Post truth
The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.
The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth.
But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail.
The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
It is similar to Frankfurt's technical use of "Bullshit" in that truth and falsehood cease to be significant. The post-truth world is the result of the ascendancy of the bullshitter, who is contrasted with the liar in that while the liar knows what is true and what is false, and knowingly speaks falsehoods, the bullshitter does not know or care for truth.
But of course truth is what is still there despite what you say about it. A post-truth world must fail.
Comments (1987)
Request for 2017 and every day: Gimme some truth.
(i know, i know... what IS truth? Maybe starting with one foot in the vicinity of "facts" and the other foot planted in "good intentions" is a decent start. ;) )
Many online news outlets troll readers with clickbait, catchy headlines that are meant to grab the readers attention but very typically have little to say. Sponsored articles are put in with their reported stories. Stories which, one would expect to be unbiased, express the writer's bias. Photos/video that magnify traits in ways that are out of proportion to reality.
The best example of a post - truth political candidate is Donald Trump who has twisted truth around so much that the public is no longer fazed by his misuse of it. His sincerity is a type of American mythic truth. The public's unconcern with his antics annoys journalists intensely and leads to an escalation of words and more media exposure for DT.
The public has increasing access and powers on the internet. Presenting views on the internet is as easy as my typing. The algorithms control what achieves page status(which can be problematic; search for abortion clinics and most google results end(ed) in anti-abortion crises centers). While in the past splinter groups were confined to locales, with the advent of the web and social media these groups have found new international audiences. Groups like ISIS were able to effectively recruit over the internet.
The public wants to be entertained on-line. They are more interested in a great dramatic conspiracy theory over what is truthful, the prurient over the pure and fake news that angers (like the PM of Pakistan's threat of nuclear retaliation for any action by Israel over a fake news report a couple of days ago), that drives their presence forward.
The term Post-Modernism denotes something after Modernism. But truth is an absolute that isn't a period in time and remains unchanged, yet our perception of it changes as it is multitudinally appercepted.
Seems more like a meme-title than a fucking word. Stupid oxford.
And we're in the the box seat to watch it happen. Unfortunately.
The end of the Cold War removed all challenges to capitalism, and politics in many places became less the forum for fundamental disagreements over the structure of society, and more a matter of management. Thus a managerial political elite came to dominate, personified by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, also exemplified by the increasingly powerful European Union. For managerial politics there is no argument over how things are to be arranged economically: capitalism has won, and we should let the capitalists get on with it. This supposedly is grown-up, truthy politics because these policies or non-policies are backed up by expert economists who apparently know best about how society should operate.
But governments can be more active in other areas: people can still be managed, nudged, and punished for what they say and think. And here too, governments can appeal to experts--in psychology, sociology, and so on--to justify this, against which there can be no legitimate argument. That's the point of experts: to take the politics out of politics.
But things didn't carry on smoothly in the way these technocrats hoped, and as well as the continuing economic stagnation that none of the neoliberal economic experts ever managed to do anything about, there was a major economic crisis that none of them predicted. People have suffered, and managerial politics has nothing to say to them. The experts have nothing to say to them. Working class people know this, and in the political vacuum we see the rise of Le Pen and Trump.
The talk of "post-truth" politics is anti-democratic whining from a short-sighted managerial elite who see things slipping away from them and don't know what to do about it.
I think the real issue is that people, in general, don't even care about 'truth', however presented or formulated.
Truth keeps on changing and evolving and barely anyone has the audacity to speak of The truth unless they want to be thought of as crackpots and nutters.
More like "the truth (whatever that might be)" is irrelevant. Many objective facts cannot be changed at all. This, however, doesn't mean they are relevant to a particular instance. Is, for example, a truth of atheism relevant in the Sunday morning church service? No, it's just tone-deaf harassment of theists trying to practice their culture. Sometimes "the truth" is not needed.
Post-modernism has not taken out truth or even the concept of "the truth (people still use that to say they are right all the time)," but the link between metaphysics (necessity) and truths in the world (physics). The world always has the power to defy what is thought to be "The Truth."
Indeed. It's not exactly new either. Truth has always worked like that, we just didn't recognise it so well. A bemoaning of "post-truth" politics could well be found in any instance where the world does something different to a perceived metaphysical reality. I mean how could anyone deny the truth of the King's divine right? Or the truth of Church's authority? The truth is obvious, how could people have become so ignorant/deranged/demonic as not to recognise it?
"Post-truth" is more like "What do you mean you reject my understanding of what world necessarily is/will be?" It's mostly about complaining someone didn't think or act like in away you thought was necessary.
This is not to say people are wrong that truth as been ignored. In many cases, that happens, particularly in the quest for rhetorical victories in political conflict, but that's always a question of a specific issue. It's not that society somehow stops thinking in terms of truth. In any of these instances, people are just ignoring particular truths which are important.
It's totally wrong to assume that with the internet the people are free to get information and that this is an obstacle to governments. First, the net is quite easy to control and observe. Then as it easy to handle with Computers themselves.
And the distrust to one's officials and the mainstream media just opens up a splendid environment for pure propaganda. Propaganda that is to one's liking, that is.
What's more, how can someone know what the truth is when fed all of this propaganda and manufactured consent throughout their lives?
The only option in my search for answers about issues was to resort to Chomsky and other like-minded intellectuals.
Has anyone seen the documentary mentioned around here, called "Hypernormalization" by Adam Curtis? I found it to be quite eye opening.
And notice one thing with Chomsky. When I looked (and here it's actually better to look than read) at one of Chomsky's last documentaries shown in popular media Requiem for the American Dream you do actually notice how close it comes to some loony Alex Jones.who's new a propagandameister for Trump. Both talk about how the elites are basically against the ordinary people.
Just look at Trump's last campaign ad.
So it shows Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein as the villain, yet Trump happily has appointed now two people from Goldman Sachs and has the wealthiest administration ever with him. What you say and what you do can be totally opposite things in an post-truth world.
Best use of facts in the post-truth world is just to take those when you take real facts and just bend them to your liking to get your agenda through, which might be totally opposite what you say.
The thing is that it doesn't matter at all. Once somebody has voted a politician and liked him or her, the last thing people are going to be is critical of him or her once in power. It would make them look bad, hence they defend their politician and simply choose to be in denial once it's evident that the candidate and the leader have basically nothing in common in actual policies.
Yes, I tend to agree with everything you've just said. Is this all an issue of the population or something more explicit like not having some incentive for not bullshitting or lying?
But it's ancient. The Romans peddled propaganda. Facts are for historians.
Objective facts can't be changed, only the interpretation of them can. At least as far as physicalism is concerned.
It should rather be called anti-truth. Saying post implies there is some kind of time limit to truth, lol.
It's used in politics mainly https://twitter.com/hashtag/posttruth
There. I just changed the objective fact that there was no reply to your post. How bout that?
Whut? but there was a reply/? Prove to me facts aren't just interpretations.
There are two distinct ways in which the word truth is used.
When you believe something is true because there is strong evidence and or good reasoning to support the claims.
And when you believe something is true because you lack any doubt about that belief.
Suppose I tell you my height is 6 ft tall.
How is that fact just an interpretation?
Because you have to interpret what 6 foots means, you have to interpret what the visual image of you are.
There is observable phenomena, and the repeatability + logic = it's fact.
No I measure 6 ft.
I don't interpret it.
And so on.
All of these are complex questions, which can be made subject to a great deal of 'spin'. Not 'how tall is person X'.
You can decide that facts don't conform with your world view sure, but measurements are measurements.
One puts spin on a ball to control the direction it heads when it bounces. One puts spin on a truth in order to control its direction. To do so one accepts the truth.
But the bullshiter neither accepts nor rejects the truth. They say what suits their need.
Truth that is there despite what you say or think about it, would be objective truth.
In light of the fact that all humans experience the world through their senses and the resulting subjective interpretation of what they perceive through their senses, how is objective truth even possible in the first place?
lol
Well it is not objectively true that there is no objective truth.
So what is the problem?
Sure, but that that doesn't make it objectively true that there is objective truth.
If you can't know that there is or is not objective truth then you can't claim that something is or is not objectively true.
You can only say that you don't know.
Yeah that was my point in the first place, that you can't make any statements about anything which are objectively true i.e. objective truth isn't possible in the first place.
You can't know if objective truth is possible or not.
By definition, from you foundational assumptions, you can't know if something is or is not objectively true.
It may well be objectively true and by your assumptions you can't know.
Your assumption is not very useful either, because it does not explain how we can believe things which turn out to not be true.
How can we have mistaken beliefs if there is no objective reality?
Mistaken beliefs could be explained without referring to an objective reality.
There is an extent to which we can subjectively experience the world around us, and a mistaken belief is uncovered when we encounter something new in this subjective domain that does not conform to our previously held belief.
For an example, suppose you held to the belief that all dogs are black in color. One day, if you were to see a brown dog walking along, this would just be simply a new component of your subjective experience that would falsify your previous belief. I don't see how this could be evidence for the objectivity of reality.
I'm a skydiver:D
One thing that has changed is our belief in our authorities in general, which even if it sounds illogical, does actually give room to this post-truth environment and for blatant propaganda to be quite successfull. I should clarify what I mean with this.
Public perception of our government has changed a lot. You can take for instance the historical scandal of the Dreyfuss Affair in France or the Watergate scandal in the US. All those have shaken the general populations belief in their government. Yet it isn't only about scandals. Especially in the US I think this is because of the constant and never ending mud-slinging of the two party system. This means that allways the current administration is viewed in a negative light ...as extremely rarely both sides come together on issues. Add to this the constant message of a media bias. Now for somebody who would take the time to compare the reporting and things that are said, that bias can be easily noticed. And actually it's natural, for example in editorials, for some newspaper to take a stance on some event.
Yet how this "media bias" is intrepreted is that the reporting is totally false, that it simply isn't true at all. This creates the atmosphere where fake news can become an issue and where obvious facts can be said to be just opinions, or to be simply not true. Because in truth a conspiracy theorist isn't at all someone who is basically critical of all things, but someone who is very open to the most lurid and outrageous claims there are and hence to traditional blatant unadulturated propaganda.
Also you can't know if mistaken beliefs are evidence of objective reality or not.
By your assumption something could be evidence of objective reality and you would not know if it is or is not.
The belief that dogs are black is mistaken because you have now encountered a dog in your subjective experience of the world, which is brown and hence, not black.
Quoting m-theory
Exactly. So why did you cite mistaken beliefs as evidence for objective reality?
Yes but subjectively it was true that there were no brown dogs, how should you have encountered a brown dog if that was in fact true?
Subjectively there were no brown dogs, that is what was true, except it wasn't true was it.
Are you saying that you simply changed your mind and decided that dogs could also be brown, and that was why you encountered a different color?
Forgive me if I regard this as a not very reasonable explanation.
Or do you agree that subjective beliefs can be mistaken, because there are things which are true irrespective of subjective beliefs.
Also of our two options which one seems the more reasonable beliefs.
That reality changes to suit what we are willing to believe, or that some things are true irrespective of given subjective beliefs?
Quoting hunterkf5732
I site objective reality as an explanation for mistaken belief.
It does a better job of explaining the phenomena than your assumption does.
Saturation and confusion is another important factor. As is to have the emphasis on getting news out the fastest and that the discourse constantly changing. Who cares about things that happened six months ago?
With the likes of google, facebook, and other online companies, they will place you in a filter bubble where you are exposed to things which are consistent with your patterns of suffering.
If you surf BS, you are more likely to be exposed to BS as a recommendation or search result.
This was not necessarily true before the age of targeted advertising and the gathering of big data.
It was subjectively true only until the time at which you first met a brown dog. It was falsified afterwards because then, a brown dog entered your subjective interpretation of the world.
The mistake here is that you seem to think that subjective truths are not subject to change.
Quoting m-theory
Here you seem to be thinking that a subjective reality must reside entirely inside your own mind. My contention all along was that there exists a world around us which is independent of us, but which we can only know of through our subjective experience of it through our senses.
So there was never any question of changing your mind. A novel phenomenon just appeared in your subjective interpretation of the world, which meant you had to change your belief accordingly.
This is a great description of being mistaken, but it doesn't explain why you were.
I am not asking for a description of being mistaken, I was asking you what could explain it.
I offer the explanation that this happens because things can be true irrespective of subjective beliefs.
To me that is the most simple explanation, and the most reasonable.
Quoting hunterkf5732
I don't agree that we only have access to subjective, that amounts to solipsism.
One side of the coin. The other side is that there are more facts available to those who want to find them than at any other time in history. I mean, it may be that we were better off without filter bubbles, and targeted advertising etc. but the difference now isn't of such qualitative magnitude to justify calling this is a "post-truth" era. That's just a way to sell newspapers (mostly to pissed-off progressives, I presume).
Not that I'm optimistic about the future or anything. It may be we've just about reached the peak of progress and are beginning the slide backwards. But that's another debate.
The explanation is that our subjective interpretation of the world changes according to the data the world provides to our senses.
So while our earlier subjective experience led us to the assumption that all dogs are black, a new experience was provided to us by the world (in the form of a non-black dog) which showed that this belief was a mistake.
Quoting m-theory
Could you name anything that we have access to, which is not subjective?
Facebook and google can stick you in a filter bubble where you are not exposed to the fact that the BS you are consuming is BS.
It is important, but I bet if you did a poll here to ask people if they felt they were less able to dig up facts now than before, you'd get a majority negative response. It seems to me people are always worried about others being "post-truth" while they have it covered.
Do you feel like you are stuck in such a filter bubble that you can't manage to find out facts about stuff? Is it such an effort to circumvent? It just seems highly exaggerated to me. Or again, is it just others who are too dumb to figure it out?
Yes but it changed because something other than what we believed was the case irrespective of that existing belief.
Simply saying that beliefs change does not explain why beliefs turn out to be mistaken.
It is not that beliefs change randomly.
There is a pattern to the change, you believe a thing that turns out to not be the case.
The explanation for this is because something else was the case irrespective of your prior beliefs.
So it is an issue.
As for myself personally, I am not sure to what extent the evil corporations have entangled me in their vast and ever reaching tentacles.
In the dog example, the belief that all dogs are black is absolutely correct until you meet, hear about, or in some other way subjectively experience that it is not so. Or in other words, your beliefs are correct until you encounter a new experience which is contrary to them.
Besides you didn't answer my last question. Could you name something we have access to, which is not subjective?
I disagree.
It was not absolutely correct, if it were absolutely correct there should not have been any encounter with a brown dog.
It was only absolutely believed.
But the belief was mistaken.
Let's try a different approach.
Do you agree that mistaken beliefs are most often, if not always, involuntary.
That is to say we do not choose to have our beliefs be mistaken?
Quoting hunterkf5732
Refuting solipsism is a topic for another thread.
Yes. We believe things which the greatest amount of evidence in our experience support.
That is good enough for me.
That you agree that is not within our subjective control what is true and what is not true.
But there's two things to this.
First, people actually don't "dig up" so much of the things as that is very time consuming, they rely much more on what is served to them on the basis what they like. Secondly, it still takes things like historical knowledge and being informed about things to spot what is nonsense and what isn't. To spot fake news one simply has to be informed.
I think the most common way how people start even unintentionally to spread post truths is that the truly get attached to some political cause or event, like hatred of one political candidate in elections. Then the most damning attack against this candidate is something that the people like. Elections are the silly season typically, a time when people do get emotionally attached to things they would otherwise not be interested in. And of course, that's a good thing that people get excited about elections. Yet if a person thinks some politician is evil, then this person is quite open to post-truths that prove their case.
Same thing happens for instance with wars or terrorist attacks.
Sorry, hit post button before writing the post.
I used to buy adwords from Google. It works, many, many people don't go past the first few results. So, whatever filters may or may not be there can be quite important. The EU is suing Google over search results which the EU thinks support android, a Google product...so anti-trust.
What about 9/11?
I have a strong feeling that people decided that the ruling elite should be left to their own after 9/11 and let lesser people concern with themselves. People seem to have accepted or put up with whatever shenanigans that Dubya would do for their ability to enjoy their lives in whatever manner they seem fit to do.
9/11 was really a much more important day than people consider it to be.
So is the failure to recognise bullshit a result of an increased need for critical thinking? Even here, where one might think critical thought would have its natural home, we have a few spouting a disregard for truth.
I agree; Quoting m-theory
Thee are distinct reasons for belief, not distinct uses for "truth".
O:) So you think.
Not how it out to be used.
Absolutely. I think that this is just the usual bias that afflicts judgment made especially obvious. I'm tempted to stress something like a necessary gap between the righteous person and the thinking person. There's a personality type, perhaps rare, that is more concerned with accuracy than with any other allegiance. Of course partisans on either side will resent this detachment if they sniff it out. They will probably prefer the journalist or theorist who sprinkles in the "correct" value judgements judiciously. Perhaps some of the best thinking exists in peer-to-peer conversations between specimens of this type. Since I identify with this type, though, I can be accused of a sort of bias. So it goes.
So here we are, with a fascist president-elect. At what stage will truth reassert itself? If?
I am just being overly analytic.
"FBI Agent Suspected In Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide."
The story is completely false, but it was shared on Facebook over half a million times.
Good fake news writers (modern sophists) can make $10/30,000 per month according to National Public Radio. Capitalism is all over commodification, especially where there is low entry cost.
And occasionally I would say "told you so".
Just occasionally.
It's the commodification of one's attention.
One supposes that the critical capacity of the educated is the intervening cause.
Oh, and where did you arrive at a correlation between education and critical reasoning skills? Maybe there's a correlation between formal education and liberal indoctrination. I certainly noticed that screamingly obvious fact while being schooled.
Very droll. X-)
"Post-truth" had been seized upon by 'experts' (in the sense jamalrob used the word) at the exact moment their theories and narratives have been shown to be false (the 'surprise' of Brexit & the 2016 US presidential election etc.)
In many cases, then, "post-truth" is literally used to mean 'an atmosphere in which people no longer believe in our narratives and theories after those narratives and theories have been demonstrated to be false"
In other words: It's easier for certain groups (who Jamalrob's named) to believe that truth itself has been dismissed than to comprehend that they might be wrong about how the world works.
(& sure, there's something 'post-truthy' about e.g. global warming denial, but that sort of post-truth has been around forever, as tgw notes)
Why gut instinct will decide the most irrational referendum yet
Yeah, not to understand that education is a way of tracking political position, not as a matter of the two correlating, but in the sense that they are the very same thing, is incredibly naive. In America, to be educated is to be liberalized.
Points taken but none of that justifies the claim that we live in a "post-truth" era, which to me is just a fancy meme, and ironically self-undermining. And if this is representative of the strategy of progressives, to be martyrs of truth in a post-truth world, we just end up playing the same partisan game we accuse the opposition of. Better we work on the presumption that there is some rationale behind the push for change and try to understand it and engage with it.
Oddly enough, although in the New Scientist, that was rather a 'gut instinct' article, strong on experts, short on detailed evidence.
I did vote Brexit and was shocked that so many 'liberals' were shocked by the vote. It made clear to me that there was a consensus among Cameron-Tories, Liberals and Blairite Labourites that they still haven't come to terms with. Instead they keep puzzling over the supposed 'irrationality' of the majority that in this instance was against them.
One likely odd outcome for the UK of course is that we will have more black immigrants and less white ones, since we will no longer favour Europeans. It was a strange myth that the European Union, by keeping out most people from anywhere but Europe, was somehow 'liberal' about immigration. Nevertheless there's an obvious danger that rhetoric can become fact, that the anti-immigrant talk of racists - which has undoubtedly stirred up racism in the short term - will have longer-lasting effects.
Meanwhile across the pond the best the U.S. system could do was pitch a tired-looking machine politician against a maverick neo-Fascist. I don't feel (pace Hanover's comments) as an outsider that I'm a loser in Clinton losing - but the U.S.'s tentacles reach all over the globe and we are stuck with the results. I live rather near a U.S.-run 'early warning' station here in northern England, so we are something of a helpless American outpost if the maverick Kingfish presses any unexpected buttons.
None of this is post-truth though. It's much easier to ascertain 'the truth' of events now than it was in the establishment-controlled 60's of my youth, but that doesn't mean anyone wants to know it. Political discourse is gruesome, overwhelmingly a child of public relations - the interwoven worlds of political parties, ad agencies and banks and large business spin their key fictions. But this is not a shift. Vance Packard's 'The Hidden Persuaders' was published in the 1950's and its findings still seem valid to me. Truth is a casualty of the discovery that people respond better to the right kind of lie.
No, that's just a transparent attempt at a tu quoque and ad hominem: people who talk about "post-truth" are themselves poopy-heads, and that being the case, anything they say is humbug. And that is, unfortunately, the way most political discussions go.
While I agree that there's nothing new about "post-truth," it does seem to be one of the more prominent features of the contemporary zeitgeist. I am seeing it being aggressively promoted by the Russian propaganda machine. The idea that they are trying to inculcate is:
And from what I can see, this idea is being effectively internalized. I remember when the accusations of wide-spread, institutionalized, government-supported doping in Russian sports broke out, a radio station conducted informal interviews of people on the street. One response stuck out to me: a woman, in answer to the question whether she thought the accusations were true, said something to the effect that "I am a patriot of my country, so I am going to believe that we are innocent." At the time I thought this to be a remarkably candid expression of the "post-truth" attitude. But since then I have heard similar sentiments reiterated again and again in interviews with the "common people." One, when pressed on the point, went on to say that, yes, the government-controlled media may not be telling the truth. But then no one can ever know the truth. He was still going to believe the official narrative.
A strategic move that often goes along with the "post-truth" idea is to implicitly concede that, yes, we are shit, but so is everyone else. And if you are a patriot, then your own shit doesn't stink. This move is probably felt to be necessary in the environment in which the iron curtain is no longer seen as effective in stemming the flow of information and communication with the world outside the government control. Besides, people's moral reactions cannot be completely extinguished through propaganda. A more effective strategy is to sour them to the entire world, turn them into cynics. Our elections are not fair? Well, neither is anyone else's. Our official media serves up lies and propaganda? So does the supposedly free western media. Our government is corrupt and inefficient? So is every government. There is no such thing as democracy and freedom. Everyone is doing it. We are no worse than anyone else.
Eh, not really.
if the phenomenon of politically-driven fact-indifference is a perennial one
&
if a new term has been coined, to refer to this same perennial phenomenon as though it's unprecedented
&
if one is interested in what is new about this situation
then: the phenomenon in question is not 'post-truth' but 'a collection of groups claiming that there is an unprecedented event/era/atmosphere called post-truth'
And to understand that, you have to understand where those groups are coming from. So, while I could be wrong about some of my assumptions (your cynicism narrative has some truth to it, for instance), this isn't really a matter of calling other people poopy-heads, or painting others as childish which - tu quoque, bub! - is the kinda ad hominem yr doing rn. But, hey, fallacy-sniping tends to be sublimated poopy-head/I'm rubber you're glue 9 times out of 10 anyway.
What you have to understand is that political positions warp one's entire mirror-house reality around them. They don't exist as pieces of that reality.
I maintain that the spin doctor and the bullshitter are distinct, so:
Spin doctor - That is the truth, but it means this...
Liar - That is the truth, but I am going to tell you this...
Bullshitter - I am going to tell you this...
The distinction between liar and bullshitter is harder to maintain than that between liar and spin doctor.
A tertiary piece, then. It caught my eye because it predicted the result.
Quoting mcdoodle
Neat summation. How do you think Sanders would have changed the vote? His anti-establishment credentials are stronger than Trump's.
Source?? Just interested.
I suspect it would have made little difference. The ethos is such that any form of communal ownership is treated as suspect; evidenced by their utter inability to build efficient public health or education systems.
Interesting times.
You think?
Even if so, 1/14.
I understand. It was the prevailing mode in American politics in the 1800's. Lincoln decided not to participate, earning the nickname "Honest Abe." But a case of complete bullshit in which Democrats said they had evidence that Lincoln was involved in an attempt to take a federal arsenal facilitated the onset of war.
Point is: bullshit doesn't necessarily result in a bad outcome. It's a social ritual.
And most of what you call healthcare originated in the USA. And that.. is not bullshit. :)
It depends on how things go from here -- there is still opposition, there are still institutions of democracy in place, and so forth -- but proto- or neo- fascist is a fair description of everything Trump's put out thus far.
Was George W. Bush a proto-fascist? If not, then why did people accuse him of being one when he came to office? Were those accusations hyperbolic and/or deluded? If not, what makes them different this time?
Authoritarian, paternalistic, xenophobic, rabble rousing, anti-intellectual ... not really spotting the fascist boxes that Trump's not ticking.
The former.
Fascism is a political system which seeks to build a great nation. It is born out of humiliation, a desire for purity, a perceived ostracism from society, and a desire to return to a great past. It speaks to popular discontent and mobilizes said discontent against those who are impure (and also purportedly the cause of what many are discontent about). It's also an irrational political philosophy -- where other political philosophies we are familiar with tend to emphasize rationality, fascism is something which is more a spiritual political philosophy where man finds his purpose in the state, and is run more on emotions than on rational argument. Hence it often contradicts itself.
