Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking Calls Trump A 'Demagogue' Who Appeals 'To The Lowest Common Denominator' (go.com)
An anonymous reader writes: British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking told ITV's morning show that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican Party candidate for U.S. president, "is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." He said, "Gone are the days we could stand on our own against the world. We need to be part of a larger group of nations, both for our security and our trade." ABC News writes, "Stephen Hawking understands the workings of the universe -- but says he cannot fathom the popularity of Donald Trump. He went on to say that British voters should keep the United Kingdom in the European Union in a June 23 referendum, saying the EU provides essential support for British scientific research as well as its economy and security.
I don't understand why Hawking's opinions about anything outside of physics is given publicity. Although one of the most brilliant minds of our time, in his field, he's not a politician nor a businessman.
The definition of a demagogue is a leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
I'm no fan of Trump, but doesn't that describe the political strategy of EVERY politician seeking/maintaining office?
I think Trump is actually saying what he genuinely feels (warts and all), which If true then by the dictionary definition of demagogue he CAN'T be one.
I was ready to comment but already found scamper_22 opinion that match my own: https://science.slashdot.org/c... "People aren't voting for Trump because they are amazed at his policies. They're voting for Trump because he's the only one (aside from Bernie) actually speaking about issues people want addressed instead of dismissing their concerns. If progressives/liberals actually began addressing the concerns of people. In the stereotyped Trump supporter case, poor white people, they might get somewhere. Instead probably the only message poor white people hear from the left is... you have white privilege..." My big question is: Why progressives/liberals dismiss so easily the real concerns of most voters? I am starting to believe that SOME progressives/liberals actually believe that they MUST BE the leaders above the rest of the people because somehow they are "better" than their fellow citizens... and that is exactly how most deadly confrontations began.
You're right. He's a Nationalist. America FIRST.
And considering that what passes for normal in today's Republican party as evidenced by the last 8 years, given inviting foreign leders in to disrespect a sitting president - which was for all intents and purposes swearing alliegience and fealty to a foreign country over America, and their purposely shutting down the Government. He is certainly more of an American than they are.
Which by the way, should the Republican party survive, they will hopefully learn not to make the zealotry of fundamentalists a party principle. Those people demand the right to deny others their rights, cannot compromise, and even totalitarian governments have to compromise at times.
Anyhow, nationalism isn't that good an outlook either. That tends to lead to a lot of dead people.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You're seriously arguing that because so many people are here illegally, we shouldn't do anything for fear that they'll burn our cities to the ground?
Well, I'm even more extreme than that. I have this crazy idea that we're all citizens of Earth, and all policies that suggest which patch of dirt you're allowed to stand on, and for how long, are fundamentally evil and racist.
As a first generation Canadian I'm okay with letting most people into my country, but I still want a border/filter to keep out the folks from (say) ISIL/Daesh. Letting in most people is fine; letting in all people is not.
If anyone can move anywhere at anytime, one risks the tragedy of the commons where people arrive, shit all over things, and then move on and not care about the results. Having some barrier to entry, and some "skin in the game" helps to ensure that anyone in a given area has some vested interest in keep that area/community in decent shape.
Well, I'm even more extreme than that. I have this crazy idea that we're all citizens of Earth, and all policies that suggest which patch of dirt you're allowed to stand on, and for how long, are fundamentally evil and racist.
I have yet to see anyone who floats this thought acknowledge that some cultures are in fact better than others. If you let the wrong person in- and they're far more common in shitty cultures- they will degrade and destroy everything we've built with our nicer, more secure, more productive cultures.
I'd go further, in fact, and state that people who float these 'borderless' ideas are the ultimate chauvinists, as they imagine that people only naturally think the same way some left-leaning westerner does.
Either that, or you actually seek to undermine and destroy western civilization, and you make compassionate-sounding arguments in order to advance that cause. It's the same way that 'peace activists' are often not against war, per se, but they're simply on the other side, and are hiding their true motives for the sake of expedience.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
I think that migration should be allowed freely. I also know that some cultures are better than others. Thatâ(TM)s pretty obvious. That theocratic culture that kills and tortures their people is inferior to one who isnâ(TM)t based on religious principles, does not impose capital punishment and is peaceful and prosper. I see that you think that if you happen to be in a place that embraces a good culture you want to keep people from bad cultures out. I think this is borne out of fear. Good cultures, for the most part, thrive on letting others in. How would you question your religious ideas if you are not exposed to alternate viewpoints? How would you enrich your life with new types of food? How would your political and personal views change to embrace new ideas? You need to have exposure to those. Bad cultures also need to improve. We are all together on this space ball. If you let many people from bad cultures in where people of good culture live, they are now exposed to new ideas and ways, an exposure which would not happen in any other way. Many will reject their new culture, because bad culture has some stickiness to it, but those that do not will spread the seed of doubt, spark interest, even back home where the bad culture thrives. Adding to this, bad cultures are rarely universally bad. They bring some valuable ideas, perspectives, that we can import. Even if the ideas are all bad, there will at least be some good food. Youâ(TM)d be surprised how open people of bad cultures are to new ideas, if you approach them with respect instead of fear and contempt.