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?
Well, as a non American i can confidently say that The Daily Show was probably the only source of news in the USA that even comes close to the amount we get out here in the world about the US.
Your domestic news services are truly terrible. It should give you pause that the best news source for you is on a comedy channel.
I recently spent a month in DC and the absolute shit that passes for news channels there boggles the mind. Now if you'll excuse me I want to get back to Kardashian Nazi UFO Junk Hunters Secret Superweapon Fashion Guide to the Bible.
So i should vote for the guy who i disagree with but know he's lying?
So you should vote for the woman you agree with even though you know SHE is lying?
That is better why again?
In the end you are voting for a woman who fundamentally is the ultimate tie-in to every status quo between government and business insider dealing that has existed for decades. Or you vote for the person who is part of none of that existing government/business wheel of fortune.
Or you can vote for the woman the press have an inherent interest in covering for and let her continue with behind-doers deals with business and governments all over the globe. Or you can vote for the person who the press will spend four yours putting every action under a microscope.
Think about what RESULTS you want, and vote for that. Not for what the person says they will or will not do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Saying "gone are the days when you can operate as a singular nation" needs to be explained. First, you'd have to say that anyone is actually suggesting such a thing. Second, whether people are doing that or not doesn't mean that is or is not a good or reasonable idea.
I think that you have misunderstood what Mr. Hawking was referring to with that comment. It seems that the interview was wide-ranging, and covered both Mr. Trump's candidacy and the (concurrent) referendum in the United Kingdom on whether to remain in the European Union. The statement that you quoted referred to Mr. Hawking's belief that the United Kingdom is better off within the European Union than it is without it.
His dismissal of Mr. Trump as a demagogue is given without any support, though demagogue has about the same meaning as populist if not the same connotation. His position that the UK is not an island entire of itself is supported by his experience, as a scientist, that it's very difficult to do research without cooperation between nations. He also points out that British security and economic performance is enhanced by cooperation with Europe. I think that it's well understood that modern human endeavours work best when we work with each other, even though he is only able to speak with authority about scientific research.
I find it hilarious how hypocritical you are.
You condemn President Trump for supposedly using "insults", yet we see your comment riddled with insults and attacks directed at President Trump!
If I called Trump an orange buffoon that would be insulting him.
Saying his success come from "ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories" is just harsh criticism.
I may be wrong in my criticism, but I don't think it's properly classified as an insult.
You ridicule President Trump for allegedly having "ignorant ideas", yet we see so much intolerance, anger, wrath and dislike displayed by you!
Again not hypocrisy. Intolerance, anger, wrath and dislike are often motives for spreading ignorant ideas, but you can have those qualities without being ignorant.
And I only really agree with "dislike", I don't think intolerance, anger, or wrath really motivate me with Trump.
You rail on about "conspiracy theories", yet you're the one projecting this weird notion of President Trump seeing success because of "ignorant ideas, insults, and conspiracy theories", rather than just admitting that he's successful because he has widespread public support!
It would be very comical, were it not for the fact that you're serious!
I was positing the reason for his public support... and you don't seem to understand what a conspiracy theory is.
I stole this Sig
Stephen Hawking is a loser. He's stupid and says stupid things, not like Trump, who is smart, has a good brain and a lot of words.
https://www.salon.com/2016/04/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't know if my mind is blown but it's certainly confused. Your first question is unclear, do you mean is there anything that he has said that I believe, or do you mean will I believe anything he says regardless of how bat shit crazy it is? And what do you mean by believe? Do I believe he said it? Do I believe he thinks it's true? If it's not an opinion do I think the things he says are objectively true? If it's an opinion do I agree with it? And your final sentence I can't parse at all.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
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.
Perhaps that is exactly WHY people want to vote for him, voters are beyond tired of the status-quo, politics-as-usual, cookie-cutter politicians, and party hard-liners. They are looking for someone to shake up things.
Is it risky? Perhaps. But without risk, there can be no real gain, either.
I think Trump is a mess. But we will be offered only two choices come November, so look at the other choice. Yeesh. The bigger problem is that we desperately need to reform the election process and bring in IRV http://fairvote.org/ but we live in the here-and-now.
Just about everyone I know, including myself, want better choices.... but that time is over now. And even if it seems reckless to vote for Trump, remember that 1) it is only the President (Congress has just as much power) 2) it is only for 4 years 3) we have a set of checks-and-balances.
As for Hawking? I have a great deal of respect for him as a scientist and physicist.... but he should stick to what he knows. America is not his country and his field is not politics, economics, sociology, or management.
Yes, I also can't figure out why preventing illegal immigration to save literally billions per year is a good idea.
And that's just for California.
Who'd've thought that people don't want political correctness, extra crime, migrant welfare, and a change of culture?
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.
Pretty please! Im Italian and I've spent the last 20 years getting lectured and laughed at because Berlusconi. Now you're on the brink of electing a person so special and unique that Berlusconi is Mother Teresa in comparison. I'll be lighting a candle if you do. Sincerely yours.
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.