Umberto Eco's list is great. And I always go back to Mussolini's ghost-written essay The Doctrine of Fascism, as well as Robert Paxton's The Five Stages of Fascism
Policies which result from said philosophy include war, the stripping of Democratic institutions, the fusion of capital and labor within the state, and enacting laws which encourage racial purity.
I had hopes that these feelings and emotions which were evoked for the election of Trump were more cynical than anything, but the cabinet picks of his administration don't indicate that. I don't know how far these sentiments will go once the Trump administration actually begins interfacing with the state (and with a sizeable opposition, with democratic institutions still in power), but the sentiments which brought Trump to power are quite similar to what brought, say, Mussolini to power or Hitler to power so the comparison isn't just a rhetorical move in a game of painting the enemy in the worst light.
Hmm.
Quoting Moliere
Do politicians generally in your experience have rational political philosophies?
Quoting Moliere
What are the similarities? I agree there is resentment, but then, this seems like an easy rhetorical move, to be a garbage political party, and then when people rightly resent you, to cry fascism. It can't fail.
This one is interesting in particular because the narrative during the election was that the dems, not the repubs, were hotter on war (w/Russia). Do you think we are or will be on the verge of war with Trump's election? Would said war have been avoided if Clinton had been elected?
They at least ascribe themselves to rational traditions, yes. Of course being rational is a whole different thing, but Liberalism -- classical liberalism, I mean, which Democrats are just as much in said tradition as Republicans -- is generally considered a "rationalist" type political philosophy. Research Committees, studies, arguments, and so forth are part of the political currency because of this rationalist backbone. The fascist, on the other hand, feels in his heart what must be done and that the Leader is the human manifestation of the state guiding us all to greatness.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Right. I should note that I'm not defending Democrats here. I didn't vote for Clinton or Trump. Trump is a proto-fascist on his own account, not in relation to the Democratic party. So what I say of Trump here is not to also say, at the same time, that Democrats are automatically better. That being said I do think Clinton would have been better than Trump, just to be honest about that. But I don't think Clinton and Trump define one another is all that I mean (though to judge by the arguments which often pass muster as worth repeating I can understand wanting to frame Trump in those terms)
And I agree that it can be -- and has been -- an easy rhetorical move. A shame, really, because here we are seeing actual worthwhile parallels to consider and it gets drowned out in this history of using "fascist" as a kind of catch-all brush.
But, at least among the policies proposed, and in the environment we are in, the similarities are striking.
"Make America Great Again" was the perfect proto-fascist slogan in that it harks back to a mythological past which people feel has been lost. And, in particular, it was a racially coded message for white people -- because America is not great due to its PC culture, it's flamboyant acceptance of everything, it's relativism when America was strong, verile, frank, and knew right from wrong when the founders founded. In some sense America has been betrayed by the crypto-socialists (like Obama) and atheist/pagans. (On the former I'm assuming you've heard that bandied about among R-wing radio. On the latter, while there is a current of Christian fear of darkness corrupting us, I'm in particular thinking of the framing of the Podesta emails during this past election cycle)
This is very similar to the shame which fascists tapped into in the Weimar Republic. It was a common sentiment to believe that Germany itself had been humiliated and betrayed in World War 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth Further, the fascists harkened back to mythological aryan past -- our myth is just the founding fathers, which do achieve mythological proportions among the r-wing. They aren't historical figures understood in their own time as much as they are saints whose intentions we should live by.
The fascists of the past had many scapegoats. Trump's campaign was fueled by this, too -- we know you are suffering, we know that America has degenerated, but we are going to make it great again, and we are going to get rid of those who are stealing our jobs. The desire to build a wall to keep Mexicans out, and become harsher on deportation is very much along the same lines as the fascists desire to contain, deport, and otherwise make Germany clean again from degenerates. And Mexicans are not the only target of Trump's base -- the bathroom requirement story still gets fuel among r-wing blogo-social-sphere. "Black Lives Matter" is a controversial statement which can't just be accepted, but must be countered by, at first, "All Lives Matter", followed by "Blue Lives Matter". And even anti-semitism has become more pronounced since Trump's election, so perhaps there's more of the classical fascist base than I had initially thought. (I tend to think of Trump as a proto-fascist, but an American one -- there are ways in which he differs from fascists past because he's not Italian, for instance, but he really has a resemblance, in bombastic style and masculine projection, to Mussolini)
Which is to say that just as fascists prior had scapegoats for the ills of society, so too does Trump -- and they aren't the sort of usual political figures. It's not like he's just saying this or that politician or political program is bunk (though he is saying that too) -- it's that he also targets groups of people.
There's also the social conditions which are similar to the Weimar Republic, too -- just prior to the fascists winning power there was a fairly progressive administration in charge, and people were suffering economically and there was seemingly no end in sight. What the fascists did was tap into this economic despair, just as Trump did (and he did it better than Hillary), and really did offer some genuine basic benefits to the right kinds of people. They offered pensions, minimum wage, workplace safety, etc. They appealed to the laboring class. Trump also appeals to the laboring class, in his own particular way. I don't buy the White Working Class myth peddled by the liberal rags, mostly because the data doesn't support it. If anything the reason Trump won is because the Democratic candidate wasn't inspiring enough to her base to turn it out enough. But I also know many working class families who voted for Trump on the basis that he was not a political insider, and Hillary Clinton was. So he was seen more "underdog", and therefore appeals to the identity of working class families by that token. Further, Trump did at least appeal to jobs -- he didn't offer a plan, but he had a scapegoat and said that we are going to get people to work. So he has this sort of bread-and-butter appeal to working class and middle-class persons, which combined with right wing populism is exactly what brought the fascists to power in the past. Whereas the Democrats who have been in power for the past 8 years haven't delivered the goods (not as measured by econometric data, but in terms of feeling secure and having a job that gets you stuff), so why believe a Democratic insider when she says she's going to help the middle class? Especially when she quibbled a popular and concrete policy for working class people, the minimum wage?
This is just to say there are strong similarities to the sentiments of the two electorates and in their appeal and path to power.
So we have a mythological past which has been lost, a desire to make the state pure again, scapegoats who have made the state impure, humilitation due to this impurity, and similar social conditions to the Weimar republic in that working and middle class people feel economically insecure. And this sort of story is being launched through right-wing populism which does not have a high regard for argument or even consistency. Further there has been an outright increase in racial tensions concurrent with the Trump campaign.
There is a kind of reverance for violence among his base at least. And then there's the bizarro phenomena where the Christian right is deeply wed to the Republican party, introducing elements of spirituality into their statecraft. But, eh, that strikes me as distinctly American. There's a kind of analogy there, but the other stuff I'd say is stronger.
It's a bit too early to say whether or not the Trump administration is going to crack down on political freedoms, but it would actually be in line with many administrations past, and then taken up a notch by Bush, and further exacerbated by Obama. So given the other parallels, well -- all I mean to say is that it's not just a rhetorical move. There's a fair comparison to be made. They are not identical, but it's not just hot air.
Yes. It will be focused in the Middle East, I believe, but the Republican party has been beating the war drums for quite some time -- even during the Obama administration they were picking a fight with Iran.
I think we would have basically been continuing the Obama administration's foreign policy. Which is to say, no, war would not just go away with Clinton. Clinton has explicitly endorsed "humanitarian" military intervention.
But I don't think Iran would have been a potential enemy with her. Or China. There's something absolutely horrible about Obama's foreign policy -- in some way he's sanitized what is actually a gruesome affair that still kills innocent people across the world. He was just as much into projecting American power as, well, most American presidents have been since the end of WW2. (in truth, I think Obama's foreign policy, especially with respect to the war on terror, is the worst part of his presidential legacy. He expanded presidential powers like no other president -- Bush was an innocent, naive schoolboy by comparison)
But he didn't express a belief that Islam is somehow the enemy we need to defeat to ensure freedom will be granted to our posterity. That seems to be the story I get from the Republican party. Will they go through with it? I don't know. But I'd rather the people in power weren't saying these things to begin with.
In what way is it fair to have this description of Trump, but not of Obama? Did Obama not have a cult of personality surrounding him at his election? Was he not a charismatic up-and-comer billed as an outsider (against Hillary Clinton, no less!)? Did he not base his campaign using the word of an emotion, 'hope?'
I will agree this far about Trump: he has a certain something to his personality that other candidates don't. They, for lack of a better term, look weak compared to him. Not on certain policies, but just like weak people, or maybe sub-people, in that a politician doing their job can never really be a person. It's difficult to put into words. Trump creates an uncanny valley alongside other politicians who we realize are behaving quasi-humanly when they speak, whereas Trump as a celebrity out of politics seems inured to this and only has one register of speech he can't turn off. This might be what gives him the illusion of 'heart' in his speeches that even an Obama can't have, since an Obama still has to be a faux-folksy smiler, whereas Trump once in a while genuinely laughs, and sometimes in derision. Trump bullshits about facts, but Obama is a deeper bullshitter, a bullshitter about himself, he himself is entirely false as a constructed quasi-human being that faces the public, and when his masks slips, the impression I get is one of barely veiled disdain for the general public, whereas Trump's 'true self' seems to revolve around living large and doing whatever he wants and being the big man.
Quoting Moliere
What are they?
Quoting Moliere
I agree with this. The Democrats project weakness in every way. Their party is weak, their candidate is weak, their moral fiber is weak, their voter base is weak. That's why they lost. Their only conviction seems to be that history itself is on their side and will carry them along to its end.
Quoting Moliere
So are we against populist leaders on grounds that they're proto-fascist? Is populism fascist? Is appealing to the working class fascist? I'm trying to wrap my head around this. My general impression is that the tables have turned somewhat due to a real resentment that white Democrats have for the working class, except insofar as the working class in non-white (in which case their lack of whiteness 'balances out' their unfortunate lack of education).
Quoting Moliere
I'm just going to go ahead and say I don't believe this at all, and believing it shows a profound lack of memory or knowledge of how political slogans are used. Just take a look through political slogans used by past U.S. presidential candidates, or politicians at other levels. We know, for example, that Bill Clinton used the very phrase 'make America great agin' when he campaigned in the early 90's; whether or not this statement is 'reactionary' or ;racist' or whatever has nothing to do with reality, but when it;s convenient to label your opponent as racist or reactionary. There's no memory or consistency in any of this, just propaganda.
Quoting Moliere
Racial tensions are deep; presidential campaigns reflect them rather than creating them. I don't believe the story that left alone we'd all be buddy buddy and it's just mean old fearmongers saying mean old things that make people hate each other. The Democratic party has a lot at stake that revolves around, in its own way, hating white people. Different racial blocks want different things, and you simply cannot please all of them coherently. I think it's utterly naive not to recognize this, and utterly naive to think white people, when pushed to a point, will not start to protect their own interests, which historically they have refrained from doing (never forming a coherent voting 'block'). This may happen in the future as effectively the Republicans become the white, and the Democrats the anti-white, parties.
A question on this front, then, because I'm curious: My impression is that the American media and many American politicians are deliberately trying to foster conflict with Russia that is out of step with the attitudes of the American public, who by and large do not hate Russia and have no desire to be in conflict with it. My questions are:
1) Do you agree that there has been a sudden increase in supposed tensions with Russia,
2) Do you believe that these tensions are largely manufactured by politicians and the media, and do not reflect the values of the public,
3) Do you agree that the Democrats are doing more to exacerbate this situation than the Republicans?
I think 'yes' to all of these, which made me shit my pants in fear of the Democrats this election. My impression is almost that there is a contingent in the party that, for some reason, badly wants to start a war. I don't get that impression from Trump; I get the impression of blustery machismo, not of a disturbing attempt at rigging up a war. Maybe blustery machismo can start wars, but the Dems are far scarier to me right now.
Quoting Moliere
I think this resonates with a lot of people because the extent to which westerners are expected to actively suck Muslim dick right now is unprecedented and confusing. I don't think Islam is an enemy, but I think in high places there are artificial pushes to romanticize Islam as an underdog (staffed by brown, i.e. virtuous, people), when it's nothing of the sort, but across the world is an oppressive force with untold political and religious power, and that any country that accommodates it too readily is in danger of becoming theocratized. For all the whining about Christians in the U.S., they just don't have the pull Muslims do worldwide. Christian attempts at theocracy are impotent; Muslim ones are real. This is especially confusing in that those pushing this tend to be those most against the policies Islamic states actually implement. And I think a lot of people would genuinely and rationally fear for their lives in a majority Muslim state.
No matter what evidence, his mind cannot be persuaded from his own conception of truth.
Obama also had policies which he campaigned on along with his sloganeering. Obama certainly had a cult of personality surrounding him. That I don't deny. But he also had a political history, one which is clearly in line with classical liberalism.
Trump has no such history, nor any policies, and he contradicts himself. His emotional appeals have no rational backing, and they even use scapegoat imagery.
Quoting The Great Whatever
That's what the rest of the post was laying out. This was kind of the "thesis statement" -- the paragraphs following were the examples in which they are similar.
Quoting The Great Whatever
All fascists are populists, but not all populists are fascists. In fact that's the general argument I've read from the academy against Trump being a proto-fascist is that they would describe him as a right wing populist, but not a fascist. But I'd say that no historical circumstance is like any other, and we can always isolate any moment in history by requiring our comparisons to approach identity to one another. I'd say that there is something generalizable about fascism which can carry on in other localities, differ, but maintain the core.
And appealing to the working class is not necessarily fascist. Obviously so, given how fascists hate Marxists and vice-versa. I bring up the working-class appeal because it's something that is really particular to the evolution of fascism that marks it as fairly distinct from just a general right wing populism. Fascism is anti-capitalist and claims to move beyond class antagonisms by fusing the classes together into the state. The right-wing populism which Trump has brandished makes it's appeal to traditional left-wing base. It's one of the reasons fascism is actually hard to classify on the left-right dichotomy -- as it has evolved it begins with left-wing sounding ideas but then develops into something else. Trump is even a business elite and yet appeals to working class voters -- so it's something that's really distinctly fascist.
I think the working class just feels abandoned, mostly because they are abandoned -- whether that be because they should just work harder and fuck you I got mine or because, hey, who else are you going to vote for?
I'd like to reiterate, though, that Trump stands out as a proto-fascist on his own. The Democrats are fucked in so many ways, and I have no problem saying so. I've never had a problem saying so. But my thoughts on Trump are not fueled by my thoughts on the Democrats -- by saying Trump is a proto-fascist I am not, in turn, saying the Democrats are good.
Quoting The Great Whatever
It's not just the phrase, though, it's everything that's attending -- it's a summation of R-wing radio talking points and their blogo-social-sphere.
When Trump says "Make America Great Again", he is appealing to white culture. That's why white nationalists were in support of Trump. It's not just convenient, it's who is being mobilized as his base, and the reasons why it is a mobilizing phrase. And the who is white people, at least by the demographic data. It is reactionary because it taps into the founding father's myth which is told and retold in the propaganda machine that even predated Trump. But he managed to fuse these two impulses into one slogan -- America is a white nation, and we can make it the way it was.
I'm not repeating propaganda or writing propaganda here. And I'm familiar with political slogans, how they are used, and have used and written political slogans so it's not just ignorance or a lack of memory on my part. I may be in error, or we may just end up disagreeing too, but that's different from propaganda or ignorance.
Also, it's worth noting that we are all ignorant, to some degree, on these things. Not one person in the world, even the staffers at various departments with access to pertinent and restricted information, knows how all the pieces fit together. The political machine is huge. There may be gross ignorance, which is the only thing I'm pleading against, but surely there is no point in saying that I know enough. I, as are we all, am largely ignorant on the many details that comprise the political machine. But I am not grossly ignorant in the sense that I am totally unfamiliar with the topic or naive on how the basics work.
Quoting The Great Whatever
I don't believe that story, either, but I do believe that there's something common to people deeper than their race. Black interests and white interests are a product of history, but there isn't a racial desire as much as there are human desires -- we are separated by race by circumstance and history, and so it is possible to come together on common ground as people.
Not that it is easy. Only that it is possible.
Regardless, it's the case that hate crimes surged post-Trump election. This evidences that the base which was mobilized by Trump was in fact racially motivated, hence why it is fair to compare Trump to fascists -- who also mobilized people through racial identity and hatred.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Yeah, that seems about right.
I am uncertain, to be honest. I don't find it out of the realm of possibility, but I'd have to see more evidence to believe that it was manufactured. More often than not the news cycle is less controlled than that. The focus on Russia could just be the result of recent events between the two countries. Ukraine, for instance.
I don't think it reflects the values of the public, but I'm rather uncertain what the values of the public are with respect to foreign policy. Insofar that war affects our families then people care, or insofar that patriotism or nationalism is a part of a person's identity then they also seem to care about foreign policy. But in general it seems that foreign policy is out of sight out of mind.
It is, from my perspective, utterly bizarre because it does read like a portal opened up to the cold war and decided to write our newspapers for us, though. I admit it strikes me as odd, but I wouldn't draw conclusions yet.
No, I don't. I don't think I'd agree with the converse either, though.
Obama, perhaps, and so by extension we might say Democrats. But that could just be Obama having access to information which neither Democrats or Republicans have access to, and acting on said information on the basis of national interest rather than party. It's really hard to say from my vantage.
Quoting The Great Whatever
I think both parties want war. It's good for business, it doesn't affect them on a personal level anyways (unless they choose it to), and it helps to project American power across the world. Also, if you're gonna build a toy, why not use it?
I don't see Trump as better in this light.
Of course it's worth noting we're sort of just sharing impressions here, too.
What guff. Romanticism is the go-to justification of the fascist. And politics is a social construction, so of course a skilled politician is going to be presenting a mask to match the occasion.
The very idea that people have "true selves" is where your attempted psychoanalysis goes wrong.
Nonetheless it all falls apart when we see people's masks break. In any case, politicians do not behave like human beings.
I just want to highlight that these things aren't separate, in that the narrative that Trump is a fascist is inseparable from the Democrats, because it is they who drafted that narrative, and so the narrative makes little sense except with respect to Democrat propaganda. Whether you believe that propaganda is another story. The point is that chances are you literally have these thoughts in your head because a Democrat said them and you heard them, even if you don't subjectively experience it that way.
For what it's worth, the Democrats call every Republican candidate a fascist. This is why it's so important to contextualize.
Maybe. I would just add that I disagree with the Democrats in thinking white people are Satan, etc. and think that throwing a tantrum when they stand up for themselves is probably not a good idea, until you've destroyed their demographics, which they will have done in a couple generations. At which point white people may form just another minority voting block and be subsumed into broader liberal identity politics.
I was referring to the efficiency of the health system. This sort of thing:
Dreadful.
lmao
It is not unprecedented, but it feels like it is becoming more common and accepted. As for "a collection of groups" - tu quoque again in lieu of addressing the issue. Instead of reflexively pointing a finger at the opposition you could argue that there's really nothing special here, no sea-change in the culture, no "new era" - and I might agree with you. I am not too certain about my characterization of the phenomenon, perhaps I am just picking out what irks me rather than identifying an objective trend.
But it does feel like a new development. In the past authoritarians sought to tightly control and restrict information. They were very much concerned with preventing the truth from getting out. Remember what event started Winston on his fateful path? He was charged with destroying a photograph that would have exposed a lie that was currently being promulgated by the Ministry of Truth. Orwell was uncannily prescient: such expurgation of incriminating records in newspapers and books was indeed practiced in Stalin's Soviet Union. But you see much less of that today, not because the propaganda lies less, but because it seems less concerned about hiding the truth.
When Russian troops invaded Crimea, the obvious fact was denied by Russian officials and the media. The soldiers, whose only cover was the lack of national insignia, were ironically nicknamed vezhliviye liudy (polite men) by the locals who were not deceived by the ruse. (The troops were mostly just strolling around in their spiffy new uniforms and top-of-the-line gear, and although armed to the teeth, their behavior was markedly reserved - hence the nickname. The task of brutalizing opponents of the occupation and closing down pro-Ukrainian media was mostly outsourced to civilian volunteers and off-duty security officers bused in from the mainland.) By and by, after the annexation Putin, followed by others, acknowledged the invasion. Putin even boasted of his role in directing the operation in a later interview. But as a rule, the earlier lie was never acknowledged or apologized for, although no attempt was made to erase it from the public record. What's more, the vezhliviye liudy - once a symbol of duplicity and underhanded hybrid warfare - quickly became a popular meme, emblazoned on tee-shirts and even memorialized in a goofy public sculpture. People who just months earlier dismissed them as an insidious fabrication of the west never seemed to take an issue with being lied to - they took the about-face in stride.
And this cynicism and indifference to the truth characterized not just poorly educated provincials who only ever watch government-controlled TV channels, but even well-educated, well-traveled, English-speaking Moscow professionals who had all the information at their fingertips (I knew some of them). No burning of pictures was necessary - the pictures were all over the Internet, and nobody minded.
Eh, to get all hipster about it, I've been saying this since before that line began running on the liberal rags. I've argued these same points with liberals, especially when they thought Trump's loss was a foregone conclusion, and also prior to Trump as a phenomena (the base has been growing and building before they had a Trump, and liberals were especially reticent then to discuss the parallels to fascism particularly because they thought it made them look silly and out of touch due to the overuse of 'fascist' as an insult). Trump is just a manifestation of a base which has been growing, plus, as I noted before, a poor candidate and campaign from his opposition.
Quoting The Great Whatever
Insofar that a Democrat believes white people are Satan then, sure. But I don't think that most Democrats believe this. I think this goes in hand with the perception of persecution and humiliation I was talking about, though.
Again, the Dems have called every Republican candidate fascist, at least it was commonly applied to Romney and Bush during both of his elections. So I don't think your testimony is trustworthy here, since your claim about the Dems not wanting to use the insult is false.
Some have. I would say that most did not, though. And guess which one's might be reticent to use the epithet? Probably those Democrats which didn't call Bush or Romney a fascist. These sorts of statements are not so easily ruled true or false simply because they can apply to people who do different things from one another. I'm willing to accept that this is your perception of Democrats -- it's not like I live where you do, or interact with the same people. But it is also the case that Democrats resist the 'fascist' epithet simply because it sounds ridiculous.
And, it's still worth noting that the parallels I've lain out here are still independent of what Democrats have called who in the past. The standard I'm using is not what Democrats say, but Mussolini's essay and Robert Paxton.
Interesting stuff, Mollie.
Hitler was definitely a fascist but the people in his party saw that as a strength.
I would say that Trump is closer to a fascist than any other president.
He is a trend in that direction in my opinion.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/12/13/putin-paradigm-how-trump-will-rule/
Then there is also this that explains the post truth phenomena ... algorithmic news feeds create self-reinforcing bubbles of opinion where data is mined for the facts which best support some subset of prejudices.....
Which also speaks to a basic issue of ADHD in Trump's case ...
And for those who don't like the fascist tag - which indeed smacks too much of Germanic dedication to a cause - then this seems accurate...
And then another dangerous ingredient of the mix is this ... a facist/romantic antipathy to intellectual social order (very appealing to those with ADHD or feeling overwhelmed by the complexity of modern society(...
So Trump could be summed up as a sloppy corporate raider.
The US government was a fat opportunity just lying around. He rode a public mood of dissatisfaction - quite legitimate given the level of inequality and loss of social capital in the US - and grabbed something which was on offer. However Trump isn't really interested in his latest acquisition any more than he ever really cares about the business side of his businesses. They are simply vehicles to fulfill a narcissistic sense of personal destiny.
So Trump will peck away at this and that crisis to keep his ADHD entertained, with no long term strategic intent in mind. The US will drift in confused fashion like all his investments as a result.
I think many successful politicians tend to have psychopathic personalities traits with superficial charm, a grandiose notion of self-worth, the need for stimulation and impulsiveness, pathological lying, the ability to manipulate others and a lack of remorse and empathy. HRC & Trump both share these kinds of traits, but I think there is a spectrum, with people like Stalin, & Hitler on the extreme end.
Hm. Hitler was a Nazi. The emphasis is on the superiority of the imaginary 'Aryan' race. The state is there for the benefit of the race. Fascism, as the symbol implies, brings together corporatism, nationalism and militarism for the benefit of the state, denying the place of the individual.
So Nazism might be seen as a racist Germanic sub-genre of fascism. Falangism also included pan-Hispanic racist elements.
I did not intend to say that Trump is as bad as Stalin or Hitler, but given the opportunity to wield the same power as they, I am not so sure he would less prone to abuse.
At least Trump won fairly. HRC cheated to win her nomination.
Then again, it is worth noting when history repeats itself.
Cute.
Why is it cheating if the DNC supports the candidate they believe is stronger?
Atlantic Magazine
Since Gore Vidal said it, probably. People regularly compared GWBush to Hitler. There was nothing particularly fascist about him. I haven't heard many people call Trump fascist, but he did heavily promote nostalgia and what appeared to be scape-goating. Didn't see much war-mongering, but who knows what he'll say next week?
The question is: what difference does it make? It's hard for me to think of a scenario where the US crashes into a fascist ditch. But whatever it is, it's not something to be glib about. It's horrendous.
No, I have no idea who would have won if it had been a fair contest by the time they got to the convention there was little that could be done.
