiarizing (that means taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as your own) like you just did with the above.

Unwashed a**hole.

johnny99 wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

If Joe Biden ekes out a victory in the presidential race, and the Repubs retain their majority in the Senate, what happens if a vacancy on the Supreme Court opens up? Sleepy Joe would be under enormous pressure to nominate a very far-left judge for the top Court. Especially after the recent Barrett confirmation as well as the Kavanaugh and Gorsuch confirmations. The Left is not going to settle for a middle-of-the-road liberal for the Court. Would the Senate repubs acquiesce and confirm such a far-left justice? Or would they play hardball and refuse to even vote on such a justice? Could we have no Supreme Court confirmations over the next 4 years?

If the Republicans didn't even vote on Merrick Garland, they won't vote on anyone.

No SC vacancy will get filled unless the President and the Senate are the same party. This will be Mitch's legacy.