But he still won the nomination.
I don't understand why it is cheating to win more delegates than your opponent, that is the entire point.
Well, for the record, I also distinctly recall people sporting Obama-the-Hitler posters shortly after the time of his election. Some, in so terming Obama, were bothered by the “socialization of health care”—even though the single-payer system never even made it to the table. They weren’t Democrats. Many seem to be the same that currently support Trump, together with things such as him being justified in not knowing what “alt-right” groups signify and intend.
I say, back to lottery elections … what democracy ought to be! That way we begin to once again hold civic care rather than shrugging our shoulders over what the next-door neighbor claims to be true [just mentioned statement about lottery elections should not be taken seriously in a verbatim manner … although I am tempted to vote for it if anybody manages to put it on the ballot]
One can note that the extremes of left and right in the persons of Stalin and Hitler are similar in many repugnant ways. I don't see the need to call Stalin a Nazi or Hitler a Communist, except to annoy them.
Whats that quote about tragedy repeating as farce?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43
He thinks calling them lies interjects a judgement that is not there in his statements.
Problem: people believe what they read, especially in places like the WSJ.
Richard Rorty and the Origins of Post-Truth
ANA SANDOIU
The Partially Examined Life
Dec 2016
Anyway, if we suppose that a major meteor impact was to happen, then, ex hypothesi, no manner of post-truth will save the truthers.
Thus, discovering the world on it's own terms also matters, if you will.
(That's assuming the truthers wish to continue post-truth'ing.) :)
Another neat summation.
My reply to Rorty would be that if all we have is conversation "disembodied" from the world around us, then those with existing power will be able to dominate that conversation. That is, his recipe for a liberal paradise will result in a conservative world in which those with more power dominate the conversation.
While I have great sympathy for the view that any statement should be held eligible for review, the actual result is not progress, but a mere floundering, as can be seen ubiquitously hereabouts.
Those who are in power usually do dominate the conversation, don't they?
I would also say it's not out of line to make historical comparisons. For instance, white supremacy is a much more widely shared value than the number of people who would call themselves white supremacists -- the frame is usually more along the lines of "we just want to be with our own people, with our own culture, and take pride in our European heritage" -- but when those words also lead to hate crimes, there's more going on than what's on the face.
There are always going to be points of comparison just as there is never going to be identical historical moments. So there will never be a perfect comparison and there will always be the possibility of comparison, both. It's more a matter of making out what's similar to hopefully have a better understanding of what is going on now. There's some judgment involved in determining whether such-and-such a comparison is a "significant" comparison, and that significance happens somewhere in the middle between those two extremes.
Quoting Mongrel
Some Democrats did, yes. Not all, though, and those who didn't -- while they opposed Bush 2 -- thought it was silly to make said comparison, for the reason you note here.
He continued an American trend of bringing power to the executive, and helped kick off the surveillance state, but I wouldn't say he was a fascist, either.
Quoting Mongrel
To me, at least, it is worth to look to have some kind of expectation to either contradict or confirm. Rather than, say, believing that we just have some villages which have a need for people and so we are shipping such-and-such people there, I might view such an action with a deeper suspicion.
Also, it helps to understand what is likely to actually influence a person in political power. This is why categories like "Democrat" and "Republican" are used, no? Because there are some general tendencies which don't always apply, and may not even be in the majority of the cases, but which we can expect to find often enough to note and check for. This is true even for people who aren't deeply involved in politics.
And it helps to know when something is being tried which hasn't worked before in similar circumstances, or vice versa, or simply to know the way certain trends could go. This will help a person to make better political choices in line with their values. So, in this case, we might say that it is good for Trump to promise jobs to people. But we could note that those jobs only go to some people, and not everyone, and so it may not help us after all. Or, we could note that "jobs", as a catch-all category, isn't something the President has much power over, which is why most presidents say things along these lines in the first place, because it sounds good and they don't have to deliver much on it.
The difference here, I think, would depend a great deal on what level of involvement we are willing to partake in, and what our beliefs about the way things should be. I mean, clearly, a fascist would be happy that a proto-fascist is gaining power and legitimating what they believe in, no?
Quoting Mongrel
Eh, I figure it has happened before, so insofar that people's motivations and circumstances are similar then there's a possibility of it happening again. No country is immune to morphing into something it didn't begin as, at least.
I agree that it's nothing to be glib about.
Why Have People “Had Enough of Experts”?
Sure. I was the one in the crowd claiming that the comparison was inappropriate. I was silenced by the rage. It's easy to forget exactly how angry part of the American population was about GWBush.
Cool.
Though, where no one is obliged to automatically listen to subject matter experts, neither are anyone entitled to automatically dismiss them.
Mere post-truth dissidentry without reason won't do.
Nice one
Should I care about your conviction?
*bows* 8-)
But why should we think they are? You are not at all convincing.
But... I'm convinced :-O
I like being the fool! :D
Prefixing objective only serves to bring in confusion. The distinction between objective and subjective truth is either incoherent or amounts to no more than the distinction between stating the very same thing in the first person or the third person.
As if we could only ever speak in the first person.
Well, it's a liberal meme in that, as I pointed out in the OP, post-truth dialogue is unsustainable, and so post-truth politics must eventually fail. The phrase is a rhetorical device to emphasis the inconsistency of some certain politics.
Reality cannot be post-truth, of course.
There's an interesting slippage of meaning, from ...
"Reality cannot be post-truth, of course." is true.
to...
Reality is the truth.
Statements are true in virtue of conforming to reality, v truth is the reality to which true statements conform.
(Mutters something about the reification of conformity.)
This would be a reification of truth, rather than of conformity?
Well on one interpretation, this is the reification: "Reality cannot be post-truth, of course."
Knowing you, I think you mean that truth does not apply to reality, but to statements, but it it is a common usage to say that 'the truth is what is the case.' and that is the slide of meaning that allows 'post truth' a purchase; reality being the noumenon and so inaccessible and so on.
But I don't think Trump's politics for that matter are "post-truth". They do value truth - a different truth than the liberals value, that's all. Regarding climate change (on which I disagree with Trump for example) they are valuing a different kind of truth - economic gain and prosperity, and because they value this truth, they suppress the truth of global warming and call it a falsity - this is merely rhetoric to garner support for one truth instead of the other.
It's not possible that any critical thought went into what Grayling said, because you can hear what he said on any radio station.
It stands to reason that he said these things because he heard them and regurgitated them, and for no other reason.
No?
It really does read like an impressionistic mash-up of cliche talking points.
"But all you need now is an iPhone. Everyone can publish their opinion."
"The world changed after 2008"
"The whole post-truth phenomenon is about, 'My opinion is worth more than the facts.' It's about how I feel about things. It's terribly narcissistic. "
"There are some really uncomfortable parallels with the 1930s"
Doesn't mean he's wrong, necessarily, just means he doesn't have much to offer in the way of insight.
Fake News
Is this a "fact," or just your interpretation? Dismissing this as a mere smartass reply won't work - if you can't get around the simple smartass reply, then the position wasn't any good to begin with.
Let the pictures speak for themselves:
https://cfmedia.deadline.com/2017/01/inauguration-crowd.jpg?w=605&h=810
:-d
>:O
These guys actually thought they lived in a world of pink flying unicorns >:O - I mean can you believe that?
Do you really believe this? That's straight up propaganda. It's not remotely accurate. It's just right wing talking points.
:-}
No it is the truth. Rampant liberalism/progressivism, hedonism, stupid decisions and leadership have utterly destroyed America's greatness. Trump is America's last hope - really and truthfully now. And all this is because he's the only one who has the pragmatism that it takes to save America. As I said, America's interest diverges at this juncture from the interests of its people.
What greatness was destroyed?
Quoting Agustino
Last hope for what?
Quoting Agustino
Save America from what? Cheap Chinese goods? Evil climate scientists? Below minimum wage migrant labor?
Quoting Agustino
How so? Is a New York billionaire going to save the interests of the people?
What makes you think Trump is any better? What makes you think that by being President he will make America more virtuous and pragmatic?
Fuck the interests of the people! Survival is above the interests of the people - what use if the interests of the people are satisfied and in 20 years America disappears off the face of the Earth? China is already a larger economy than the US. In 20 years, if the current rates continue, China will be TWICE as big as the US. You can calculate this yourself. The rise of Islamic terrorism, slow economic growth, ever increasing debt, a population which loves hedonistically indulging itself and has less and less concern about virtue and the harshness of reality, - all these problems will cripple America very soon if not addressed
Quoting Marchesk
America's global hegemony.
Quoting Marchesk
For the survival of the United States of America and their continued hegemonic status.
Quoting Marchesk
Trump is pragmatic. He represents the hard virtues, such as discipline, pragmatism, getting the job done, facing reality, taking tough decisions, courage, etc. much better than Clinton :-! I actually laugh when I compare Trump to Clinton on these criteria. He will not get Americans to be virtuous, but he may get them to stop being hedonistic by getting them to work. Trump is stupid in spiritual matters, but not in worldly matters.
My country is the first to lose if Russia's influence grows. Don't play dumb Wayfarer. That doesn't mean that I fail to see that Trump is good for America. Trump isn't good for me and Eastern Europe - but does America give a shit about Eastern Europe? Should America give a shit about Eastern Europe? No America should give a shit about itself. You know what Eastern Europe is for America? A pawn on the chess board of global politics.
What do you expect? They have 5 times as many people, and we found it in our economic interest to trade with them. Expect India to follow suit, and Africa after that (granted, it's a continent not a nation). That's globalism for you, and that's countries realizing they need to catch up and modernize.
Quoting Agustino
That existed due to the outcome of WW2, and it led to a cold war with thousands of nukes hanging over our heads. But the rest of the world was going to catch up.
No. It's China having outsmarted the stupid US and the stupid Russia. China - everyone depends on them, no economy can do without China. They're becoming indispensable, and they're very quiet about it, they don't make a big noise. Have you even heard that China is now the world's biggest economy? Many people haven't. China will become a global hegemony very soon if things don't change drastically. Trust me, I've studied Chinese history for a very long time, these people are the biggest snakes out there. The political manipulations that exist in China's history dwarf anything in the West - their strategic mind is phenomenal. They hide great ambition under a mask of humility. China's people are also virtuous, keenly aware of the dangers and difficulties of life, willing to bear hard labour and hard lives with little satisfaction. When will you see Americans doing that? >:O >:O
Quoting Marchesk
No it existed because of staying quietly out of the war, only to join at the end - in BOTH World Wars, and then dictate the terms after the war. It also existed because of the long-time reliance on slavery which enabled production at virtually no material cost.
Now, we have two presidential spokespersons telling blatant lies on the first and second days of the Trump presidency - and, when challenged, calling those lies 'alternative facts'.
All of the above obfuscation ought not to becloud this elementary fact: that the USA has elected a proven liar, who sorrounds himself with liars, and continues to attempt to prevail by telling lies.
Over and out.
As I have explained, "post-truth" is a liberal meme. In order for liberals to deny the TRUTH of the cold reality out there, they curse reality, and call it "post-truth" - it's a mechanism of psychological denial. They can't accept the situation as it is. They must find a way to cling to their fantasy. So they call fantasy true, and reality post-truth.
Isn't that what the migrant workers are for? Get paid slave wages way below minimum requirements and no benefits? You have to ask yourself why no Republican administration has done anything other than saber rattling about illegal immigration.
The North in the US was doing quite well industrially without slave labor leading up to the Civil War. The South was more agrarian, and being the virtuous souls that they were, decided to have other human beings do the work for them.
There are hidden costs associated with this, including large future costs.
Quoting Marchesk
And the US is bearing the costs for it today.
Laugh or cry? :-}
You think I jest, but man some of those old forum discussions were doozies.
Landru is more a progressive than a liberal. I suspect he would say "realism" (or rather the obsession with "rational truth" ) is responsible for failing to build an identity and culture which serves the oppressed. In other words, the people running around in a panic about "post-truth" are misdiagnosing the problem. The issue is not that "truth" has no respect, but the valuing of an oppressive culture has taken hold.
Though, I don't think the question of realism has a lot to do with "alternative facts." I think he would have no hesitation in saying the "alternative facts" were falsehoods. His opposition to realism wasn't a question of saying there are no such things as falsehoods, but rather opposing a metaphysic that replaces awareness of the subject with worship of "objective knowledge" that supposedly sits outside reaction to anyone.
Why?
Actually, Landru is paradoxically opposed to reason-skeptical conservatism, and not so much opposed to my type of conservatism. I think Landru's focus was more economical than otherwise, and a fight against conservatism in-so-far as it is oppressive (anti-reason).
In fact, I remember a discussion with him in which he admitted that there may be something of value in social conservatism.
I don't think that's particularly paradoxical. There is a certain "social conservativism" within the progressive side. Perhaps not one you would respect all that much, but concerns about the impact of actions on others occupy a significant space. The liberal narratives of "do what ever you want" or "you're the only one that matters" would get you tarred and feathered in many progressive circles. I mean most of the progressives I interact hold positions which are not too far removed from your own-- e.g. no cheating, people above status or desire, intimacy and respect in sex(just not necessarily with one person)--at least with respect to individual behaviour.
I mean I, the arch progressive, aren't opposed to much of what your conservativism circles. It the obsessions of vengemce, jealously and image which I cannot abide.
Well according to my position a person is of infinite value and thus they cannot be respected without full devotion to them. That would be equivalent to not recognising their full value as a person - their deserving status as an end-in-itself.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't think vengeance, if by this you mean reprisal outside the law is just. If someone kills my wife, and because they're powerful the police does nothing to them, and I take it upon myself to annihilate both them and their entire family, then I am taking revenge and that is not just, but neither is what happened to me just. Revenge is just a (wrong) reaction to injustice.
Jealousy for that matter is also a (wrong) reaction to injustice.
The important fact is that both of these - jealousy and revenge are motivated by an actual and real injustice, which is what makes them so complex to deal with in practice.
(Y) (Y) (Y)
I think the Master would have told you this Wayfarer if he was still alive. I bet during the Cold War you were one of those people so concerned about the threat of nuclear war >:O - but as Osho tells you, you shouldn't be worried - you'll have the cockroaches to keep you company! :D
That's bad chess strategy right there. Pawns are important, pawns are valuable, and the player who sacrifices them for no or little advantage will quickly lose.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/how-kellyanne-conway-ushered-in-the-era-of-alternative-facts/?utm_term=.fb51df157064:
Fake news is a serious problem. Psychology Today (1/22/17) proposes that it might be treated as a disease. a disease which one can be vaccinated against.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201701/fake-news-vaccine-inoculates-against-alternative-facts The researchers used a fake news poll which indicated that
The Inoculation Theory, which developed by social psychologist William J. McGuire in 1961 was proposed for multiple contexts including politics.
I voted for Clinton and I was queasy about it. So I think a lot of us were in the same boat... whomever we voted for.
OK, but he won, and his henchmen will be spinning "alternative facts" at us for the next 4 years. It may not affect all thinking people, but that said, how many in the general population think about such things? The majority accept what is said at face value.
It needs to be offset, otherwise misinformation will be taken as information by the many. The question is what can we do. I sincerely hope that Trump & the GOP get mired in litigation so deep that they cannot possibly act.
Ethical groups have already sued him for conflict of interest in regards to his Washington Hotel lease. He is in violation of lease terms, which prohibit political ownership. I think this is the tip of the iceberg.
Meanwhile people around me are worried about conspiracies and the rise of the Antichrist. Truth? What is truth? :)
Yes pawns are indeed important, however, clinging to pawns may very well lead to defeat. The paradox of strategy is that any path can lead to defeat. America has bigger concerns than Eastern Europe. If Eastern Europe can be gambled for Syria and exterminating ISIS, America hasn't lost much, but has gained quite a bit.
Many lies were told in the news in my youth. People got power through slogans and untruths. Am i suddenly supposed to remember Tony Blair and the Clintons as truth tellers?
To be clear, I'm nervous that Trump is indeed a Fascist. But i don't think we should kid ourselves about truth-telling.
But why couldn't the stomach the alternative? What was so very bad about Clinton, or Obama before her? I don't see anything so terrible that Trump becomes the appealing alternative. Not that I'm a big fan of Hillary, and she can be criticized, but let's be clear about what has gone on the last 20 years.
Fox News, right wing radio, and the Republican party in general has sought to demonize Hillary, even more so than her husband and Obama. She was the one person the right could not allow in the White House. Hillary is evil incarnate to conservatives, basically. And having the Democrats get the first woman after having the first minority in office would have been devastating.
Pretending that all the propaganda from Fox News and right wing radio didn't have anything to do with Trump winning is naive. Now this isn't to say that Trump was their ideal conservative. He's not, not at all. But he's much better ally in power than another Clinton, who would be the enemy.
All you have to do is listen for five minutes once a year to those stations. Same shit about liberal conspiracies, Obama wrecking America, etc. Blatant propaganda, and lot of people eat that stuff up. I have relatives and family friends who certainly do. You would think Fox News was the bible.
She just seemed to represent the establishment. Was she selling the State Dept? Probably.. which is just bizarre if she knew she wanted to run for president. Her personality is off-putting. That didn't help.
For years now I've said that the first woman president of the US would have to be a Republican. Female Democrat is just too many vectors in the same direction. It did occur to me when it seemed that Clinton might win that all the people I said that to would remember and think.. oh, she was wrong!
I think one of the very most pernicious memes in US culture is this idea that 'Government is evil' - that it's an intrusive Big Brother, who is teaming up with these shadowy forces to 'take our freedom away'.
Trump said at his Inauguration that now he is going to 'take the power back' from 'Washington' and 'give it back to the people' - via the likes of Steve Mnuchin, who forgot to declare $100 million of assets in his disclosure form.
The whole deception about this is that representative democracy is 'giving power to the people'. The people elect representatives, who go to Washington to represent 'the people'. Sure, there are many things about it that are dysfunctional, there's corruption and mal-administration; but saying that government itself is the problem, the very institute of democratic governance, is essentially a step towards either anarchy or dictatorship.
That's where the real conspirators are to be found; those sowing doubt and fear about Government, who will profit from de-regulation and public distrust of the law and the media. They paint themselves as the 'us' in 'us vs them', but they're the real villians. You know, the kinds that gamed the system before The Big Short. I bet nobody even knows their names.
(Friend of mine lived in Shanghai from 2000-2006, When he came back he was utterly convinced in the Twin Towers conspiracy. Had swallowed the whole story hook line and sinker. I wondered why he was so convinced, but I think it had something to do with having been living in China. It's in their interests to sow mistrust and doubt about the US government. China, Iran and Russia all have direct interests in weakening public perception of Western governance. There's your actual 'conspiracy'.)
We're all being played for suckers, but not by 'The Government'.
You're right. Conservatives are real big on that. The goal is to defund Government so that business can take over. Because business interests are superior to government. That profit motive working for the common good.
Amazing the number of people who can't or won't recognise a demagogue when they're looking at one.
That's exactly what a leader should be saying... What would you expect a leader to be saying? The job of a leader is to ensure their country is great, and the will of the people is followed. Fuck democracy. Why should we be addicted to democracy, unquestioningly? Seriously people speak of democracy as if it was a God-sent political system that we should never change... Why are all non-democratic systems deemed totalitarian? As if there was only one alternative - democracy, or totalitarianism :s Such a narrow world-view. Plato himself made it abundantly clear that democracy is quite possibly the worst political system, only tyranny was qualified as worse. But of course, you're just parroting liberal propaganda Wayfarer.
>:O No it doesn't however Plato did provide a hirearchy of governments - you can find them summarised here since you like Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes
Trump sounds like he would fit Timocracy or Oligarchy, both superior forms to democracy.
:-} Since you don't bother yourself to read anything that I give you, I might as well write it out for you:
The thing is that many people simply don't believe that the official story presented by NIST and FEMA, which don't hold water when faced with reality. You can look up the third tower that fell on 9/11, World Trade Center 7, which most people don't even know about after having the images of the twin towers seared into their minds.
As in it never happened or as in office fires brought a steel framed building down?
:s No, I actually said timocracy as Plato discussed it. Did you actually read my post where I quoted the Wikipedia article on Plato's political philosophy?
We shouldn't, of course, not question Democracy. In fact, in a Democracy, one is both given the tools and the rights with which to question not just the state, but whether the state should even be Democratic.
But this is not a question of Democracy. "Fuck democracy -- why democracy?" is shifting the burden of demonstration from yourself to someone else. It isn't much of a criticism as much as it is a statement of conviction, as well as a belief that Democracy needs to prove itself.
One reason why you might desire a Democratic nation, though, is that you can criticism said nation without retaliation from the nation -- even if your criticisms are merely restatements of conviction. In fact you could criticize other forms of government too, but what is different here is the ability to disagree with the nation you are a part of. Insofar that public expression is valuable then Democracy is valuable to that end. Further, Democracy can change with the times -- as people change so do Democracies. For most of us that means more power, since most of us are not in charge -- so it's also just a basic self-interest for the majority to be in favor of Democracy when we do, in fact, have people in charge.
I am, of course, speaking about Democracy in the abstract in the above, and not particular instances of Democracy, and speaking about Democracy in terms of a contemporary Democratic state.
I felt inclined to highlight this sentiment of yours here because I take it that it is not just your sentiment, but is shared more widely, and it clearly expresses the anti-Democracy which the populism you support seems bent towards.
And who said a constitutional monarchy would involve retaliation from the nation? Who said Aristocracy would entail retaliation from the nation? Really this is nothing but the democratic meme that all non-democratic regimes are totalitarian >:O
Quoting Moliere
Public expression of what is wrong and immoral is not valuable at all, and must be limited, not given free reign as in democracy. This is exactly Plato's criticism. Democracy gives free reign to what is worse in man - and since the majority of men are low and weak, democracy ends up being a downward force, like a big weight hanging on someone's neck while they're trying to swim and save their lives.
Quoting Moliere
Yes more power to engage in vice and destruction.
Quoting Moliere
Yes it becomes worse. The average level is always pulled down by the more and more influential plebs - and I'm not speaking of plebs in terms of their financial status, but in terms of their lack of culture and morality, and their weakness.
Quoting Wikipedia on Plato
You said "Why Democracy?" -- I gave a reason for why Democracy. What I did not give a reason for was "Why is Democracy better than Constitutional Monarchy", much less "Why is Democracy better than Agustino's vision of Constitutional Monarchy" -- What I had to work with was ,after all, "Fuck Democracy -- why democracy?"
OK :)
The comments that I made, were not about democracy at all, but about Trump's well-documented and abundantly obvious disregard for facts. I mentioned the storm over the 'alternative facts' remark made by one of Trump's handlers, in response to the ridiculous argument over the size of Trump's dick, er, sorry, inauguration crowd. Then I got criticized for 'spreading liberal memes' and 'worshipping democracy' - which is plainly obfuscation, and, I think, trolling.
In any case, as Churchill remarked, democracy is the 'least worst' form of government, all things considered, because it is the only one in which you and I can actually be given a choice to change things. And I really do think Trump is going to be a threat to democracy, because of his disregard for facts, among other things, but also because he's a narcissistic, un-informed egotist. All perfectly apt in a thread on 'post-truth', we're looking at the guy for whom it was named.
Yes, true. And perhaps I have behaved poorly in choosing to engage. The statement you made and the response just seemed to represent something to me, but clearly it was off topic.
Yup-ish. I don't even think Democracy is "the best evar" -- but I'll take it over several alternatives. Perhaps better for another thread though.
I must note that I think the accusations against pomo and relativism aren't exactly on target either :). I find it hard to imagine anyone in the current administration pondering Lyotard and deriving their current political moves from said exercise.
In addition, those who seek power don't particularly care about truth, though they probably care to know it. Bullshit, as Banno noted, is closer to home -- but the seeker of power is no bullshitter. The seeker of power will bullshit if it brings power, and will construct rational arguments if it brings power. If power be the goal, unchecked by any other value, then truth or post-truth it will seek power.
That being said, the line about "alternative facts" definitely gave support to the notion both to post-truth, as well as the belief that Trump's administration at least has the desire to attack democratic mechanisms.
Not quite post-truth in the sense of stating false things and proclaiming them true, but removal of information to facts one disagrees with.
Today's installment is: Trump is insisting that 'voter fraud' is the reason that he lost the popular vote to Clinton, despite there being no evidence of it. He has now announced an enquiry into voter fraud, despite the fact - that's fact, f-a-c-t - that several previous exhaustive enquiries have found no evidence of voter fraud. He also railed about people registered to vote in more than one state, but since then it's come out that both his daughter and Steve Bannon are registered in more than one state.
This is the same man who had the nerve to deny clear evidence of Russian involvement in the vote which was presented by the CIA and the FBI and accepted by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
It is, again, total and blatant disregard for fact. I think this really will bring him undone, though - he's no longer CEO of Trump Inc.
Because he has balls of steel 8-)
What makes you think the "Open Society" is even something to be desired? :s
Your motivation is fear, your politics is nasty. Your argument too often a shallow tu quoque or loaded question.
Show me where they have been shown to be incoherent. I think quite the contrary.
Not a promising reply. Do you want to discuss philosophy or score points? Nowadays i don;t have time to post as often as I once did, and so am at a clear disadvantage in the points-scoring game.
If you want to talk about the open society, start a conversation instead of a confrontation.
I find yours nasty and immoral too on top of that. I think in as much as you engaged in dialogue I showed that you have no reason of presuming your values are everyone else's values, and we're at least equal one to each other in fighting for different values.
And by the way, your motivation is fear too. You fear that your world, as you know it, dominated by progressive/liberal ideology is coming to an end. For me it's not fear driving me but hope - my world is yet to be born, it is fresh and still young.
I offered a critique of democracy, which hasn't been rebutted in this thread, by you or anyone else. You should look back a few posts for it. Instead I was given ad hominems and dismissive replies by Wayfarer and Moliere, who refused to counter my points.
Quoting Banno
Well I'm sure here to discuss things if you're actually going to discuss them.
Quoting Banno
Well I disagree with "open society" for the same reasons I disagree with democracy, which I've already listed before. Neither you nor anyone else offered any response to that critique.
You're a very strange fellow. I merely said back to you what you said to me, and now that's uninviting. Look Banno, all these look like excuses to me - excuses for not being able to mount an intellectual defence for your worldview and values.
If you don't care what other people think, then get ready to lose in the political arena, it's quite simple.
But notice your non sequitur from "why should I care what Agustino thinks" to "why should I care what anyone thinks". Again, your style is more trollish than interesting.
The only reason you have my attention now is that I am procrastinating.
Your activism Banno shows me that you are scared. You (and by this I mean progressive/liberals) have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Well if you apply such a principle to me, why would you not apply it to many other people, presumably those who are like me, and there's many of us out there?
(My bolding).
So here's my question: given the Trump admin's propensity for co-opting the language of their opponents, is it reasonable for the opponents to co-opt their language? It seems so to me, along the lines proposed by Žižek in the article discussed above, of pointing out the incoherence of Trump's policies.
What is the process when an executive order is illegal? We have no equivalent here, as neither the Governor General nor the Queen use anything equivalent to that privilege. That it can be so in the USA strikes me as a breach of the Separation of the Powers.
Absurd posturing. You have no less to lose in political conflict than a progressive or a liberal. If you lose, you are stuck with a society with values and culture you cannot stand. Even if a liberal or progressive society is a continuation of a status quo, it still means the value and culture you want have been lost. If you had nothing to lose in this conflict, you would not be fighting. You wouldn't even care about politics.
Like much of you political analysis, you cannot see past the projection of image, which supposedly amounts to status or moral victory. A lot of time you remind me of the naive and lazy progressives I encounter for time-to-time, who think just shouting: "Down with capitalism/patriarchy/kyriarchy, etc." amount to delivering the functioning alternative. The world and society are far more complex than worshipping tyrants who masquerade as philosopher kings.
No it doesn't. Something cannot be lost unless it exists in the first place. As my society doesn't currently exist, it cannot be lost, it can only be gained.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I care about politics because I hope and desire for such a society. Not because I stand to lose something that I haven't already lost, but rather because I stand to gain.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't think DJT is a philosopher king. For the record, as I've said before, Trump fits somewhere between timocracy and oligarchy - and that's much better than Obama, who fits squarely in the democratic distinction, as Plato drew them.
That's pure bullshit. Though, I will say it is consistent with you aversion to recognising loss. I'll use an example you might understand: abortion. Just because a growing child has yet developed and be born, it doesn't mean they aren't lost if the pregnancy is terminated. Loss doesn't require existence to occur. Something can be lost merely by the world not allowing it to exist in the first place.
My point wasn't about Donald Trump. It's about the very concept of the philosopher king. They are incoherent. No government or political system functions or is born from one person's authority. That's a illusion, a posturing to assert status, rather than an understanding of how the political system works.
Those who think politics works that way are tyrants, not because of a specific organisation or authority, but because they believe society functions by their authority alone. Plato's political analysis is naive, based on the posturing and ego of leaders, rather than on looking at governance itself.
The child is a human being whether he is born or not once he is conceived. So yes, there is the loss of a human being. But if the child isn't [s]given birth[/s] conceived in the first place, because say the mother and the father don't want to have children, then is the child lost? :s That would be the height of incoherency.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
In my experience, leadership always involves the person's authority in practice.
Well. it's the best seller now. I don't know how long it has been.
Animal Farm may also enjoy renewed interest.
The arrival of the pig-man embryo might suggest a progression from post truth to post human to post moral by way of pragmatics
Plato's political analysis is not naive, it's simply the only analysis that is possible from the reference frame of a decaying democracy (remember that Plato lived in a decaying democracy, which sentenced Socrates to death for "corrupting the youth"). The Republic was Plato's answer to such a democracy.
Since today we live in a decaying democracy, we are in a similar situation to the one Plato was in. We're rebelling against democracy, because democracy has lost any aristocratic principle - it has flattened. Democracy has become like a heavy anchor, that we, the man struggling to get out of the water, finds tied around his neck and pulling him perpetually down. It is in this sense, and in this sense only that Plato speaks against democracy - hence why he counts as its vices the ascent of the poor in demanding and expecting better without doing anything for it (or relying on empty social standards, such as education, and then demanding to be given everything simply because they have finished school/university), the valuation of the easy path - the immoral path - giving in to our base lusts, hedonism/consumerism, being consumed by desires, and being governed by the notion of freedom which is equivalent to being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want. Democracy decays when people in weakness look to the state - not to each other - for help. When the state is expected to do so and so for them, and they are expected to be given so and so. Civilisation is, to a certain extent, anti-thetical to "enlightened democracy".
Plato could not see the idea of an "enlightened democracy" - because the people of his time, just like the people of our time, cannot handle it. Freedom is so misunderstood that the entire notion of an enlightened democracy appears incoherent. But the ideal state is not the philosopher king - the ideal state is the democratically enlightened community where people are actively engaged with and respectful of each other and their mutual interests. The community which naturally adopts moral standards, perceiving it as the best way to live, which naturally restrains its desires and lives close to the earth. The philosopher king is the answer once morality has already disappeared...
"When the Great Dao is forgotten, kindness and morality arise; when wisdom and intelligence are born, the great pretense begins; when there is no peace in the family, filial piety and devotion arise; when the country is confused and in chaos, the loyal ministers appear. Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom, and it will be a hundred times better for everyone. Give up kindness, renounce morality, and men will rediscover filial piety and love. Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear. These three are outward forms alone, they are not sufficient in themselves, it is more important to see the simplicity, to realise one's true nature" - DaoDeJing
So yes, Plato, just like me, is merely reacting to his times. Our focus on ethics and morality exists because we have no ethics and no morality, and indeed it is the absence of such in society that pushes one towards them.
That's why it's naive. It can't see beyond authoritarian reaction, thought to be a direct imposition of the leaders will. All it amounts to is an apology for power, an image that specifies the next scapegoat, an illusion of greatness when all that's happened is a shift in social status and a rubber stamp for tyranny-- the self-confirming aristocratic illusion which turns them blind to the world.
A philosopher king is not a solution to a decaying society. Community is needed to that purpose. Whether that be in local relationships actions (which the post-industrial has has difficulty with because of a surplus labour force; it has to run the trivial and wasteful to keep people employed) or in international relations and power (e.g. obtaining resources, eliminating invasion threats, etc.). This isn't really a question of government type (one can have dictators who get their populace drunk on freedoms and recreations), but of what a society does.
The philosophy king thinks social change can be achieved inactivity, by nothing more than his decree and speech. Dazzled by his visions of grandeur and self-importance ( "I am the great man who will save this society" ), the philosopher king forgets he's (supposedly) leading a community.
I don't read it that way. The PK is not a tyrant, Plato has another category for tyranny. The PK and the surrounding aristocracy are those dedicated to the re-establishment of their community by putting back the aristocratic tendency that has disappeared from the decaying democracy (indeed this is precisely why it is decaying). But this putting back the broken pieces of the vase will never make the vase the same as it was before it broke, and this is what Plato didn't understand. Paradise regained isn't the same as the initial Paradise.
But there is no alternative. The PK and the aristocracy are the only ones left who can reform community. But even their attempt seems bound for failure, and the only thing that ends up restoring community is its death and re-birth from ground zero. Indeed, we have seen this many times through history, with many empires, kingdoms, villages, and so forth.
Isn't this the way of all tyranny? By grounding itself in supposed 'threats to the citizens', or 'threats to the security of the state'. (Never mind that it is a statistical certainty that in the 72 hours since the order was signed, there will have been nearly 100 Americans shot dead by other Americans. Talk about that 'threat to American safety', however, and you'll find yourself being called 'an enemy of freedom' on other grounds altogether.)
The philosopher king has to lay the foundations for the new society. I'd say he is more of a visionary then anything else, he must see far into the future, with a plan, to direct the coming into being of the new society. Remember, the task of the philosopher king is not to rule over society, but to lead the people out of the cave, to help them to see the light. Morality for Plato is tied up with eugenics, as an attempt to direct evolution. Jesus Christ could be understood as a sort of philosopher king. Religion made him into a god. But it would be impossible to have a philosopher king without involving religion.
Regarding [sup]†[/sup] (and mentioned in a parallel thread), something like 8/10 ISIS/Daesh victims have been Muslims (might be more, it's from memory). There's been refugees fleeing the onslaught with small children, walking the highways of Europe (and (at least) one drowning in the Mediterranean). Children that instead should be learning how to read and write and add numbers, in a stable environment. That's kids, even infants. I'm sure there's a ... non-zero chance of a terrorist hiding among them ... apparently to the bad luck of the remaining majority. Muslims are both the most numerous (murdered) victims, and the most numerous refugees, yet they're also obviously targeted by the initiative. Yep, that's blatant discrimination (indecency and disrespect) being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation. The US president can do lots of things, but this is about what ought and ought not be done (i.e. moral), and hardly about security of the US. Some Christian organizations in the US have spoken out against the initiative, on moral grounds.
This article suggests the same (though I'll take it with a grain of salt for now):
Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’ (Amy B Wang; The Washington Post; Jan 2017)
Don't recall the details (my memory is getting about as good as my note taking abilities), but I'm guessing these moves are questionable according to the 4[sup]th[/sup] Geneva Convention (and related protocols/policies), and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
But bombing the sh*t out of those countries is OK? This is what I don't get. America has been complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East, from the death of 500,000 Iraqi children by its embargo on chlorine, to drone striking wedding parties and dropping missiles on hospitals. Furthermore America created and funded ISIS and acted as its airforce in Aleppo.
I don't recall the marches and civil disruption protesting that human carnage, nor do I recall the same when Obama banned Iraqi refugees for 6months.
I don't believe for one second that it is possible to be that ignorant or hypocritical, so something else is going on. It seems that as usual, the issue is not the issue.
With the help from the Man on the Grassy Knoll.
Poll: Trump reaches majority disapproval in eight days (Jennifer Calfas; TheHill; 2017-01-29)
[tweet]https://twitter.com/williamjordann/status/825781634330980352/photo/1[/tweet]
The circus peanut-in-chief has his Goebbels at his side...the circle is nearly complete. Oh, well...America had a good 240 year run (not perfect, sure, but we generally kept democracy chugging along pretty smoothly for most of that time).
Sure, and Benghazi was about a video on youtube .
Ahh, the dulcet tones of Benghazi references...how I have missed thee.
More liberal memes >:O
For once, we Sir, are in agreement (Y)
Enjoy the moment, it's bound to be short lived.
The moment Sir, is eternal. See the irony? >:O
Quoting Banno
Two votes.
Two superficial misreadings, which I do enjoy trolling ;)
Isn't it fairly obvious that Trump is an (almost Machiavellian) opportunist? *shrug* ¨\_(O)_/¯
His campaign set up a magnet for dissidents and anti-establishment folks, and perhaps Pence helped rail in a good lot of Christians.
Peter's Choice (Rick Perlstein; Mother Jones; Feb 2017)
That "Peter" there, is that you @Agustino?
What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class (Joan C Williams; Harvard Business Review; Nov 2016)
Bill Nye compares Trump to people who believe in astrology: They’re so invested in belief they ignore facts (Tom Boggioni; Raw Story; Jan 2017)
Seems Nye suggests the present post-truth.
No. Trump is a Machiavellian practitioner of Realpolitik, but not an opportunist; there is a difference between the two. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist - she says whatever is popular in an effort to get elected. The popular current on gay marriage changes, she changes her views, and so forth. Trump doesn't.
Yea...I long ago dismissed Agustino as a moral lunatic. My question to the mods some time ago as to whether certain posters can be blocked from one's view was motivated pretty much solely by a desire not to see his ridiculous posts.
The difference between realpolitik and opportunism is that realpolitik has made opportunism into an ideology and denies this fact.
No that's not true at all. Being an opportunist means taking or choosing positions based on what is winning, regardless of your own views - it's equivalent to not having any views at all. Hillary Clinton - against gay marriage when gay marriage wasn't popular, for gay marriage when gay marriage became popular. Trump isn't like this. Trump has strong views - on trade, on torture, etc. - views which are largely not popular and he stands by them, and uses politics as a tool to get them implemented. He's a practitioner of Realpolitik - beating his enemies, and implementing his policies. Not being an opportunist - being an opportunist means betraying your own values if that's what it takes to win. He's not such a person.
Come on Agustino, an individual must have a view of what is "winning", in order to be an opportunist. You cannot negate this to say that opportunism is equivalent to having no views at all.
Quoting Agustino
Sounds just like having views on "winning" to me. How do you distance this from opportunism?
Opportunism is choosing your views based on whether they're winning. Trump CLEARLY doesn't do this, by sheer virtue of the fact that his views are very unpopular.
Where there are winners, there are losers. "Winning", means others are losing. Having as a goal "to win", makes you unpopular. The two things which you said Trump has strong views on, trade and torture, are both means for winning. Come on, "America First", is not a goal of winning?
And what does this have to do with opportunism again? :-} Opportunism is choosing to believe X because that's what it takes for you to be a winner. Trump believes X because he believes X, and seeks to make X win. That's different. Hillary Clinton believes gay marriage should be legal, not because she really believes it, but because that's what it takes to believe in order to get elected (win). There you go - one is an opportunist, the other isn't.
There are always winners and losers - a great winner is an invisible winner - like China ;)
The purges begin with Attorney-General Sally Yates.
But they will become interesting when his own appointees are frustrated; that's when the real character of the man will out. I had thought that would be a few months away, but it might be sooner.
That's nonsense. I vote with Wayfarer and Banno.
Apparently inveterate fools are best completely ignored, especially if they seem to trollishly delight in trying to inflict their own stupidity and superficial thoughts on others. For me, this is a lesson well learned.
Quoting Arkady
Not justifying themselves, they are distinguished
Not boasting, they receive recognition
Not bragging, they never falter
They do not quarrel, so no one quarrels with them
Therefore the ancients say, Yield and overcome".
I ask myself: "Does this sound like anyone I know?"
The Republicans Deal with the Devil, David Brooks.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html
This is the guy that has just been put on the US National Security Council.
Bannon is widely believed to have drafted the 'muslim ban' executive order.
Yep.
But on the other hand, as he is truly put into the NSC, whereas the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence just got demoted to have their appearance to be optional (if the national security advisor think they are needed), then Bannon is out there in the focus of public scrutiny having to make himself decisions on issues, not just be the behind curtains guy waiting for others to leave the room and then discussing what Trump should do.
That means Bannon isn't where usually a political advisor would be, behind curtains behind his President with the President doing the stuff, not the advisor. With Bannon on the NSC he simply will be a lightning rod if something will be fucked up. And definately this will happen with this pathetic and incompetent President.
Bannon already got the heat of the hazzle of first having even greencard holders being deported and then Whitehouse backpedalling on the issue. And as you said, all fingers are pointed on Bannon. Now, just think what happens when the next FUBAR moment happens and people start looking for scapegoats (other than Trump himself)?
Perhaps the issue simply is they don't trust Trump going into a council where only Flynn is from the inner cabal and all others are from the various departments. Without Bannon likely the generals would put Trump off the idealistic path that Bannon wants the administration to be in.
And anyway, the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff already countered Bannons bullshit:
See Joint Chiefs chairman: I’ll ‘fully participate’ in NSC
Guess that the armed forces simply made it clear that anything that the NSC deals with is within the "issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise.”
People say that Trump is preoccupied with figurative dick-measuring contests such as proclaiming how many people attended his inauguration, while forgetting that he was involved with literal dick-measuring contests during the Republican primaries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nALb4lEbSbA
(My country 'tis of thee...)
"Yes, it happened when he told me that casual sex is immoral" X-)
>:O
0.999... < 1.
Not again....! :-|
Love this Tweet.
He doesn't understand the constitution?
But go back to the description given above of narcissistic personality disorder. Is it that he honestly does not understand that his word is not law?
I reckon, with this weeks' Trumbull fiasco, that Trump really didn't grasp the fact that the USA had agreed to take the 1,250 until he was on the call. That is why he blew up. Until that moment, he hadn't taken it it.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
There's an interesting article - lost to memory - that Trumble - er, Turnbull's response was the best way of dealing with a narcissist. Something called being a "grey rock". The idea is that those with narcissistic personalities see the world in terms of "for me" and "against me". Those who are "for me" must put up with the incoherent, inconsistent demands of the narcissist. Those who are "against me" have to put up with the constant attacks. So the best option is to be invisible - a "grey rock".
The problem is, how long can one be a grey rock?
Yep. Sit quietly and watch the US implode.
~shaking my head in disbelief that you are rooting against the success of the US~
:’(
Trump is not the US.
I don't want this to happen.
I think in all seriousness that it's a consequence of too much television, and the inability to distinguish reality and fantasy. And it's really dangerous.
I sugest in future the President be appointed by the UN Security Council, from a list of suitable US Citizens.
Oh give me a break. Of course you do. You're just like Unenlightened. You relish the thought of the 300 million people starving to death or whatever the hell. You both stink of hatred and you have for years.
A nation that can produce the brilliance of Obama can get it right again.
Are you one of them?! :O
Of course, to his followers, truth doesn't matter, as 'truth' is simply a 'liberal meme'. The Donald is above the truth, as surely as he is above the law.
Although truly I do think Trump will meet his match in the US system; here's hoping that he goes a step too far and falls into the abyss (by being impeached or removed from office for blatant abuse of power.)
Trump's Lies are not the Problem. It's the Millions who Swallow Them.
Also here.
But the fact is he's merely responding to the world which both 'establishment' Republicans and Democrats alike helped bring about.
They both betrayed higher notions of civic virtue and responsibility to moneyed interests; they both turned the educational system into one geared exclusively towards the creation of docile consumers; they both supported spending more money on our military than the rest of the world combined; they both supported bombing the shit out of the Middle East and destabilizing the entire region under false pretense; they both gave uncritical support to Israel as it continued to defy UN resolutions against Palestinians; they both assisted in the dismantling of unions and the scaling back of social services to those hurt most by globalization; they both allowed the extremely wealthy to become even wealthier while 'average' Americans saw their quality of life take a beating; they both created divisive narratives based upon race for the sake of (perceived) political expediency; etc.
This is a far from exhaustive list of the complete and utter failure of this country to (1) live up to its stated ideals and (2) form an inclusive and inspiring narrative which would bind us together in ways that transcend racial/ethnic identities and the narrow pursuit of material self-interest.
So as I understand it, he's a desperate response to this pretty bleak scenario for lower and middle-class Americans. And while I definitely don't think he's the answer, let's not kid ourselves about the system that he's at least temporarily replaced. Lesser of two evils, you say? Probably, but perhaps we needed some sort of destabilizing agent to shake the previous leaders of this country from their serial duplicity and complicity in a system which was not at all responsive to the legitimate concerns of normal American citizens, not to mention extremely aggressive in its military and economic aims around the globe.
And I do think he's done a couple of positive things thus far, albeit probably not on a conscious level. First and foremost, he's gotten that much-maligned 'white working class' to see that its interests are not at all aligned with the Republican oligarchs (free market fundamentalists who shamelessly combine a sham religiosity with a sham patriotism while gladly outsourcing American jobs, thus betraying their true God and only genuine loyalty: money) whom they'd uncritically supported over the past 40 or so years.
He also came out yesterday and acknowledged (ostensibly in defense of Putin's brutal tactics) that we in the US have killers working for us and that we're far from innocent in the way we've conducted our affairs around the world. Exposing the noble lie that we're morally superior to others is something you'd much sooner hear from Noam Chomsky than any respectable politician in the US. Now of course that obvious truth will be portrayed as a lie by the very people who are so adamantly opposed to his use of 'alternative facts' in this 'post-truth' world.
He may take the use of lies to a new level of ridiculousness, particularly regarding trivial matters (like how many people attended his inauguration) related to his ego, but maybe those sorts of lies are less insidious than the clever deceptions propagated by more polished political 'elites' which attempt to mask the disconnect between the way Americans have perceived their country--standing on the side of freedom and justice and democracy--and what it's really become, which is an aggressive and imperialistic oligarchy cloaked under the guise of democracy.
Anyhow, the American people have been misled and manipulated for a very long time, and we shouldn't forget that even as we rightly condemn the many absurdities of Trumpism. He fits right into this consumerist world's values of individualism and hedonism. Let's change that world--and, to re-emphasize, this is a world that politicians on both sides of the political spectrum helped create by allowing corporate interests to infiltrate the political system--and make it one where a man like Trump is no longer admired or respected.
Most likely when he finds out that he can't do what he wants through legal means, he'll resort to illegal means, as his attitude seems to be that the president should be able to do whatever he wants.
I don't see that as a lie, and I'm not American. But America is at least founded on moral principles, even if they're obviously compromised in practice. You can't say that about Russia. It's the fact that Trump can't recognise this which is so appalling.
Remainder here.
The writer of this article seemed to acknowledge this truth at the outset, albeit while lamenting the fact that the old distinction between perception and reality has been exposed. And of course his primary concern for this development is centered around issues of geopolitical expediency and, more specifically, with how the perception that the US is no different than other nations does not serve our (you guessed it!) national interests.
This is obviously the cynical but realistic view of politics. I don't condone this position, nor do I think it's absolutely necessary in some Machiavelian way. But it is what it is. I am however open to hearing counter-examples which would belie this claim. Kosovo perhaps? I just see a deep connection between major economic players and our political figures which makes me highly suspicious of any claims to moral superiority coming from professional liars.
As to the point regarding the moral principles this nation was founded upon, well, I agree with that but would also add that every nation's leader(s) claim to be acting upon moral grounds. Communist regimes claimed to be looking out for the welfare of the working classes against predatory capitalists. Authoritarian regimes claim to act in the interests of average citizens against internal and external enemies who'd reduce them to servitude. Theocracies claim to be acting according to higher principles of religion.
So my point would be that moral principles seem built into the justification for every political system. What we need to do is, first, see if those principles are indeed worthy ones, and second, are they adhered to or rather used in a manipulative way to conceal other less-elevated motivations? Again, I feel it's almost always the latter case. Outstanding human beings inspired by genuine moral concerns exist, just not in the political realm.
But I may be wrong here, and I'd like nothing more than to be proven so. I think there are a lot of really positive things about the US (despite our politicians!), and I want to seek those out and highlight them.
Yeah, but do you believe that? You yourself can post anything you like on this forum. OK, since Snowden, we know that much of what is said, is being monitored by intelligence. But if you were writing in China, and you started posting a lot of information about 'free Tibet', you would be more than monitored. You might expect a knock at the door. In China, over the last few years, numerous human rights lawyers, often acting for citizens who have had their land or goods confiscated by party apparatchiks, have dissappeared on been arrested on trumped-up charges (1). In Russia, opposition politicians and investigative journalists are routinely assasinated, often by poisoning (2). Say what you like, that doesn't happen in the US. You can stand on a street corner with a megaphone and denounce the government. You can rake as much muck as you like.
I find such an attitude depressing. I think that's why the country is in the predicament of having an ignorant egotist as leader - the inability to grasp these differences. That is how democracy will be lost in America (although in practice, I think democracy is striking back, and I think Trump is ultimately going to loose, big time.)
But let's see what happens now that the situation has changed. I suspect those freedoms of speech and opinion--admittedly more prevalent here than in many other nations--will be subjected to serious scrutiny moving forward in an attempt to reign in the dialogue and discredit opponents of the system. We had the luxury of allowing these things previously, but not so much these days.
And cynicism like this is only depressing if it ends there. For me, it's merely a preparation for something to take its place. A non-consumerist, civically-engaged country in which the economy is subordinated to real human needs and concerns (material, emotional, even 'spiritual') would definitely be one worth fighting for. One which reconciled the tremendous benefits of science and technology with the longing for deep connections with a home and other human beings beyond instrumental calculations. Not sure if this comes about through the democratic process or through the deliberative and authoritative elements of society somehow being taken over by philosopher-kings (I jest of course).
So my cynicism is part and parcel of my romanticism. A discredited notion in itself, it seems, that there's something more to life than slaving away at a meaningless job in order to buy shit you don't need. Trump clearly doesn't represent a departure from the commercialized civilization we're immersed in, but rather an intensification of its guiding principles. Maybe we needed someone like him to see just how utterly rotten and alienating this world is at the moment. We've been subjected to garbage escapist entertainment for so long--which has kept us distracted from other concerns-- and here we have someone who's cleverly taking advantage of the malleable human material that's been created in the process.
So to drive the point home one last time: we're focusing on the symptom rather than the cause. I happen to think this is a shortsighted mistake, and that our attention shouldn't be fixed entirely on the often ridiculous figure of Donald Trump, but also, and more importantly, on that very world he so comfortably and 'successfully' finds himself at home in. Better yet, let's do both at the same time and not become useful idiots for the previous establishment.
By lone wolves.Quoting Erik
Well I don't believe it. But I think there really was a conspiracy, to get people to believe that it was done by the US, and its been depressingly effective.
Quoting Erik
A salutary warning!
Quoting Erik
Right but it's like saying a near-fatal and permanently disabling car accident will teach you the value of safe driving.
As I see it, without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs. In a certain sense, even the American founders were 'romantics'--at least in theory--who longed for a world in which the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence became a reality.
Those who fought against slavery out of moral conviction were also guided by the belief in a newer and better and more just world. Without that inspiring vision we stick with the status quo. But, as Heraclitus noted, all flows and life is constantly dying off and renewing itself. Human worlds have been born, lingered for a time, and then passed away giving way to others. The process continues and we as human beings play an active part in this historical unfolding. Of course each world tries to eternalize itself, but that's impossible.
Now its also clear that this impulse needs to be tempered with an awareness of the human tendency towards hypocrisy, violence and oppression in the name of an ideal.
I mean, from a practical perspective (irrespective of moral considerations), what exactly is the problem with Trump? Maybe Romanticism is too discredited a term. Idealism? Progressivism? There, do you find those terms more congenial?
Virtues sometimes turn into their opposites. It's happened in plenty of religious cultures.
Quoting Erik
Perfectly agree! America was founded on the principles of the European enlightenment, freedom of religion, and so on. As it happens, the founding values were mainly embodied in the Christian religion. I actually believe that there are institutional shortcomings with Christian orthodoxy itself, but that is well out of scope of this thread. But in any case, the US system is one of several - another being the Westminster system of the UK and Australia - which does embody humanistic principles and retains some elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition in which the concept of 'human rights' originated (which are conspicuosly absent from Chinese communism.) Obviously you could write a library of criticisms of it, but I still think, in light of that, to simply equate the US with Russia or China, is grossly unjust and innaccurate. I'm not looking at it through rose-coloured glasses - I'm aware of the history of CIA Black Ops, and US involvement in many dubiuos affairs (and I grant there's many more I don't know about). But I still have to believe that the democratic systems of US, UK and Australia are preferable to those of Russia and China, and that it's a real and important difference.
Quoting Erik
Have you been following his campaign and his election? Do you read the news? Do you understand what he's attempting, and why it could have disastrous consequences? Remember the Great Depression? World War II? The world is on a knife-edge at this point in history, the scientists - they're not politicians - who run the Doomsday Clock moved its hands nearer to midnight last week, in response to the election of Donald Trump. Why do you think they would do that? Trump is a threat to world peace, a threat to the political and economic order of the entire planet. You need to wake up to this fact.
It's an interesting debate for sure. I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the superiority of our Western values to those of the Chinese. I think they'd argue that while ours place a heavy emphasis on (theoretically) autonomous personhood, we also pass over the intimate way in which the individual is connected to the community. In other words, we overemphasize the one side over the other, and this asymmetry can manifest itself in a form of selfishness which is detrimental to the well-being of others. I think this tension is an important one, and erring too far in either direction is a big problem. But, being a Westener, I'm inclined to take the side of individual freedom as long as its not completely blind to social responsibility. Our global, international, technological world system seems too tilted towards the single-minded fixation on profits I referred to earlier. The impact this has on community, the environment, etc. is seen as less important than not infringing upon the freedom of individuals.
Quoting Wayfarer
Take it easy, Wayfarer, I'm on your side here! My inquiry was a response to what I felt was a hasty dismissal of 'romanticism,' a term which I should probably eschew in favor of others due to its negative connotations. And that was my point: it's hard to criticize anyone or anything without some idealized notion of how it could or should be. Donald Trump lies when he should tell the truth. He doesn't seem to care about the environment when he should care about it. He doesn't value a free and independent press when he should uphold it as a necessary feature of our liberal democracy. So there's a bit of romanticism going on whenever we criticize, and cynicism too. We're cynical about Trump precisely because we have a vision of what a respectable politician should be like. The two are interrelated, and that's what I was attempting to draw attention to.
I do feel the world as it now exists is inhumane in many ways. And while the US may be less overtly barbaric than Russia or China, it is in desperate need of radical regeneration. Let's say the difference between the two types of inhumanity is roughly equivalent to those found between the dystopias outlined in Brave New World and 1984. Both inhumane, but in vastly different ways. Some people even feel the former is more sinister. But that's an interesting topic left for another time.
Sorry, I didn't want to be hostile but what is happening is scary, in my opinion. My social circle and friends are genuinely frightened of what Trump (or Bannon) might do, and what the consequences might be.
Quoting Erik
Have you read those quotes about Bannon, where he says he wants to 'tear down the whole established order' so that it can be re-generated? You know, there's a strain within the radical libertarian movements in the US which sees that almost in Biblical terms - as a kind of Armageddon after which 'Christ will return to reign on Earth'. If whole populations die as a consequence - so be it!
So, I quite agree there needs to be a regeneration, but I think Obama was a lot more likely to have delivered it than what we're seeing here. And if you say, it's all the same, they're all corrupt politicians, what's the difference, that's where you loose me.
Quoting Erik
The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that.
I do not agree with this point. We can quite readily criticize, and point out what is bad, without offering an alternative, what is better. There is no need to propose a better system in order to point to the defects of the existing system. In fact, that seemed to be Trump's mo, how he got elected, by pointing to deficiencies, claiming they would be fixed, without proposing any real solutions. However, the issue is that there is a big difference between pointing to deficiencies, and actually moving to resolve the problems pointed to. The latter does require the idealized "how it should be", the "something better". Now trump may be in a position where he can actually start to dismantle systems which are seen to have deficiencies. Without the "something better", this may be a real problem. Dismantling destroys the good along with the bad.
Regarding Bannon, I'm getting around to watching interviews and reading anything relevant to him. I may actually harbor some sympathy for his alleged views aiming at the destruction of the state. Not going to lie, Nietzsche's condemnation of the state (The New Idol) in Thus Spoke Zarathustra resonates with me a great deal. Look beyond the state, my brothers, where a slow suicide calls itself 'life,' and towards the arrival of the overman... (to paraphrase)
But what standard is being used to guide the criticism? And what's the purpose of criticizing in the first place if not to point to an alternative? People who are indifferent to politics don't engage in that sort of activity. Also, it would appear as though the very notion of defectiveness implies its opposite, just as diagnosing sickness implies an understanding of health, and criticizing what is bad does so by virtue of an understanding of what is good. To use a culinary analogy, if I say a dish you prepared is too salty, then I don't need to come out and tell you to put less salt in it next time. It's implied, and clearly so. The same goes for suggesting that (e.g.) a certain trade deal hurts American workers. The implication is that we should opt out of that arrangement.
Now, if you feel that Trump is worse than Obama (and not just different), then please tell me how you arrived at this position without employing language laden with moral--or political or economic or cultural--value judgments or preferences. Truthfulness is a value which we admire, as are things like selflessness and compassion. But if they're not 'better' than their opposites, then what's your issue with Trump? In fact, why is destroying or dismantling systems wrong? Even the use of this sort of language harbors implicit moral judgments within this context. You really don't feel as though basic moral assumptions and guiding ethical principles are at work in your negative assessment of this man, or the agenda that he's proposing?
To me this is such an obvious point that I feel I must be misunderstanding your position. I mean this sincerely--I'm not primarily concerned with winning an argument here but really want to understand how one engaging in criticism need not do so from any (implied or explicit) notion of better or worse. I'll gladly concede if you can help me gain a better understanding of my own views, especially if they're flawed. I see this as an entirely separate and general issue (having to do with guiding values and assumptions being a necessary component of human existence) than the specific ascendancy of Trump to political power. Maybe the two are being conflated a bit, and we have such a vehement hatred of the man that we're loath to admit that he too could be guided by similar considerations.
Finally, Trump did propose some solutions to what he perceives to be the nation's problems. Pulling the US out of unfair trade agreements, controlling immigration, reigning in the ability of moneyed interests to lobby politicians, etc. You and I may disagree with these solutions, obviously, but he did articulate an agenda (in rudimentary form) which deviated sharply from that of his predecessors. He outlined how he felt America could be improved, or, as he put it, made great again, and he did so by way of juxtaposition with the existing state of affairs. This was done out of an understanding of what he feels would be better, or more advantageous, for the citizens of the US, or at least a certain segment of that citizenry. So rather than serving as a counter-example to my claim, his case emphatically confirms it. That's how I see it at least.
Missed this earlier. This is an interesting issue which seems to have a long philosophical history going back to Plato's Sophist. Let's not forget Nietzsche's dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations.
Anyhow I think it can be a little more complex than that. Let's give Trump a charitable reading and take a quick example. It was a fact that more more people turned out for Obama's inauguration(s) than Trump's. That's a fact. But it's also a fact that the city of Washington DC is over 90% Democrat, which would seem to explain, at least in part, the difference in numbers. Now by zeroing in on certain facts over others, a false impression can be given of Trump's lack of popularity. The media conveniently neglected to explain the possible reasons for the discrepancy in their earnest desire to portray Trump as an unpopular president.
Is the omission of relevant facts similar to the use of 'alternative facts'? Maybe the use of these things could be understood as the bringing forth of certain facts which were left out of accounts given by anti-Trump media partisans. This type of thing happens quite a bit, and it's not confined to the tactics of one political party. The most obvious cases involve taking quotes out of context and presenting the person who said them in the most damaging way possible. That's a subtle form of deception which lies by omission. Now when referring to things like climate change, or simple matters like whether Trump denying he said something that he's on tape saying, then yeah, of course, the notion of alternative facts is absurd. If that's what his camp has in mind then let's mock and ridicule that as much as possible.
I do think it's indisputable that the American mainstream media (I hate using that term since it reminds me of the pejorative way in which Rush Limbaugh and other conservative blowhards used it) does not like Donald Trump. Point blank. They'll do whatever they can to make him look foolish and to discredit him in any way possible. They pick out a certain set of facts--invariably the ones which cast him in the worst possible light--and ignore or gloss over others. Trump's team will obviously gather those neglected facts and make them available to the American public as 'alternative facts' which aren't necessarily false per se, but may have been omitted by anti-Trump media sources. Both sides are trying to shape the way the public perceives Trump.
Furthermore, facts (excluding the most trivial) always take place within a particular context and are always understood through the prism of a set of guiding values and assumptions. They can often be interpreted from multiple angles, and these are generally guided by our biases. I watched a short political debate on youtube last night which confirmed the notion we perceive the world in ways colored by our values and beliefs. It was a typical Republican vs. Democrat debate, very predictable as usual, but what interested me most was the viewer commentary. Conservatives felt the Republican dominated the debate while progressives felt the exact opposite. So people of both political persuasions watched the same thing but saw something radically different. That must mean that truth and perception and facts aren't always simple and straightforward matters.
And I say all of this as someone perhaps deluded into thinking that truth, while elusive, is far more important than political ideology. I dislike both sides of this battle, but I'll also try my best to not to let an emotional hatred of Trump (or his opponents) blind me from the 'fact' that he's been under constant attack that's been at times unfair. Hillary didn't receive this treatment from respectable media, and Obama sure as hell didn't as the press largely fawned over him during his tenure as president.
I don't think that the practise of criticizing is as clear as you make it sound. To take your example, one can simply say that the dish is lacking something, "it doesn't taste the way I think it should", without even being capable of identifying the exact problem. There is no clear idea of "how it should taste", or of what is needed to make it taste that way. To determine that something is missing, and to determine what it is that is missing are two distinct procedures. It is the same in the example of sickness, the person who is sick may be able to say "I am sick", without having any capacity to diagnose the illness.
Quoting Erik
The matter is this. Moral principles are very difficult to understand logically. Values must be grounded in ends. The end is what makes the value a "true" value, it is validated by the end. Ends must be clearly defined, or principles laid out whereby an end may be determined as good or bad, or else there are no true values whatsoever. You say "truthfulness is a value", but you do not support that logically, with reasons why truthfulness should be valued. Without these reasons, the claim is hollow.
We may have been raised for generation after generation, taught and trained that truthfulness is a value. It would be so ingrained into our way of life that it is almost instinctual, we just accept it, take it for granted, that truthfulness is to be valued, unconditionally, so we grow up to behave this way. Now, someone may come along and say, no, that's wrong, in many cases being untruthful can be to one's advantage. In this way, truthfulness itself may be attacked, criticized as wrong or bad, under these conditions. As soon as truthfulness, as an absolute value, is undermined, as only valuable in some instances, then deception spreads like wild fire through all the situations in which untruthfulness appears to be advantageous. We no longer grow up behaving like truthfulness should be valued in all situations.
There is no way to stop the spread except to go back and revisit the principles. Why was truthfulness so strongly instilled within us in the first place? What reason is there for this? What good does it serve? In western society, the philosophical mindset, the desire for knowledge, the desire to know the truth about life, the earth, the solar system, the universe, chemistry, physics, had given great value to "truth". Knowledge is a collective effort, and truth is of the highest importance in relation to knowledge.
Quoting Erik
So here is an example of criticism without an alternative proposal. I can criticise the mores of our society. I can say truth is becoming devalued. I can say that the entire moral structure, which was upheld in days long past, by the church, is becoming devalued. I can say that we take morality for granted, as if it is some naturally occurring thing, through the forces of evolution, and we've lost track of the fact that morality is really created artificially, requiring effort, strength of will. In our society we just assume that people will instinctively act morally, we have evolved to be like this. I have absolutely no idea or proposal for how to fix this. That's way beyond me. I can see a problem, and analyze it. And as I alluded to in the last passage, I can claim that it has to do with a loss of the philosophical mindset, but this is just deferring to a further problem. All I am doing here is working to identify the problem, similar to what Socrates did. I am providing no suggestions for resolution of the problem.
Quoting Erik
Until something is offered to replace the existing trade deals and immigration policies, I would not describe these as proposals for solution. These are just statements of "we should end the status quo because it's bad". And acting on this type of position is just to destroy existing systems with no proposal for how to replace them. But it may be that evolution actually works this way, the existing form must be destroyed in order for the new form to emerge and take its place. It is not a matter of repairing, and renovating the old, it is a matter of a complete rebuild. After all, as individuals, we all die, don't we?
I'll chew on the rest for a bit and maybe respond later if needed. Thanks for the contribution.
Not necessarily, although it does seem to me that this is the way many people think nowadays. We should also be cautious of the contrary idea that any criticism of the 'establishment' should be seen as tacit support for Trump. That's not the case either, and I have a strong aversion to this false dichotomy that's been perpetuated. It does create a strange sort of cognitive dissonance in which the seemingly natural tendency to understand my enemy's enemy as my friend is called into question.
I struggle with this at times, and I have to admit that my deep dislike of the political and economic status quo in the US has probably made me much more sympathetic to Trump on occasion than I should be. I know he's a narcissist and a pathological liar, but I've come to see many 'progressives' in an equally unfavorable light over the past year or so. And I've always hated the Republican establishment. The genuine 'good guys' are extremely hard to spot these days. To hell with both sides.
I don't think he is. He just fights dirty and he doesn't color within the lines. A long time ago I nicknamed people like that "sharks." When you approve of a shark, they're magic. They get things done that the less vicious of us just sat on for decades. But when they're wrong.. holy shit. They can make a magnificent mess and do permanent damage.
It's not us.. it's not that we just need to apply the right logic to it or whatever. It's the situation. There are aspects of the global scene that are screwed up... the US being almost $20 trillion in debt is a sign of that. Could Trump make the whole thing worse?
Look back to 2009. A $55 trillion dollar bubble popped. How did the global economy survive that? Because we finessed our way to refusing to face it. We pumped the banking system with cash, did a stress test on it (while it was good and plump) and declared the problem solved. Why did we do that? Because facing the truth would have been disastrous for just about everybody.
So this is the big post-truth. It has nothing to do with Trump. It's that there's a grave underlying problem with the global economy, it had a chance to be reset, and we deluded our way out of the reset. That we're now looking at removing the little bit of regulation we did after 2008 is.. well totally expected.
People hate Trump because he's unapologetically offensive. That's really, really small potatoes, though. Everything is going to be ok.
I think that ought to be interpreted in context, and not applied willy-nilly to any kind of circumstance, which gives rise to all kinds of relativistic nonsense.
Quoting Erik
Please. The argument over the inauguration crowd was triggered by two photographs published side-by-side directly after the event:
It's black and white. This is what made the first performance by Sean Spicer so egregious. He basically lectured 'the mainstream media' that the photos were'nt evidence of the facts. That is one of a number of examples of that team's blatant disregard for facts.
Quoting Erik
C'mon, that is rubbish. The media call out the fact that he lies, that he has no grasp of policy, that his ideas are often stupid, that his behaviour is reckless, that he has a narcissistic personality, that he exploits the fears of the electorate for his own gain, that he has obvious conflicts of interest. During the campaign, Politifacts compiled lists of several hundred lies that Trump told - yet the whole campaign was set against the background of 'lying Hillary' and chants of 'lock her up'.
I don't know if you're trying, but you're coming off as pretty 'post-truth' yourself. ;-)
That selective application of standards is understandable to a certain extent. Didn't Hume make the claim that reason was a slave of the passions? I think that's largely true. If we have a deep emotional hatred for some specific person (or anything for that matter), then we'll find rational justifications to support this sentiment. We won't generally challenge it unless that emotion somehow shifts. I think being aware of this human tendency, first and foremost within ourselves, is an important step on the road to anything moving away from self-deceit and towards something like 'wisdom.'
That's sort of how I'd interpret the hysteria surrounding Trump's most vehement detractors. The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of which simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter. We've had 'alternative facts' for a very long time.
If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I have some privileged perspective on Truth and moral goodness. May not be a bad thing to be constantly on guard these days as we're fed misinformation from all angles.
Didn't Hume make the claim that reason was a slave of the passions? I think that's true. If we have a deep emotional hatred for some specific person (or anything for that matter), then we'll find rational justifications to support this sentiment. We won't generally challenge it unless that emotion is somehow
That's sort of how I'd interpret the hysteria surrounding Trump's most vehement detractors. The media is not composed of an 'objective' and disinterested group of people who simply state facts. Its members have biases and preferences--be they from the Left or the Right--and we should therefore be suspicious of the attempt to portray truth as a simple matter.
If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I--not to mention partisan media hacks--ave some privileged perspective on Truth . So it my not be a bad thing to be constantly on guard these days. Truth has rarely factored in to politics. 'Post truth' is often used as a way to discredit those who disagree with your view. Now fake news is a different matter altogether. It's not an anything goes or there's one truth scenario. More nuanced than that.
I want to say that (1) the guy who is continuously shown to be a liar, is, in fact, a liar, and (2) the fact that there is some degree of spin involved in all politics, doesn't make everyone liars.
Quoting Erik
There's that 'romanticism turning to cynicism' again, eh? Forget about 'privileged perspectives', simple truth will do.
I think you're actually worried about moral truths Trump is terrible or wrong. Your posts have been mostly directed at downplaying the moral opposition to Trump (e.g. "the other side is just as bad" ) more than anything else. I think it's a but deceitful to be honest.
How can one respond to specific moral objections to Trump with allusions to how the other side have done dishonest or bad things? No doubt all sides of politics fail on this measure, but is it the one people are objecting to Trump on? Not really. They are taking issue with specific actions of the Trump administration.
I don't think saying, for example, "we're killers too" addresses these objections. In a way, it might be true, but it misses the point of the objection. US drone strikes or black op operations are not the same as locking-up or killing local journalists. No doubt there is a case to mount they are both immoral, but that doesn't make them the same.
In the US, there is a long standing tradition that the media reports things as they see fit to report them. It's called freedom of the press. Political biases exist, left/right etc.. They are expected and they are recognized. It appears like Trump now wants to dictate what the media should and should not report, but that is completely contrary to freedom of the press.
I would add further the massive deception propagated by many in the mainstream media that IF you voted for Trump you must be a racist, sexist, xenophobe, etc. That's a subtle and sinister form of psychological manipulation. There were many issues that motivated people to vote for the guy (including those mentioned for some), and reduce these to some perceived moral failing was a dishonest attempt to deflect attention away from the massive accumulation of wealth and power amongst a small percentage of Americans over the past 30-40 years. Not ALL media ignored factoring in real economic (and other) issues, but many did. And yeah I'm going to be accused of a sort of paranoia bordering on insanity here, but do the lower and middle classes own the media and try to control the flow of information?
Not in the context of the criticism of Trump's actions. There it amounts to equivocating America (press freedom) with Russia (suppressed press). As much as the defenders might be spinning old deceptions, they are also right about Trump ignoring the distinction and value of a free press.
Trump didn't come out and make an announcement of all the terrible things the US was doing around the world. His comment was deflection of criticism of Russia's local human rights abuses and suppression of the press. He might have told to truth, but it was to hide one he didn't want people to notice.
I'm not going to defend Putin. My concern at this stage is with my country, more specifically, with the many problems and issues we're facing. The deflection here is partly coming from the media in their attempt to equate Trump with Putin, or Hitler, and the motivation for doing so being in part to withdraw attention from the very (oligarchic) interests which have decimated the working class, and which he's claiming to combat.
And for me this last one is the biggest fear, i.e. the legitimate grievances of the lower and middle classes will be associated (and discredited) with the person of Donald Trump. I do see that as the preferred tactic of the vested 'establishment' interests at this point: associating any criticism with racism, or tyranny, or the buffoonery of Trump, etc. So I think it's important for us to make that distinction between Trump and the average Americans who voted for him, and who've been fucked over. I will also readily admit my own background being from a lower-middle class family, and not pretend that this doesn't influence my perception of things.
Not sure where you guys are from, but it's extremely difficult for many of us here in the US to live a decent life. I'm not at all materialistic (I do practice what I preach in this regard), but to rent an apartment, get health insurance, buy food, pay off student loan debt, etc. makes one feel hopeless. I have a decent-paying job (not great, but not horrible either and above the average) working 50 hours a week, and it's still incredibly hard. Contrast that average case with the wealth and affluence of a certain small segment of American society and yeah, it's seems like the system has been rigged.
You guys can keep harping on how much better or morally superior the US is to China or Russia, but the fact remains that the richest .01% of the population here (around 16,000 people) own as much wealth as the bottom 256,000,000 Americans combined. Spin that however you'd like, but in my estimation that's an unjust and completely untenable arrangement. I'll end the rambling and whining and let you all get back to attacking Trump as the biggest threat to the existing world order.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I continue to think that in each of these cases the understanding takes its measure from some notion of wholeness or completeness, regardless of how difficult this may be to pinpoint or articulate. The acknowledgment of privation is what seems to motivate criticism of any sort from the get go. A general awareness of an absence (dish doesn't taste right) and a diagnosis of its specific cause (too much salt) seem precursors to the ultimate goal, which, at the very least, would appear to be the bringing about of an improved condition, i.e. something 'better'. We may obviously get stalled at some point in the procedure, even the first as you pointed out, but we rarely content ourselves with remaining at that stage if we can avoid it. It rather appears as though the entire process is guided in advance by our understanding of things like optimal health or a tasty dish, and if we were completely lacking in some vague notion or intuition concerning these things, then we wouldn't even be able to say that we were sick, or that a dish was somehow off.
Applying this to criticism of Donald Trump. We feel strongly that he's bad for America (general awareness), and the reason for this is a combination of his abrasive and deceptive personality along with xenophobic and reactionary policies (specific). We're motivated to criticize him because we care about our country, and we feel we should be led by a president who embodies great moral character and a more compassionate and inclusive vision of this nation. We feel that vision is consistent with our founding principles (even more specific) whereas those of Trump are not. Again, the last movement would actually appear to guide the criticism from the start. In any case they appear to be intertwined, as my 'cynicism mixed with romanticism' description was trying to convey. So yeah, I guess I'll double down here for the moment until I feel that criticism need not include any notion at all of privation or possible improvement.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay, so truthfulness should be valued not as an end in itself, but because it contributes to the building up of trust and legitimacy in society, which in turn serve as the foundation for the ultimate end, which is social order and stability. Actually an even greater end would be the happiness of the individuals who make up that society. When trust is eroded through the use of lies by political leaders then legitimacy withers away, and when legitimacy is lacking then social stability is threatened. Without social stability then other ends, like economic prosperity, seem unattainable. If we start by positing individual freedom as the ultimate end or goal, then it would seem like something more akin to an anarchic 'state of nature' would be preferable, with an overemphasis on public security and stability threatening freedom and autonomy. Either way though I don't see how truth-telling could be disadvantageous to the social order. I'm sure you'll have plenty of counter-examples.
Now of course the likes of Plato and Machiavelli and Nietzsche (in other words men much smarter than myself) extolled the efficacy of lies and deception, and precisely in the name of order and stability. But even they felt there must at least be the appearance of truth. Why is that? Why the human proclivity against being lied to? I'm not sure. For me I feel it may have a lot to do with pride and ego. The fact that you lied to me makes me think you don't respect me, that you'd like to manipulate me for your own nefarious ends, etc. I recall the experience of my own enthusiastic patriotism giving way first to sadness and then to anger. I was lied to. I was ready to go join the military and possibly give my life for these noble ideals and lofty values I'd imbibed since childhood (through schooling, movies, etc.), and then to find out they were largely bullshit? That was a pretty devastating experience.
Anyhow I feel that much of the righteous indignation from those on the Left over Trump's habitual lying can be traced to the sense that he has zero respect for anything they value, and that he'll gladly lie in order to roll back any prior achievements won by progressives. So it's not his lying per se, but the aim of his lies which is the more important issue. Obviously those on the political Right (generally speaking) will rationalize away Trump's lies (@Agustino), or, more likely, refuse to even acknowledge them as such. If the roles were reversed and Hillary were in office, then the situation would be the opposite--like the Tea Party's unrelenting attacks on Obama-- and we'd have one side failing to see lies as lies and the other seeing almost everything as a lie. Look where we're at with this right now. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that violence and chaos are likely to come about more and more in coming weeks, months, years. There's a complete lack of trust, a sense that our government is illegitimate, and intimations of civil war sometime in the future as this nation hardens into two hostile camps with radically different worldviews.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Good points, but again, there seems to be an implicit understanding of an end (some general good) at work in the criticism. You want to fix the problem even if you're unable to. That desire for a better society--which is afflicted at the moment with rampant deception and the overall breakdown of morality--would appear to drive the criticism. The intuition that something's gone awry gives way to a diagnosis suggestive of possible solutions. Moral actions are good. Truthfulness is good. These are prerequisites of a stable society, in which other goods like freedom and the creation of wealth can thrive. You know, the old 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' themes which serve as this country's stated principles, and the securing of which is the sine qua non of government. How about start being honest? And start behaving morally? Those would be possible solutions in light of the criticisms, and I'd imagine one could offer a pretty compelling argument as to why these would be conducive to the public (and individual) good, as understood and outlined in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Regarding the example of Socrates, which I acknowledged to be a really good one (and still think so), well, even he seems intent upon bringing about some 'improved' condition in his interlocutors. He may not leave them with specific knowledge concerning things like justice, or love, or friendship, or even 'knowledge' itself, but at the very least they've been disabused of the notion that they know what they don't know. That could subsequently lead one to a state of humility characterized by an awareness of their ignorance, and this is vastly superior to an arrogance grounded in unwitting ignorance. This shift represents an improved condition of the soul, which has grown in wisdom if not in knowledge, and what could be more important than that? Clearly many feel the opposite is the case and that 'ignorance is bliss,' or some such, and that even the strongest, the most able, the most courageous among us conceal certain things from themselves out of necessity. Incidentally, this would translate well into a government's role in society being in part to shield citizens from unhelpful or even 'deadly' truths; I know many neocons inclined towards this opinion. It's definitely a timely topic right now in this 'post-truth' age.
OK Erik, I'm willing to compromise on this point. I agree that there is always some sort of overarching idea, or notion of "better", even if its just some vague feeling (like in the case of the unsalted dish, when it just doesn't taste quite right), which inspires one to be critical. The problem is that this notion, idea, or feeling, "it could be better", is often very vague, and sometimes we have no idea where it comes from, or what is causing it. It may simply be a feeling of being dissatisfied, and it could result from something as simple as being bored. I am bored, so I think that things could be better, so I am dissatisfied with the way that things are around me, and I am critical. Being critical relieves my boredom and makes me feel better, so I continue to be critical.
But let's put this into the perspective of morality and ethics. I believe that in moral training we are taught to guide ourselves toward good goals, honourable ends. It is by having such honourable ends that we avoid acting badly. If one's goal in life is to have a respectable career, and be a respectable part of society, then this individual will be less likely to carry out immoral acts, or get into trouble with the law etc.. You could call it a type of "trickle down" within the human psyche, if one's overall, top priority, long term goals in life, the most important things in life, are good and consistent with strong moral principles, this acts to guide all the lower level goals such that they are consistently moral goals.
Now what about this vague notion or feeling, "it could be better"? Here we have no clearly defined long term goal, no guiding principle, and therefore no guarantee that the "better" which is referred to here is consistent with any form of morality. See we have a vague notion of "better", with no defining characteristics, and therefore no way of knowing whether this "better" is morally better or not. If, when we have this vague notion that things could be better, and this becomes important to us, and we start to criticize and attack the status quo, with intent to dismantle, having nothing defining this "better", there is a high risk of becoming wayward. The status quo is attacked with nothing to replace it with. If there is no defining elements of "better", then one's course of action will change from day to day, as that individual seeks through trial and error to determine exactly what "better" is.
This is exactly what we find in Donald Trump, the expression of dissatisfaction without any clearly defined goals as to what this "better" is. Because there is just a vague notion there, that things should be better, the means for achieving this "better" can change from day to day. This is why he appears to be "deceptive", having "reactionary policies", without "great moral character". He is lacking in that clearly defined long term goal, which we all must adopt in order to guide our shorter term goals, making us respectable parts of society. Deception is when we hide our true goals from others. The person who holds no true goals will appear to be hiding one's true goals. Reactionary policies are policies which are not guided by any long term goals. And "great moral character" refers to the individual who has clearly defined long term goals which are consistent with excepted moral principles.
Quoting Erik
Since I've defined deception in relation to an individual hiding one's true goals, then consider truthfulness as the opposite of this. Truthfulness is a willingness to express one's true goals. It happens amongst people who trust each other. If I trust you, I believe that telling you the truth about what I am doing is beneficial, because you will only help me in fulfilling my goals. And if you think my goal is problematic, you will tell me the truth about this. Now let's remove the "true goals" from this scenario, go back to this idea of a vague notion of "better". If the person has no definable goals, just a vague notion of "better" where is truth now? Is there any such thing as truth now? Truth only exists in relation to one's goals, and if there are no clearly defined goals, then there is no such thing as expressing oneself in a way which is consistent or inconsistent with one's goals. Truth is just as vague as one's goals. Now there is no issue of whether truth-telling is advantageous, or disadvantageous, because under these conditions there is really no such thing as truth-telling. One cannot clearly express one's goals because that individual does not even know clearly one's own goals. Nor is there such a thing as lying. There are no clear goals to maintain consistency with, and therefore no truth or falsity.
But to maintain consistency with my concession, my compromise at the top of the page, I'll admit that such complete lack of goals is impossible, and therefore a complete lack of truth and falsity is impossible. However, a very vague overall goal, with very fleeting intermediate goals, which change from day to day due to the vagueness of the overall goal, is not conducive to any type of coherent "truth" .
You would say that it is intuitive to believe that there is a truth and falsity concerning any incident. But in reality we each observe from our own perspectives, and describe according to how we observe the incident. Each of these personal, subjective observations may be "a truth" even if they describe the same incident differently. If you and I share the common goal of understanding the incident, we will share our observations, work out incompatible aspects to establish consistency, and each grasp a fuller understanding of the incident. But if we do not share this goal, we will each cling to our own observations as "the truth", despite the fact that there will inevitably be contradictory aspects. So without the common goal, there is only this subjective truth. That's why real truth is based in trustworthiness, and this relates to one's goals and intentions.
Quoting Erik
I believe you have brought up a very good point here. You have stated that truth is useful toward social order and stability. If you notice in my other post, I validated truth by referring to knowledge. Truth is useful for the production of knowledge. In this way, I would argue that social order and stability are also useful for the production of knowledge. So I have placed "knowledge" as the higher good than order and stability.
Now consider the consequences to your paragraph if "knowledge" is placed as the higher good, higher than social order and stability. Social order and stability are required for the sake of increasing knowledge. The "royal lie" of Plato is required for the purposes of social order and stability. However, inherent within the nature of the human being is the desire to know, this is what makes the human being a philosophical animal (philosophy is the desire to know), and ultimately a "rational animal" as Aristotle said. So in telling the royal lie, the natural desire to know is thwarted, deceived, for the purpose of social order and stability. That's why the lie must be hidden. The one's being lied to still have the natural philosophical desire to know, and this accounts for the proclivity against being lied to, as well as the need to create the appearance of truth.
But take a moment to recognize what has been done in the employment of this principle. What Plato does is create distinct classes. The highest level maintains the pure goal of knowledge, the philosophical desire to know. In the next level this pure goal is subdued with the royal lie, such that they do not seek the higher goal. Their goal is social order and stability. This second class is the class of the nobility, the guardians of the state. The second class rules the third class, which are the commoners engaged in the various acts of production and manufacturing etc., while the upper class is involved with the highest good of contemplation, education and the desire to know.. Notice that the lie is used at the very top level, by the top class, to maintain order within the second class, the policing, or military class. It hides the true goal, or intent of the upper class, (which is what deception does) and this is pure knowledge, making the second class believe that they have the highest goal, maintaining social order and stability. But that illusion is only created by suppressing the philosophical desire to know through the means of the royal lie. The second class must make the third class believe that they are involved in the highest goal which is the production of goods.
Quoting Erik
So if we take this model of government, the one laid out by Plato in The Republic, where the rulers lie for the good of the subjects, we can extend it toward other governments. In Plato's republic, the lie was to facilitate the upper class in its quest for knowledge, this was supposed to be the best government. Now we can keep the lie in the model, but look at different goals of different governments. A colonialist or imperialist government would lie to the subjects, hiding the true motives behind its activities. A capitalist government might lie to hide the true motives behind its activities. We can look at documented cases of the recent "communist threat", and see how the threat of nuclear war, and such disastrous calamities were propagated in an effort to protect capitalist holdings in other countries with less stable governments. The goal of particular members in the US government might be to protect certain companies, which they hold interest in, with large capital holdings in countries which may fall to communist revolution. Lies, or "alternative facts", which hyped up the danger of communism, were encouraged, in order to justify military intervention.
The point is that the lies which the governing members tell, are directly related to hiding the true goals of such members. If we assume a situation now, where the goals of the governing party are vague, fleeting, and changing from day to day, then the lies which they serve up are just as vague as the truths which they offer.
Quoting Erik
When you have no way of distinguishing a lie from a truth, "a complete lack of trust" is inevitable. And that is the case when there are no clear goals. Being truthful in politics is disclosing your goals in a clear and coherent manner, to be understood by others. When there are no clear and coherent goals, then disclosing the goals in a clear and coherent way is impossible. Any expression, or disclosure of "a goal", could be equally true or false, and there is no way to tell the difference because there is no clear "real" goal behind that expression, to validate the truth or falsity of the expressed goal. Any person without clear goals is a person without a moral compass, and that person undoubtably inspire a lack of trust.
In summary then, I have moved from my position of someone being critical, and having a complete lack of notion for a "better" situation, to accepting that one must have at least a vague notion that a "better" is wanted. But if in politics, being truthful is inherently tied to accurately disclosing your goals, then having vague fleeting notions of "better" is really not much different from having no idea of what "better" is. You seem to suggest in your closing paragraphs, that when someone has such a vague notion of "better", then they will naturally proceed towards determining a moral better. What supports this assumption?
Suppose a person is very critical, is dissatisfied, and believes that things should be better. That person has no clear idea of what "better" is. Why would that person turn to morals, and decide that "better" is to be morally better. Unless the person studies philosophy, that person would probably not realize this. So that person is critical and dissatisfied for whatever reasons we do not know. But we can infer that whatever it is which is making the person dissatisfied, relief from this dissatisfaction is what the person will consider as "better". So there is no reason to believe that the person would turn to a moral "better", the person will naturally turn to whatever relieves the dissatisfaction. And the dissatisfaction could be caused by all different kinds of things, including mental illness, in which case the person might try anything and still not be satisfied. Or, it could be something simple like my example above, boredom. In this case the person might stir up the pot, to relieve the boredom. There is no reason though, to believe that the person who is dissatisfied, and looking for something "better" will move toward what is morally better.
I don't know how that meme has managed to get hold of someone so intelligent, articulate and concerned, but the fact that it has is one of the scary things about it.
I have not, incidentally, expressed any hatred of Donald Trump in this thread. What I have said is based on published accounts of lying, dissimulation, intimidation, and Trump's demonstrable absence of understanding of the basic elements of democratic governance and constitutional law. This can be stated without any emotion whatever as it's simply a matter of fact, for which further evidence accumulates each day.
In age of misinformation, Denial exposes dangers of a false democracy (The Globe and Mail)
Johanna Schneller
Oct 2016
Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation. (US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health)
Trend of Narratives in the Age of Misinformation (Public Library of Science)
Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Michela Del Vicario, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, Walter Quattrociocchi
Aug 2015
So here we have a proven and demonstrated liar, calling the press liars, for showing that he's lying. And to make matters worse, there are plenty of people who will dispute even that.
Like me :P
Quoting Wayfarer
Well to be honest, what would you do if you were DJT, and you were trying to implement your program and the press was harassing you continuously? Wouldn't you exclude them from covering you? They are slowing down and interfering in the work you're trying to do, it's normal to stop them from doing that.
He may have genuinely believed trivial falsities like his inauguration crowds were the biggest ever or he had the biggest electoral win since Reagan etc. Although I doubt even that. In these cases, it's more likely he didn't care whether what he was saying was true or not and was just bullshitting. But there's no question now that he is deliberately lying. I mean, do you think he really believes that all these press stories criticizing him and his team are "fake news"? Give me a break. It's clear his definition of "fake news" is any negative story about his administration, and he's making a deliberate and calculated effort to undermine the free media because being a narcissist he cannot stand being criticized. And the zeal with which he is doing this is absolutely without precedent. So, it's highly ironic that the same Republicans who regularly accused Obama of acting like a dictator because of a few executive orders are now lining up lemming-like to follow Trump off the cliff into tyranny.
I think he believes a lot of the stories about him are fake news, about which he is right.
Quoting Baden
I grant you that the executive branch has too much power and certain Republicans are hypocrites, just as the Democrats are. I'm not a fan of the executive order and would rather laws be passed as they were intended to, by congress. However, I think it absurd to suggest that we're heading toward tyranny.
But of course, if you're one of those people who listens to CNN, and who is glued to the narrative advocated by the liberal-progressive-hedonistic establishment of the media, Hollywood and Academia, you'll probably disagree with me, for the simple reason that you take your sources - the aforementioned organisations - as speaking the truth to you. I don't. So no point telling me what the media says to prove that what the media says is true - that would be quite circular, and I can care less.
The characterisation of anyone who draws attention to this as a 'liberal' and therefore 'corrupt' is another element in the actual conspiracy to subvert democracy and fundamental human rights.
The tendency to promote a fantasy view of life - that Trump can 'bring the jobs back' and 'make people safe' - and then accuse anyone who points out the falsehoods involved of 'living in a fantasy world' is another example of dissembling and falsehood.
I read NY Times and Washington Post online. There are many of their editorial views I differ with, many of the assumptions they make, I don't share. But they also do report a considerable amount of factual information, their depiction as purveyors of 'fake news' is blatant propoganda, and another lie, something which has even been stated by Trump's traditional allies at Fox Media (after which, Trump lied about having actually said it.)
I'm not talking about a full-blown tyranny as he won't get that far (though not for want of trying) but an attempt to destroy all media that is critical of the government is tyrannical, and he's got most conservatives right behind him.
Quoting Thorongil
Now he's even got you believing it, someone who is normally quite rational. Do you know what fake news is? It's news that is entirely made up. Like the story about Hillary Clinton running a nefarious business from a pizza parlour. It's invented, fictional, stories. And now Trump has you believing that the mainstream media is deliberately inventing fictional stories about him (and it's mainstream media outlets he has specifically targeted and named as "fake news"). How sad. But if you really believe that "a lot" of these stories about Trump and his administration are fake, name some of them. Name them, name the outlet and tell us how you know they are fake.
(It's all deliciously ironic, of course, as Trump himself relied on National Inquirer conspiracy theories to discredit Ted Cruz (like his the one about his dad being involved in the JFK assassination). Now that was fake news and Trump knows it. Are your ideological blinders so effective you can't see that he's accusing real news outlets of making up exactly the same kind of stories that he uses himself to discredit opponents? And he is doing it deliberately, making him a stone cold liar. If you can't figure that out, you really are lacking somehow - although I think you can but just don't want to admit it.)
This isn't the Alex Jones Youtube channel, it's a philosophy forum, and it's this kind of low quality thoughtless statement that makes people put you on their ignore list.
But OK, let's put that aside for a moment, and take you at face value. Let's presume you really believe that most of what news outlets such as CNN report has "nothing to do with reality" and is creating a "fantasy world".
Here are some random headlines from CNN today:
"Democrats elect new leader"
"Trump to miss WH correspondents dinner"
"Man drives vehicle into pedestrians"
"Fleeing civilians killed by landmines"
"Suicide attack kills dozens in Syria"
So, your claim, according to the words you wrote, would be that most of this never happened. It has nothing to do with reality, it's "fantasy". These journalists didn't learn to report news at their colleges and universities, they just sit at home making stuff up, or what?
So, did or did not Trump decline to go to the WH dinner? Did or did not a car drive into pedestrians in Germany? Were or were not dozens killed in a suicide attack in Syria? Etc. If your answer is "yes" to these questions, then guess what, this is not "fake news", CNN is reporting reality. If your answer is "no" then on what basis? And what would convince you are wrong? Do you need to see the TV footage of these events or what?
Note that I'm not denying that the mainstream media is selective and biased in its reporting. I've been saying that for years, but that's a different issue. They are not just making things up and "creating a fantasy word". That's not how mainstream journalism works. They report reality (albeit selectively and with their own slant), because if they don't, they get caught, discredited, and have to apologize. And if you want to claim otherwise you need to provide evidence for your claim or look like a fool.
(Cue evasive answer...)
From a recent article I read:
I would add the hysteria surrounding the travel ban as well, which the media claimed was a "Muslim ban."
Quoting Baden
I see no evidence of this. There hasn't been a more widespread and viscous campaign on the part of the media to slander and destroy a candidate than this past election cycle. Trump has no control over the truly massive deluge of hate and vitriol aimed at him for almost two years straight, which shows no sign of letting up.
Quoting Baden
What, like CNN? NYT? They are news outlets, I'll give you that, and until recently I read the latter everyday for my primary source of basic news, but they are quite clearly biased and on the left (I switched to the BBC, which is less revolting in its articles and headlines than the NYT has become in the last year or so). And no, just to pop the caricature balloon that Wayfarer likes peddling about the other side, I don't watch Fox News. I haven't watched more than an hour of that channel in my entire life, and most of that time has come from seeing it in dining halls and doctors offices.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well let's see. You could have egg on your face if the economy does significantly better under Trump than under Obama, which I see as likely, depending on what he follows through with.
Quoting Wayfarer
What a shocker....
Just to pop the caricature balloon peddled by Thorongil, the 'article he read' is from Victor Davis Hanson, in National Review - who says in the same article 'Trump’s edicts are mostly common-sense and non-controversial'. So, one of Trump's greatest boosters, says Trump is great, the problem is with The Media! What a surprise! Who'd have thought?
The travel ban was drafted in very slapdash fashion - nobody in the State Department or Immigration was actually consulted about it; and no actual terrorist attacks on American soil had originated from a citizen of the countries named in the ban, since 2000. It was plainly discriminatory. That is why, when challenged in the courts, it was immediately suspended, and, note, it has now vanished altogether from the public discourse, while Trump, in usual fashion, goes on to distract the carnival crowds with more outlandish lies, like non-existent terrorist attacks in Sweden.
Quoting Thorongil
I assure you, if the economy did better under Trump, I would gladly eat my words, and take back everything I have said about Trump. But there is zero evidence - nothing, nichts, zilch - that Trump has any grasp of economic policy beyond 'what is good for business'. The stock market is booming now as a consequence of the last several years - what it's doing in 2019-20 will be the measure of what Trump sets in motion.
Yes, @Thorongil avoided my challenge. Here it is again more clearly: Reference directly, let's say from the past week or so, some stories from the NYT, CNN or Washington Post, which are presented as real news not just opinion pieces, but are actually demonstrably made up, i. e. "fake news". This shouldn't be hard seeing as you think there are so many of these stories around.
Why would you choose to take what he said that literally and then proceed to offer several articles covering certain events that happened today? Do you honestly think he's going to dispute that they are reporting on real events? But that's never been the issue. It's the manner in which such news is presented. The mainstream media is mostly concerned with bashing Trump. Of course they still do their "bread and butter" news reporting, but if that's all they did, or the manner in which they did it was as neutral and dispassionate as possible, then there would be no complaints.
Quoting Wayfarer
Which was?
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, I think it was poorly implemented and ill-thought out as well. But Hanson is right. It makes sense to place some sort of a moratorium on immigration from countries whose populations we have little to no information about and which house large numbers of terrorists. These same countries were being watched by the Obama administration as particularly dangerous.
Quoting Wayfarer
So? That doesn't mean we shouldn't be cautious about accepting people from those countries.
Quoting Wayfarer
Our democratic system of checks and balances is working as intended?! How interesting, given that Trump is supposed to be a tyrant and the second coming of Hitler.... You'd think he'd have sent that judge to the gas chamber by now.
Quoting Wayfarer
Talk about fake news! When did Trump say this? He vaguely mentioned the fact that Sweden's asylum seekers and immigrants commit more crimes than native Swedes.
No I didn't.
Which could be done, quite effectively, using the current immigration system, visa vetting, and other controls that are already in place.
Quoting Thorongil
Right. But Obama did not have a bona fide right-wing nutjob like Steve Bannon breathing down his neck, eager to show the world what a 'Muslim Ban' really looks like - which is what actually happened.
Quoting Thorongil
Trump was talking about the terrorist attacks in Belgium and France, to his adoring 'mock campaign' audience and he said, quote, 'What about what happened in Sweden last night? Sweden? Who would have believed it?'
I'm highly skeptical of this and certainly not going to take your word for it.
Quoting Wayfarer
No it wasn't. It wasn't a Muslim ban.
Quoting Wayfarer
You said Trump said that a terrorist attack happened in Sweden. I challenged you to find me the quote where he said this. You haven't come up with one. So I do have my facts right, sweetcheeks.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, he was suitable, because he was elected. However, I personally think Trump is unsuitable to be president, so hey, wow, you're dead wrong again about me.
I don't get why you're going in to bat for him. I marched against Vietnam. Trump's election is a far greater threat to the world order than that was in my view.
What does this mean? Why do you think I'm doing so? My original comment was about how I thought the claim that Trump is a liar is overblown. He doesn't generally lie. He speaks untruth he genuinely believes in. Moreover, because he is so inarticulate, much of what he says can be construed as a lie, when in reality it's just the media reading way too much into what he said and in the worst possible light.
You made fun of me for reading National Review. I don't read it that much, although I do like Hanson's columns. But as I told Baden, I read the mainstream liberal press everyday. Do you actually read any right leaning sources?
Quoting Wayfarer
See, this is sheer hysteria. What the hell has he done that's so bad? The man's an arrogant, liberal New York businessman. I just don't see what's so sinister about him. "Oh, no, it's actually Bannon, the Goebbels behind the scenes who we need to look out for!" Well, what has he said or done that's so bad? I don't like him as a person, and I don't like his website, Breitbart, which is mostly clickbait garbage, but I fail to see what policy he's advocated or made Trump implement that's going to lead to the Holocaust 2.0 or whatever it is those on the left are so damned paranoid about. As I've told you before, get a grip, man.
Quoting Thorongil
The thing is, no terrorists have been coming to America from these countries. Most terrorists in America come from America, what a surprise. If you want to stop terrorism in America, then focus on American terrorists.
It's not an either/or, though. We can and should focus on both.
Because they may come to America from said countries? Duh.
If he's consistent, yes, and I'm taking at face value the words he said because he said them. I'm not interested in debating your interpretation of what he thinks. He said it. It means something. It's up to him to backtrack on it, not you. But let's see if he'll admit -according to your interpretation- that the vast majority of the stories on CNN are reporting real events. In other words, it's not a "fake news" channel, it's a real news channel if a somewhat biased one.
Quoting Thorongil
You just did again. At least have the integrity to fully justify your own claims. Anyway if the mountain won't come to Muhammad...I'll take on one of your examples, the phrase "Muslim ban". There was actually a ban as you know; it did actually target countries which are predominantly Muslim; and Trump had actually specified in the past that Muslims were his target (though he knew the constitution prevented him from making that obvious in the legislation); so while calling it a "Muslim ban" puts a questionable slant on it, and could qualify as biased news, it doesn't qualify as "fake news". Besides, journalists speak in shorthand, they're going to talk about an X ban. What other adjective X comes closer to covering the spirit of what Trump was trying to do?
Here's where nuance comes in. You can't put the kind of thing above in the same category as, for example, Trump's claim that Ted Cruz's dad was involved with the assassination of JFK. That was actually a fake news story; it was made up to discredit Cruz, and Trump (unless he's a complete idiot) knew that and knowingly spread the lie. So, while what the mainstream media does with their bias (on the left and right) is sometimes unethical, it's not "fake news", whereas the type of stories Trump himself has relied on to get him where he is, demonstrably, are. And his and others' claims that it's the other way around are lies.
But you can't be informed about that. As I said before, there is a fact-checking service called Politifact - it is neither right nor left, it simply assesses claims as they are made, against the facts. They documented numerous untruths by Trump during the campaign - at one stage, it was something like 267 documented untruths, distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies. That is not 'fake news', that is actual documented claims. And that was just the campaign.
Sure, sometimes Trump will tell untruths without meaning to actually lie, because he makes it up as he goes along. But he reacts, often highly emotionally, to perceived slights and insults, and in so doing, he will make a lot of wild claims. Again, this is all documented. Again, those who are calling this out, are now being accused of 'spreading fake news'. Can't you see how serious that is?
Don't you think, if the Dems had won the election, and their nominee for National Security Adviser had been caught out speaking to the Russian ambasador, before he or she had even been appointed, and then [i]lied about it[/b], to the Vice President Elect, that the GOP would be screaming 'treason'?
Speaking of hysteria, you no doubt recall the crowds shrieking 'Lock her up' at the Republican National Convention last year. Do you remember what the alleged crime was, for which she was to be 'locked up'? Hasn't Trump already been found to have been involved in far worse, since then? He collects rent from foreign governments, against the Constitution. Can't you see the rank hypocrisy in this?
I don't think it's the case that Trump doesn't know when he's lying. I think it's the case that you don't understand what's happening.
Quoting Thorongil
I read Mary Eberstadt, David Brooks, Ross Douthat - they're all regarded as conservatives although the latter two write for NYT. I am socially conservative and I disagreed with many of the social policies of the US democrats (and here in Australia, I disagree with many of the social policies of Labour and Greens.) I read the National Review from time to time. But I really can't abide the linkage between conservative politics and climate-change denial, 'gun rights', and taking all the restraints of big business.
My natural political affiliation would be, I think, in the American political scene, with conservative democrats.
Quoting Thorongil
This is the man who has the nuclear codes. This is the man whose economic decisions will affect the welfare of the whole planet. So far he's dedicated to building trade barriers, increasing racial discrimination, tearing up the Dodd Frank act (which is the firewall against corporate perfidy on Wall St), abolishing environmental protections and destroying the health insurance industry. What's to like? That's not hysteria, it's a rational reaction to an irrational situation.
You didn't answer my question. Why did you choose to interpret his remarks hyper literally?
Quoting Baden
It's my understanding that Trump uses this phrase to talk about the excessive vitriol and bias directed against him in the mainstream media. You seem to be taking it literally, once again. Any news story is likely going to contain some nugget of truth. The problem is the way it's presented. That being said, some stories are completely false through and through, like the one about Trump removing the bust of MLK.
Quoting Baden
Travel. :-|
Quoting Wayfarer
No, because Trump isn't revoking the freedom of the press to report such things.
Quoting Wayfarer
Likely criminal behavior leads to jail time, yes, so it seems a reasonable request to me. Clinton probably should be in jail, and not just for the email scandal.
Quoting Wayfarer
Highly debatable, and no where near as bad as what Hillary does.
Quoting Wayfarer
Which is what? The inauguration of Hitler? I can almost see the froth on your mouth from here.
Quoting Wayfarer
Meh. That's a start I guess.
Quoting Wayfarer
And I disagree with him on this.
Quoting Wayfarer
False.
Quoting Wayfarer
It was a terrible bill.
Quoting Wayfarer
Too vague an insinuation.
Quoting Wayfarer
Lol. No. Although, that's an industry most on the left hate, too, so I imagine they would welcome its destruction.
Quoting Wayfarer
He can balance out the supreme court with an originalist, he's a kick in the teeth to PC leftists, his tax plan looks good, and he is at least aware that radical Islamic terrorism is a real thing and a problem.
Don't be so ridiculous. He said A. I interpreted it as A for the sake of argument as I explained in the post. When he answers, we'll see if you're right and he accepts that CNN mostly consists of real news about reality. I'll be happy if he does.
Quoting Thorongil
No, he's literally saying the stories are fake. Have you actually listened to him? This is the problem, you want to have your cake and eat it. You know very well that the lack of nuance leads to the conflation among his supporters of outlets like CNN with actual fake news outlets like the National Inquirer. And that's his intention. But again, you feel like you have to cover for him. So, it's highly ironic to hear you talk about bias. You're willing to say in less than a hot minute that Hillary is a liar because she's not on your team. Confronted with the reality that Trump is just as big and probably a much bigger liar, you have to find excuses for him like he's just too dumb to know what he's saying is false or he shouldn't be taken literally. Why? Because you're biased yourself. Can't you see that? I have no problem admitting that both of them are liars because it's demonstrable. You can take their speeches and find the falsehoods. They're right there. Why is it so hard for you?
(And seeing as you're so obviously biased, I should follow Trump’s lead and start calling your writings "fake posts", right? :s )
No, that America has elected a narcissist and congenital liar as President. No, he's not 'like Hitler'. If that is your standard for bloody awful, then I guess what you've picked is OK.
Right, it's a philosophy forum, where we're supposed to respect each other, and yet you hypocritically proceeds to insult others and accuse their ideas to be "low quality" and "thoughtless" because they don't agree with you. Then you'll start complaining "Argh Agustino, he's so nasty" - but I'd merely be responding in the same tone that you respond.
Quoting Baden
Yes, however, you're too categorical and literalist in reading what I said. What I said can be translated in more accurate terms as most of what the media reports is false - say 90% false and 10% true.
Quoting Baden
No I didn't say this. I said they falsify the news that they report by exaggerating them, reframing them, and so forth.
Quoting Baden
No they're not, because they're reframing those events howsoever they want. There are no context-less facts.
Quoting Baden
Yes they are. Take the travel ban on what was it, 7 countries or so, which was immediately framed as a Muslim ban. That's fake news. There was no Muslim ban.
And? Shouldn't she be locked up? There has probably never been a more corrupt family in American politics than the Clintons - they have their hands in all the pies.
Quoting Wayfarer
No, HE doesn't, his businesses do. So it seems you too are engaged in the propagation of fake news.
Quoting Wayfarer
Fear mongering.
Quoting Wayfarer
Just like how it was beyond debate that Crooked was a corrupt liar, and yet you kept reciting New York Times propaganda?
Quoting Wayfarer
It shows. The NY Times - probably the most liberal-progressive source of articles out there. Someone sent me an article on dating from them awhile ago, it was disgustingly false and propagandistic.
You're not nasty, you're just a very unintelligent liar.
Quoting Agustino
For example, first you say that what 90% of the media reports is false, which is easily refuted. And even your BFF Thorongil isn't going to follow you down that rabbit hole. But look at your reason:
Quoting Agustino
You dismiss the sample stories I gave you as "reframed" and "context-less" as if that suddenly makes them false. How stupid do you think the people reading this are? Of course, there are no context-less facts, so therefore news stories have to be "reframed" but, guess what, by this definition everything is fake news. Not only that but seeing as the facts you are reporting here are reframed and are not context-less, everything you say is fake too. This is how trivially stupid your approach is.
But let's again take you at your word that you really believe the idiotic things you're saying:
Quoting Agustino
Show me how those stories I quoted, for example, are 90% false through exaggeration and "so forth". I chose them fairly randomly from the news sidebar so if 90% of CNN is false they should be about 90% false and you should be able to show us why. Go ahead.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
What did I say?
Quoting Agustino
Seems like I was right.
Quoting Baden
Actually no, I didn't dismiss them as context-less. Anyway, when you decide to uphold the very rules that you yourself advocate, and treat others with respect, I may reply to you again.
Why would anyone have respect for you when you come out with the stuff you do? You're lying through your teeth in a way that's insulting to the intelligence of everyone who reads your posts. And further, I presume this new found sensitivity of yours is just a way to avoid answering the question. You know you can't show those news stories are 90% false as obviously they aren't.
Quoting Baden
No, it's a way of respecting the rules of the forums, whatever they are. I haven't set them anyway. But if you expect me to respect them, then you should respect them yourself. I can't delete your posts, but you can delete mine - so that asymmetry pretty much ensures you can insult me as much as you want, without me being able to insult back. So fine, you can go ahead with that if that's what you want, enjoy the authoritarianism. But I'm here just to discuss the ideas, not really trade insults anyway.
Pointing out that your posts are idiotic when they obviously are is not against the forum rules. And I don't actually want idiotic posts littering what is supposed to be a high quality forum. You are the one more in contravention of the rules with the low quality nonsense you peddle here. If you weren't in conversation with me, they might indeed get deleted. But because you are, I'm not going to touch them.
Quoting Agustino
Well, I appreciate the personality transplant, but cry me a river. When it comes to politics it looks to me like you're not here to discuss ideas, you're here to evangelize.
This hardly sounds like I'm "covering for him." And you haven't refuted what I said. Granted, it would be difficult to refute, since it's just my impression of him, but I am not a great fan of Trump. Let me say that again: I am not a great fan of Trump. Your efforts to pin me down as some mindless devotee are comical to say the least. You and Wayfarer seem way too emotional when it comes to Trump, which clouds your judgment of him and those on the right. Look at what he's done and then make a judgment. Vituperating over every little thing he says, as if it's obvious what he means or what policies might result from it, is really tiresome. We're not living in some apocalyptic, gas chamber filled Orwellian hellscape and nothing he's done even remotely suggests we're headed in that direction, despite the best efforts of the media and those on the left to say that we are.
Quoting Baden
What the hell is your problem? I never implied, nor wish to imply, that Trump never lies. I merely wanted to point out that a lie is different from telling an untruth and that I thought Trump was guilty more of the latter than the former.
Quoting Wayfarer
Name me a president who wasn't a narcissist and a liar. And it's your side that keeps painting him as a horrible, awful dictator.
No, we're not and if you've read other stuff I've said about him, you'd know I know that. But you took the word tyranny that I used "hyper-literally" to use your own phrase, which is fine the first time - I knew when I wrote it it was somewhat of an exaggeration - but I did specify later that I meant it in the narrow sense of what he's doing with the media. He's not going to get away with much more.
Quoting Thorongil
The issue is not whether Trump ever lies, everyone lies sometimes, it's whether or not he can be characterized as a liar. You seemed to be suggesting that was in dispute. If you're not, fine.
Good.
Quoting Baden
I think what I was suggesting is plain for all to see.
Oh, so it makes sense to ban travel from Turkey, Greece, Germany, France, Britain, and Canada, and every country, because terrorists could come to America from those places? We already know that terrorists have come from Canada to the U.S., why not ban travel from Canada first and foremost?
Quoting Agustino
Fact is that the claimed motive behind the proposed travel ban is completely inconsistent logically, therefore we can conclude that the true motive remains unrevealed. Since it is unrevealed, we can only assume that the reasons for not revealing it is that the true motive is something untoward. So we are left to speculate as to what that untoward motive is.
When Trump emerged as a contender, you may recall, there was the widespread belief that it was publicity stunt for his businesses, and that his campaign would eventually self-destruct. Then as the months wore on and the pattern of his campaign emerged, the goalposts kept shifting. But the chances of 'President Trump' were thought by most commentators, and certainly by me, to be zero - and then he won the election. I was quite prepared to acknowledge him if he rose above the mendacity and stupidity of his election campaign - but he hasn't. It's been a litany of errors and bad judgements.
Quoting Thorongil
In this century, nobody comes near Trump in those stakes. I don't have 'a side', I have an opinion, and it's not that he's a horrible awful dictator, but that he is mendacious, narcissistic, and incompetent to lead.
Some snippets:
---
---
Especially now.
And I predict it will do so again, according to this theory I have.
Yeah, but nothing approaching the apocalypse, so you can cool your jets.
Quoting Wayfarer
How could you possibly know that?
If by this century you mean the last 100 years, you just don't know what you're talking about. Do you know who Augusto Pinochet was?! Do you know who Pol Pot is?! Really I feel that many people here know very little history, not meaning this in an insulting way. I mean if you consider Trump to be so much trouble, then you really have no idea how most of human history has been like...
It has been the case, since the 1950's, that there are sufficient thermonuclear weapons to effectively end life on earth.
Short of that, the global economic system came within hours of collapse on September 18th 2008.
Quoting Agustino
My remark was in response to this question:
Quoting Thorongil
My response was about American Presidents and I stand by it.
A couple of recent quotes from Republicans on press freedom.
NBC Interview, 28th Feb
24th February
We know it for sure, because that's the media narrative. Don't forget, Trump and his non-haters are literally Hitler.
Kind of apt, in a thread called 'post truth'.
Actually, Kanjorski's claims there were discredited.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/adolf-hitler-donald-trump-mein-kampf-bluffed-way-to-power-nazi-leader-germany-fuhrer-us-president-a7568506.html
A summary of the WaPo "Trump is Hitler" meme
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/5-washington-post-writers-liken-trump-to-hitler/
That's interesting, if it's true. But I had read that account of the emergency of 18th Sept 2008 from a number of sources. Recall, it was three days after the Lehmann Bros collapse, and IAG looked like it was next.
Here is another account which is in line with various accounts that were published in the aftermath.
Sorry, but I don't think it was a piece of 'rogue journalism'. The worlds' financial systems really did come within hours of collapse in 2008. Many people don't seem to know that.
The Rosenbaum article is reasonable, but the WND article is junk.
From a display in the United States Holocaust Museum. Purveyors of old news, but not fake news.
When one has early signs of a serious illness, it is recommended that one not deny and ignore them, but face the facts, and start treatment as soon as possible.
There appears to be a very simple strategy if one is against free press. First, fill the media with lies and fake news, not hard to do for someone with money and power. Then use the abundance of abuse in the media, to justify restricting the media.
"...and from what I've heard they do anal"
Like blood in your stools might not be (due to) bowel cancer, but don't bet on it.
It's a stupid game, this. The sign doesn't mention Trump, and my post doesn't mention Trump, and the sign says Early warning signs. Many of these signs are present in Europe and elsewhere. The straw man that you "got" is a way to dismiss and shut down a debate that needs to be had. I don't think this is fake, and I don't think it is directed at Trump. Rather it functions as part of the educative role of the Holocaust Museum, and deserves to be taken seriously.
If there was one fascist in the US, there would be nothing to worry about. But Fascism is more a direction a country or the world can be going in than the title of a leader.
No, Trump is not like Hitler. Personally, I don't believe Trump is malignant, in the sense that fascist and totalitarian dictators have been; he's basically civil, albeit a narcissist and a bully. But he has fascist leanings, not least the constant appeal to fear ('the country is in peril!') and therefore to military strength; nationalism, denigration of other nationalities and races (Mexican and Muslim) and hostility to the press (mainly for calling him out on all the above) and even to the legal system.
This is not Republican V Democrat, Conservative V Liberal issue. Trump upended or abandoned a very large number of Republican policies, to the extent where a long list of senior Republicans formally opposed his candidacy. Many Republicans are speaking out against him. So to defend Trump is not necessarily to defend conservatism, or Republicanism, as such.
A tighter definition of fascism [s]than this list[/s] is needed.
I am totally opposed to labor power being suppressed, but suppressing labor, in itself, isn't fascism. It's a common practice of the small wealth-monopolizing class. Anti-intellectualism and disdain for the arts is a major flaw among people who are educated; I don't consider it surprising that the proles react to intellectual condescension and artistic obscurantism with disdain.
Intense nationalism, disdain for human rights, a conservative religious establishment serving a militaristic society, and an obsession with national security focused on an enemy (real or imagined) brought together in a political program -- that comes closer to what I think of as fascism.
Fraudulent elections, corruption and cronyism, corporate power protected, controlled media, rampant sexism, etc. are not good by any stretch, but they aren't fascism, either.
I think fascism (loosely put) is a reaction to a sense of impending decline or doom. Bouts of it occur during economic downturns. The onset of the Jim Crow era had a lot of symptoms of fascism. People already felt uneasy and fearful because of economic conditions. White supremacists rose to explain that fear: it's non-whites. We need to separate ourselves from them because their very presence is damaging us. We're sick and we need to get back to our glorious historic presentation. Violence was directed at non-whites, but more importantly against whites who didn't tow the line.
And BC, don't correct my narrative. It's factual. :P
Like any other 'ism, Fascism is first and foremost a state of mind. I hope Mongrel will excuse my dissection:
Quoting Mongrel
There is no need to sharply differentiate the pathology, it's a spectrum illness. No need either to identify some person that is it or has it and another that does not, it is a social malaise, and it strikes whenever there is a downturn, and infects even its opponents.
I agree with you that what is driving the apparent 'right turn' in America, Europe and also here in Australia, is basically dissappointment with the consequences of globalism, but also fear of change, and the longing to return to simpler times. It's unconscious. Like Landru used to say on the old Forum, Trump gives voice to the Id - he speaks out what a lot of people believe but have been afraid to say. That's what got him elected.
What are you referencing?
You need to get an eye patch.
One effective way to undermine that confidence is to posit a conspiracy that has them involved in clandestine cooperation,
Hence, the Deep State.
NY Times.
Same modus operandi - anyone who calls out the bluff and bluster of the current White House is deprecated, degraded, called phoney - whether it be judges, journalists, scientists or bureaucrats.
http://www.yofiel.com/social-contract/terrorism
Would you not criticize the Supreme Court if all members adopted Scalia's ideology and do you not distrust Fox News? That is, the media and the courts are already distrusted with each side asserting only their allies are to be trusted. Since both sides have no deference to the other, why should it be surprising when someone expands who they are willing to challenge? If the courts and media are fair game, so it would seem appropriate for some obscure agency to also be.
They're not 'fair game', and your argument simply capitulates to the notion that everything really is a matter of opinion. 'If everyone tells lies, what's the matter with lying'? There's a clear pattern of dissimulation and undermining trust in the institutions which underlie the democratic state. I don't think you realise the magnitude of the problem. (Oh yeah, that's right, if you talk about 'magnitude of the problem' then that's just 'liberal hysteria', right?)
If the Congressional Budget Office is "obscure," then it is so only because of the ignorance of the American public. The CBO is as close as an objective arbiter as one gets in Washington these days when it comes to assessing proposed bills' impact on the budget and the economy, and is thus hugely important.
I was unaware that Trump's smear tactics had lately been aimed at this department until I saw the quote from that article quoted above, but it only reinforces this administration's bullying, bloviating, and lying to get when it wants when the facts don't support them.
People now use words to describe whatever they decide they mean, accepting no authority over their own opinion. It has got so bad, it is impossible to communicate any more, and yesterday I terminated my philosophy blog. It has got that bad.
I'd also point out that the variation in usage of the term "terrorism" over time (to the extent it has) only means that it shares a trait that many words do and it's not a sign something is wrong.
And where's the evidence of bias in the CBO? The problem is not any particular agency having immunity against charges of bias if they happen to be true, but Trump’s using of the concept of "bias" as an attempted form of immunization against all criticism, and against the dissemination of any facts he doesn't happen to like. You've presumably noticed that tendency?
Bernie Sanders in the Guardian:
That seems to be how people feel about Trump these days.
Quoting Thorongil
Quoting Thorongil
Maybe, maybe not.
(Maybe Trump is just biased towards confirming whatever suits him, maybe he has high-up staff feeding him information confirming whatever suits them, ...)
What would that say about what he bases decisions on? We're not talking just deciding what to have for supper.
Either way, wouldn't you normally expect leaders in high places to be reliable, well-informed and honest?
That would be my normal expectation anyway, but doesn't seem to be the case for Trump.
Everyone makes mistakes, yet public leaders are supposed to learn from them, to lead by example, perhaps like a role model or something.
Those people are not describing anything, they're prescribing or pushing their own arbitrary meanings, typically whenever it suits them. For example, when a redefinition of a word saves them from having to admit a lie, or from changing their opinion or ideology.
Throughout history ideologues or liars have relied on the possibility to define or redefine the meanings of words as it suits them.
So, this phenomenon that some call "post-truth" is probably as old as our language, or older even considering the fact that also some animals who don't speak a language can act deceptively as a means to benefit from it.
Really? Trump does not seem melancholic, just hilarious.
Lewis said Trump was not a legitimate president, because of Russian interference in the election.
What a lot of people have said is that Trump is an unsuitable person to hold the office, as he has never held public office previously, exhibits many major characters flaws, and lies continually, all of which remains the case.
The aggregate of these micro communities create hostile dichotomies in society which do nothing but attack and blame the other side no matter how inconsistent each side's view is, because as I say, the discrepancies in rationality dont matter any more.
It became relatively easy to find others to validate shared views already in the 19th century, when a lot of people moved into the cities. Now, would the way contemporary social media propagates opinions have a greater impact, and somehow reduce people's respect for truth? I don't think so. Most people respect truth, especially when they depend on it, e.g. at the doctor's, when buying groceries, or when they agree to do work for a certain salary, and so on.
IN a post-truth world that is the only kind of truth we're going to get, I expect.
("Hey I said "PUSH" the button, moron! You acted like there were no quotes!')
Today Al Gore appeared on PBS calling for 'reason.' I posted this. I expect no result any more. It's kind of like a chicken with its head cut off still running around.
-----
While Mr. Gore may be admired for his optimism, this problem won't be 'solved by the Internet,' because the new proposed tools to isolate 'fake news' don't stop social media making the problem worse again. While I doubt others will have much to say on it, I publish it here in the hope that Mr. Gore himself consider the problem, there being very few others of real importance embarked on the same admirable course he has chosen.
I also have been following this trend for the last ten years, and when I first predicted that Tea Party ethics would take over the government, academics scoffed at me. Last year they were no longer scoffing. So I will explain what I have observed.
For a while, the Internet was a fantastic innovation, as people with particular obscure interests could find each other, in ways previously impossible. But other corollary assemblages formed. People with *any* particular view could find others to validate it, regardless of the view's actual sensibility. People easily found reinforcement for hostile, violent, socially unacceptable views, which would rapidly have been terminated in real-world scenarios, but which built in impetus, safe in anonymity, until the group reached critical mass. Then they organized to gather at some rally, when previously they would not have been able to find each other. Political parties figured this out and now frequently refer to it as 'new grass roots organization on the Internet.' These very powerful political groups are loosely associated, and the formal components can claim detachment from the more aggressive elements, but in tandem they form an increasingly unstoppable force. Now they will simply hijack any tools to filter out fake news and bend them to their agenda.
Also, I should add, these new tools to filter out fake news are not new ideas. I for one started asking for them 5 years ago. They are now too late. The agenda of those wishing to control public opinion in this way has since continued to grow in power, the power groups are now established, they have no ethics, and they have no hesitation in inciting corruption for their own power, which they then deny on their own fake news systems.
In concert, they remain immune to any fact or rationality contrary to their position, because they have gathered many believing the same falsity. They then mutually reject any authority or academic qualification over their own opinion, and they are not even open to discussing it. They simply ban or ridicule anything different to their agenda, and support each other in doing so.
The aggregate of these micro communities creates hostile dichotomies through the midst of society, across which each side does nothing but attack and blame the other side, no matter how inconsistent or directly wrong each side's view is on any one particular point, because, the discrepancies in rationality don't even matter. There is no real interest any more in understanding what MIGHT be true, and what that would mean; instead there is only a continually mounting pressure to say that everyone outside one's own camp is wrong, accelerating into some future mutual assured destruction.
I would be open to discussing solutions, but just as 10 years ago, there are still insufficient people taking this problem seriously enough, even though it is now graced with the popular moniker as a new 'post-truth ' era In the general and massively increased noise of scoffing and denial, it is no longer so easy to find people with the same concerns as it used to be, if the concerns are not the ones which everyone else considers most important. So it now appears to me, the schisms and lack of concern for reason are permanent, at least for my own life. It seems to me there is no existent force to change it, unless people take this problem seriously enough and take real steps to correct it throughout society, starting with our education system.
Have you checked out ernest's 60,000 word essay on natural law and the social contract?
Due to others asking to read this, its now posted on my blog. the only real difference is a quote from mein kampf as substantiation.
http://www.yofiel.com/writing/essays/dialog
Everyone also knows that this was patently untrue, as neither Trump nor anyone else in the Republican party had either the means or the will do do that.
So now they've come with their Repeal and Replace bill, it is being opposed from all sides. But the thinking is now that the GOP actually knows this bill is doomed to failure, and as a result, that the whole health insurance market will collapse in a heap. And what does Dear Leader have to say about that?
The news from the first draft of the budget - it eliminates many of the programs that directly benefit the people who voted for Trump in the first place.
It slashes the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department, along with many other publicly-funded programs, while allocating large amounts of money to the Mexican Border Wall and defense. And it does all this, while doing nothing whatever about balancing the budget.
Here's hoping that sooner rather than later Trump's constituency realises they've been conned.
[i]Steve Fuller
Mar 2017[/i]
Name-drops: Aquinas, Bacon, King James I, Newton, Kant, Nietzsche, Hans Vaihinger, Popper, Frank Ramsey, Sellars, Hawking
Can't help but wonder if all Fuller's historical snippets are "post-truth", "pre-truth", not really anything in particular, or something else.
I'll just quickly classify as "roughly nonsense", "maybe entertainment", or just some words (partially strung together incoherently), like a theme, a genre, of language reduction, a kind of literature that's never about anything other than literature, sort of self-trapped. :)
I was going to say, steaming pile of manure, but I thought it might be rude.
Meanwhile, on the Trump front - Monday's testimony from Comey and others is very damaging to Trump. Anyone following the story really should listen to this testimony. It paints the picture of repeated contacts between Trump campaign personnel, various Russian intelligence and business leaders, and also a contact associated with Wikileaks.
What's really depressing, though, is the 'accepted wisdom' that no matter what is said about Trump - even the possibility that his campaign team actually committed treason, even the fact that he blatantly lied about his predecessor and then refuses to back down - that it doesn't matter. That is what is truly scary, depressing, and 'post truth'. Why? Because even when the truth is established, it doesn't matter. There are enough people willing to overlook the truth, out of loyalty to their supposed hero.
I don't know if Trump is a symptom or a cause, although I suspect the former. Only a profoundly confused electorate could elect someone so manifestly incapable of doing the job he lucked into, and then continue to stand by him when his manifest incompetence and mendacity become more obvious every day.
(Though this is old news at this point, one is reminded of GW Bush accusing Gore of promulgating "fuzzy math" when Gore was poking holes in Bush's economic ideas. Bush, of course, never seemed to get around to explaining exactly what was fuzzy about it. The scary thing is that, as compared to Trump, Bush looks like Abraham Lincoln.)
Wow, it's been a long time since I've checked this thread and a lot has transpired since then. I don't even recall much of the previous discussion, and I'm too lazy to look back over it, but to the point you made here, Wayfarer, I think there are other relevant issues to consider.
The choice between the Republican 'establishment' and the Democratic Party as it currently exists was one which left many citizens in the US--specifically those white middle and lower class voters--with two bad alternatives. Speaking generally, the globalist/militaristic neoconservatives seem to have much more in common ideologically with the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama than they do with the values of non-elites of European ancestry living in the US. Nor could traditional 'small government' Republicans, fixated as ever on continued tax cuts for the wealthy and the elimination of as many social programs as possible, create a message which resonated deeply with people struggling financially, 'spiritually,' even physically.
On the Democratic side of things, the focus on identity politics surely alienated many white working class voters. This voting bloc (especially white men over the age of, say, 30) has been conspicuously left out among the groups which Democrats claim to represent: blacks, Latinos, Muslims, young people, etc. In fact, Democrats make no attempt to conceal their giddiness at the demise of this group's political influence. Their narrative has been more focused on racial (and sexual) identity than about finding common ground between white working class voters and people of color in a similar economic predicament.
So where should these people have turned, if they truly felt unrepresented by the only relevant political parties? Many of them obviously ended up supporting a manipulative blowhard like Trump, unfortunately, since he was the only candidate capable of connecting with them on a deep emotional level. Well, maybe Bernie Sanders was able to do that too. But dude's an idiot, and even worse a horrible human being, but neither of the viable alternatives (Republicans focused on helping the rich at the expense of the poor as usual, and Democrats seemingly focused on helping everyone BUT white middle and lower class citizens) made a genuine attempt to address some of the legitimate grievances this group may have had, and those largely being due to the economic and social policies of the past 40-50 years.
Add to those conditions the continued dumbing down of the populace through mindless entertainment and consumerism during that same stretch, in addition to a large bloc of immigrants (many of) whom seem to come here strictly for economic opportunities rather than to adopt some more ethereal American cultural identity--thus creating more resentment from many native-born Americans who feel affronted by this snub--and you have a situation which was ripe for a tough-talking chauvinistic douche like Trump, i.e. someone without a conscience or a sense of higher purpose other than his own self-aggrandizement, to manipulate this group as malleable material for his own purposes.
Now of course there are racists and xenophobes in the US who soaked up his hateful rhetoric, but I would maintain that there are also many Trump supporters who voted for (and continue to support) him who did so out of desperation and as a vote of no confidence in 'the system' as it currently stands. So yes, I think his support has at least as much to do with particular social/historical/political circumstances in the US than it does with people really believing that he's a wise statesmen who's going to lead this country to some sort of new golden era with his broad vision and foresight.
Anyhow, it seems as though he's at least partly moved in the direction of the 'establishment' over the past couple months, so I guess most educated and 'reasonable' people would consider that a good thing. I felt that during our last conversation my explanations of Trump's support being largely due to the failures of the existing parties was equated with my personal support of him and/or his policies. That's not true and I hope the separate issues won't be conflated this time around. It's a somewhat nuanced position, admittedly, and speaking out against (what I feel are) the equally narrow visions of Dems and Reps does not necessarily mean one likes Trump. One can dislike both Trump AND his many political opponents.
At best IMO he represents a 'fuck you' to a corrupt and self-serving political and economic system (and of course the two are intimately intertwined) and a corresponding wake up call to the representatives of this establishment to shift their priorities towards the average people who've been neglected during the last few decades. But sure, the risk here is that he's going to be much worse than the previous administrations and may even get us all killed.
These are my intuitions on the matter. To repeat, I feel that he tapped into a reservoir of resentment that he clearly did not create out of nothing due to his brilliance or charisma or rhetorical skill. He shaped it a bit, misdirected it no doubt, but he did not create it. That honor goes to the incompetence and shortsightedness of the previous few administrations, along with global trends which even they were powerless to counteract.
Hope all is well.
Or maybe, made to understand the meaning of truth, law, the constitution, the meaning of the Presidency. That alone would be all the punishment that he could ever need, it would be such a painful awakening.
I don't presume that anyone has a good grasp on as broad a category as "the truth," but I also think it's obvious that a president of the US is going to know more than the average citizen about the law, the constitution, and his own office, simply by virtue of being president. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with his interpretation of such things, just that he probably knows far more about them than I do.
Also, it wasn't a straight forward question, and I suspect you know this.
Trump actually has no connection with, or conception of, 'truth' whatsoever. There's only what's useful, and only winning counts. And it only works because there are those willing to go along with it. That is the sense it which is actually becoming something like a demonic force.
Quoting Thorongil
:-}
How he has accused James Comey of perjury - of lying under oath to the Senate.
If it's a question of the truthfulness of Trump vs Comey, I have absolutely no doubt whose account I would rely on.
I don't think he is so much post truth as he is apparently not interested in it. He is driven by his ego, whatever he says is the truth, his truth, he's proven it time and time again and his loyal followers go along him with it regardless of the craziness of what he says. He's a bullshitter through and through.
I see no evidence of that, but I suppose evidence doesn't really matter, post truth.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/
And many more....
It pisses me of when you pull this "oh you naive little lambs" crap, but I'm going to make an effort to take your point seriously.
So, the founding fathers, they knew people could be right bastards. But freedom is worth having. Justice is a necessity. So you try to craft a system that will provide justice and freedom but won't depend on people being virtuous. They weren't writing the charter for a commune.
Has it worked? How's the republic doing? If it's gone wrong, why? Have we blown it, or could it still be fixed? We still think freedom's worth having, right? We still think justice is a necessity. And we still think everyone has a right to freedom and justice, don't we? So what do we do?
If you bitch, moan, complain, whine, and bloviate about the mendacity of one president or one party and pretend like the other side isn't guilty of the same, then you are, in fact, naive. Case in point Wayfarer just now: "Who, Obama? No, he never lied! How could there possibly be evidence of that?! He was just an innocent little dove in the White House!"
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Apologies, but I'm not following how this is a reply to what I said.
Since you've heard of Politifact, here's Barack Obama's scorecard and here's Donald Trump's scorecard.
Do you think "as mendacious" properly characterizes the comparison?
Well one interpretation of your posts would be that you don't give a shit, and for some reason don't think anyone else should either. The world's a snakepit and we should all just accept it.
But maybe you're a serious conservative, or whatever you are. Maybe you've got some values. So I took a guess at what those values might be, and asked, in all seriousness, how you think our little experiment is going.
If you care, I would honestly like to know what you think. If you don't, I won't pester you anymore.
That's a reasonable distinction. I'll look closer.
I see Western civilization in decline, which obviously includes the US, so I don't think it's going all that well, but it hasn't collapsed yet. And if you want to know what I think on any more specific issue, just ask, instead of floating vague insinuations to the effect that I'm some kind of nihilistic crank. The world is a snakepit, but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about it or think that no one else should.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I also added the word "selectively," as I'm not about to take Politifact's word for it that they've dutifully found all the false statements both men have made. So it could well be that Obama has lied more depending on what one is aware of to tally.
So too am I content in simply claiming that both men have equally mendacious characters. Obama is subtle, but no less ruthless a politician as Trump, whose buffoonish mode of appearance amplifies the impression of mendacity people have of him. Most businessmen sound like liars, even if they're not. Obama had a well manicured appearance and cultivated an affable tone to his public speaking, so I can easily imagine, and could likely prove, that many of his lies went underreported. The fear of being called a racist also likely played some role. Trump actively rebukes the mainstream media, so they have gone into overdrive picking apart every last syllable the man utters, like spurned lovers.
For the record I don't think I was particularly vague. Whether it was an insinuation, well, who's to say?
As for Obama and Trump, I don't actually care that much. I do care about institutions. I believe it is important that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Obama: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Yeah, about the same... not.
'something something liberal media etc!' incoming.
I never said Obama 'told no lies', but I see zero evidence that Obama was the spectacularly mendacious bullshit artist that Trump is. Obama was also demonstrably competent and effective in his role, where even Trump's closest supporters are obliged to continually make excuses for his incompetence, like that ridiculous statement from Paul Ryan, saying 'poor Donald can't be expected to understand all the nuances of statecraft'. After all, he's only the POTUS. Doesn't know he supposed not to demand loyalty from the head of the FBI! Must have skipped that particular class.
One of Trump's techniques is to tell so many lies, to generate so much bullshit, is that everyone is tarred with the same brush - it all seems like bullshit. Hey it's effective too.
Common man, be real now. Wouldn't you have done the same? I would. When you lead a country, everyone needs to know who the boss is - loyalty is the most important trait, otherwise you can't even have a functioning team. Trump is more of a bully than Obama and does this openly, not behind closed doors, and using political manipulation techniques as Obama did. That's the only difference so far.
Of course you're not taught this stuff in class. Of course. What were you thinking? These are things you learn on the street. Of course the boss of the secret service needs to be loyal to you. Why do you think Trump is appointing an FBI boss with no previous experience in the FBI now? So he can be at ease that that guy doesn't try to cook something on him - obviously.
Real politics is different than what you imagine, and what the media is telling you.
Which is why I have decided it's better never to debate politics with you - because your politics seems basically fascistic. Which is why I think you like 'strong leaders', Trump and Putin.
Okay, let's discuss political theory then, not concrete politics. Why do you think that the boss of the secret service shouldn't be loyal to the President? You are aware that secret services have access to a lot of information right? Do you think it's impossible for a secret service to dig up information on a President and then use it to keep him in the leash?
Absolutely not. The president is the head of the executive branch - not Emperor. It was at least inexcusably inappropriate (and possibly obstruction of justice) for Trump to demand loyalty from the man who may be investigating him, given the fact that he has the power to fire Comey at will.
This is a perfect example of why I asked Thorongil if he thinks Trump has a good understanding of the law, the constitution, and the meaning of the presidency (I won't even go into Trumps relationship with the truth). Trump doesn't have a bloody clue. He doesn't even have the basic common sense to see the massive, blatant conflict of interest involved in his actions. 'Oh but it's all highly subjective! There are interpretations you see! Policies are all that matter! The Presidents new clothes are magnificent!' Politics melts peoples fucking brains.
Quoting Agustino
I can't believe you say this unironically :-!
?
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Okay, stop citing theories to me. Reality is reality. Any President out there wants to maintain his power, and prevent himself from being abused. You know how easy abuse is? What if secret serv. director comes to the President and says one day "We've received information that media group XX has compromising information about XXXX regarding you, but we've managed to stop them from releasing it. However we're not in absolute control of it, but we currently have sufficient leverage for the time being, just wanted to inform you Sir." In a couple of days will come the order too "Sir, I think doing XXX can save a lot of trouble, I'd really advise you for it"
There. It's that easy. There's nothing blatantly illegal going on there. But the President will get the message that he must obey. You really think democracy, bullshit, etc. can stop things like this? Of course loyalty matters. Stop being a kid. At least Trump is smart enough to know this. How do you think he made it in the business world? By being an idealistic kid? >:O "uh this is how things are supposed to go, uh uh"
Yes. So what? Does that really mean they'll be independent, because "they're supposed to"?
Did you grow up in Eastern Europe?
Part of the time yes. What does that have to do with anything?
Comey was appointed to obey the law. That is what 'rule of law' means, right?
This is what is frustrating speaking to you about these matters. The world is dealing with someone in the Oval Office who is literally threatening the very institution of democracy, and you don't seem to fathom why that is a problem. Or put another way, the reason the problem exists, is because there's enough people who don't grasp why this is a problem.
Imagine living in Egypt or Turkey right now. I bet their Presidents get 'unswerving loyalty' from their equivalent Head of FBI. And if this conversation were going on in Egypt or Turkey, then you or I might get a knock at the door, and never be seen again. Just lke Russia under the communistsm, or East Germany, back in the day.
But - that's not a problem, right? Strong leadership, isn't it?
Actually no, that's not the story. The story is Trump instructed everyone else to leave the room and said, I paraphrase "I hope you can let things go. I hope you can let Flynn go. He's a good guy".
The loyalty thing was said over dinner.
Quoting Wayfarer
The institution of democracy is a sham. Never existed. Power always played by the same rules. Trump is not as refined as Obama, and other leaders have been. He's more raw and brutal, but he's using the same tactics they've been using, just less refined (and hence more OBVIOUS).
Quoting Wayfarer
The truth is, even in the West we may get a knock on our door and never be seen again. But that's not always necessary. Why would anyone bother if you can be cast out as a fool, a madman? Why would anyone bother if you wield no influence? If you're not a political player? Why would anyone bother if they could instead turn you to their cause? J.F.K got shot, but that's not the only form of control. Sun Tzu exemplifies actually that violence is the WORST form of control - the least likely to work. Effective control is hidden, and you don't even realise it. If it gets to the point where someone has to knock on your door and make you disappear, then things aren't working very well at all, and the people in charge are quite dumb.
The mass media becomes an element of guiding public opinion in democracies. If someone says something they shouldn't be saying, the media shuts them out - casts them as insane, lacking sensibility, lunatics.
Quoting Wayfarer
Whether it's a problem or not is irrelevant. That's the cold truth of the matter.
No, but unlike you I will not refuse to see the truth of the matter because you're too scared, and refuse to accept things as they are. I'm just saying how things are - naturally. It's fine if you want to change things - but notice that changing things entails going against nature, and therefore it requires effort. Just like, for example, the natural tendency in terms of sexuality is towards promiscuity. That doesn't mean promiscuity is right, but to remedy it, requires to be aware that this is the natural tendency. "Be wise as serpents" as the Bible says. You have to be wise - know the truth - in order to alter and change things.
My question to you is why do you think people wouldn't behave naturally in a democracy? Or wouldn't tend towards natural behaviour? My further question is how do you plan to change this natural human behaviour? What would prevent it from happening? These are the questions you need to answer.
Without answering it, you can go from dictatorship, to plutocracy, to democracy, etc. and nothing will change, except the external ceremonies.
So the fact that I can say that 'there's a liar in the White House', but you cannot, is because I'm scared?
Pull the other one, Agustino.
Who told you I can't say it? I absolutely say there's a liar in the White House. But I'm not surprised by it like you. That's what I'd expect. It seems you think Obama wasn't a liar. Because his lies and tactics were more refined - they were "diplomatic". That's what has got you fooled - a profound misunderstanding of politics. You think some good, some bad - I think all bad.
And by the way, you're scared because you refuse to see politics for what it is. Why? Because you're scared of living in such a world, evidently.
That's what you would like to see, is more like it. I think Obama was world's ahead, he did a lot to protect the people, the environment, the economy. Of course, to you, it doesn't matter, because it's all shit, that is all you expect, right? Anyway, it's pointless discussing it with you, for the umpteenth time.
Nowhere have I stated that. It's just your assumption. Trump isn't my ideal President for that matter, so no, it's not precisely what I'd like to see.
But yes, Trump - precisely because he lacks diplomacy - is to be preferred over Crooked Clinton, who would've done the same and worse behind closed doors. But alas, as I said, I don't want to discuss politics with you, just political theory.
But it seems you don't want to answer or think about the questions I have asked you. Why not? These questions are essential for your position. You have to consider them if you want to seriously think about politics. What will prevent the type of behaviour that comes naturally to human beings from occurring in the political arena?
My political positions don't seek to regenerate a nation or a race. Nor do they entail violence. Nor do I have a "deep hostility" towards liberal democracy. Only that I consider it flawed, just like pretty much all other political systems I know.
It's about the people, not the system - it's the people that make an era great, not its political system.
Bloody good job he didn't do anything that could possibly lead to his impeachment then.
I see you're currently enrolled in the Hardcore Realist School of the Pragmatic Realpolitik and insist on letting everyone know how enlightened you are (as if you've discovered some fundamental truth to politics that we idiots have not). Did you just read The Dictators Handbook or something? I'll try this again next week when maybe you'll grant that people should at least try to act ethically while having the power to profoundly influence peoples lives. It's amazing how often you change your tune; I remember you used to boast something about living a moral life above all else. What happened to that? Apparently now it doesn't apply to politics, where arguably it matters the most. Or it at least doesn't apply to your God Emperor. If you accept it so heartily as you clearly do instead of opposing it, this kind of view of politics is a race to the bottom.
Quoting Agustino
oof, good one. Inheriting a vast amount of wealth and being skilled enough to fall out of a rich vagina probably didn't hold him back.
It's what you said: you don't expect anything from politics. All politicians are liars, democracy is corrupt, it's all shit. You can't even own what you say, it's a waste of time talking to you.
Yes, and I still do.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yes, living a moral life is what people SHOULD do, not what they (or at least most of them) will do, nor what you should expect them to do. What did Marcus Aurelius say? Today I will meet unjust people, deceivers, etc.
I'm not foolish enough to think people will behave morally in politics. That's why my politics is structured around that - the fact that they will NOT behave morally - and they will especially not do it just because they have a "rulebook" they need to follow. That's exactly why loyalty, for example, is necessary.
If I was a leader, I wouldn't expect people under me to behave morally. Quite the contrary. So I would set up the necessary structures around in order to prevent them from behaving immorally. How? By holding leverage over them. Part of statesmanship is being able to control those weaker and less moral than you. How else do you expect the good man to govern?! :s
I'm not saying Trump does this. All I'm saying is Trump isn't doing anything unexpected. As I said, he's just more obvious about it, than past presidents.
I agree, I don't know why I bother. I hope I'm not as insufferable as some of the other pessimists on this forum can be at times. Pessimism seems to turn ones political views into a cynical, hypocritical, right-wing cliche.
Yeah, when you stop having answers to the problems I raise, go circle jerk each other. That will certainly prove you right.
I could say "fuck you" to the system, you could say "fuck you" to the system, many completely different types of people, with completely different characters, or personalities could say "fuck you" to the system. To vote for someone simply because that person says "fuck you" to the system is to completely neglect that person's character and personality in making your choice in who to vote for, and this is to shirk your democratic responsibility. It is to say "fuck you" to the system with actions.
So if we go beyond the act of saying "fuck you" to the system, to ask why does one say 'fuck you" to the system, we see that president Trump is completely phony. He said "fuck you" to the system simply because he wanted to get votes from people like you and me, who wanted to say "fuck you" to the system. Since his intent was to get himself elected president, this was the goal and motivation behind him saying "fuck you" to the system, he really holds "the system" in high esteem. He just said "fuck you" to the system to get himself into the system which he admired so much. Anyone who demonstrates such a strong desire to be president of the United States of America, going through all the effort required to get there, must actually have very high respect for "the system". So Donald Trump saying "fuck you" to the system was just an act of deception to get people who want to say "fuck you" to the system, to give him what he wanted most, to be the president of the United States of America.
You use the word "nature", and "natural" in a very odd way, as if it's not natural for a human being to be a moral being. Do you not think that it's natural for a for a human being to behave morally? You speak as if you think that if we let nature take its course we would fall into some form of negative evolution, digressing backward toward some primitive form of existence. But that's not what evolution demonstrates to us as the real facts of nature, is it?
This is not true, western politics is fundamentally structured as a "honor system". This system is based in trust, and assumes that one will act honestly.
Indeed, it's not natural. Morality is largely LEARNED. Why is it learned? Because it doesn't pop into you when you're born. You see a naked woman as a man, and you start lusting for her. That's the natural response. Morality - not lusting - is learned.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Certain aspects of morality are natural. Obviously not being barbaric and cruel to those around is something that comes natural. Someone who just does things for the sole purpose of hurting others is NOT behaving naturally (nor morally).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why are you bringing biological evolution into this? It has nothing to do with what we're talking about. And no, I don't think we have evolved much morally, if that's what you want to say.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Why should you make that assumption knowing that most people don't behave morally?
Fair enough, I have no problem with that. It seems you have no problem with being wrong either.
Learning is natural, birds and other animals, probably even insects do it.
Natural is defined in opposition to artificial. Something learned (referring to a habit/disposition here - and no, not the act of learning itself) isn't natural, but artificial.
And therein lies the absurdity of your self-refuting position. That was an easy one to address.
Yeah, give yourself a pat on the back. You were very successful. You've certainly showed how right you are. Not.
Then I don't think we should refer to any activities of living beings as natural, because all these activities are learned. If this is how you define "natural", then the activities of life are not natural, they are artificial.
What you're missing is that this is the whole point of democratic institutions. You can also look at them as inscribing rights of you like, but they're also practical. Assume people cannot be counted on to behave virtuously, and give all the people leverage over each other. That's the ballot, of course, but also in the structure of government.
I don't need the lecture on how the world really works. You need to recognize that the theory here is designed to address exactly your concern. Even if you start from the belief that life is a war of all against all, maybe we can do a little better. Not by wishing away venality, but by reigning it in. That's what the project of civilization is all about. We're not stuck with the state of nature.
Oh quit quibbling with nonsense. Look. It's simple.
You are programmed by your biological evolution to want to have sex when you see a naked woman. That's your natural drive. The fact you decide it's not moral because, say, she's a prostitute, that is your learned behavior. Morality. And it's artificial. You have to change the original programming of your nature to do that. That's what society largely helps to do until you're old and educated enough to (hopefully) think things through for yourself.
Good, at least you are recognising the problem. The issue though, is that people don't have equal leverage over each other. Donald Trump has a lot more leverage over me than I do. Why? Because he controls - or can control - a large portion of the institutions of the state directly, and I can't. Because he has access to a lot more capital than I do. Etc.
Expectations are an important and healthy thing to have in life, especially politics. Just because people don't live up to them is no reason not to have them. Not placing expectations on people to do better leads to a race to the bottom because being a cunt to people becomes validated, so we end up living in an even shiter state of affairs where there are no moral standards and leverage is all that matters. Politicians can play their little power games if they want, but why should we put up with it? It does us no good because politics will come to be about power and self-interest rather than public service. We as a society set the standard with our votes and our free speech.
Nope. You've been a cunt to me, so I told you to go fuck yourself (figuratively of course).
Wasn't an issue, because you didn't get what you wanted (being right). What your exercise in futility proved is precisely my point. I have some leverage over you - I don't need you to answer me. If you don't, then I'm right, by default, because I presented an issue you couldn't address. So the fact you refuse to answer me because "that's how it's done on internet forums, and I shouldn't have expectations" - that just helps me. Not you.
As for not placing expectations, what did Marcus Aurelius teach you? And you claim to be a Stoic, yet so attached to your own expectations you are.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Yeah, but look - it's always been like this. Look at history. So are you going to fool yourself believing an illusion that has never been real?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, well said, it doesn't LOOK absolute. But is there anything that if he really wished he couldn't achieve from his position? Very few things probably. In either case, his control is larger than probably 99.99% of people on the planet.
The problem with your perspective is that you are ignoring the natural drive toward being moral. There must be a natural drive toward being moral in order that you can over come any natural drive toward being immoral.
So something like the tendency to be honest, which is a moral virtue, must be natural. It is natural because it is required in order that we can learn to speak a language. Without the tendency to be honest, language would be lost to a deceptive use of symbols. So a child who naturally learns how to speak, because honesty is natural, must learn how to lie and deceive, because dishonesty is unnatural. The child has odd feelings of shame and some sort of guilt when lying, even without being punished or told not to lie. This must be overcome in order for the child to become a good liar. That is because moral virtue of honesty is natural, and the immoral act of lying is learned.
Okay, now you're saying something more sensible. So let's work with this. There's this natural drive to be moral. How come this natural drive to be moral rarely wins over the other drives?
One point I want to address: there is no drive towards being immoral. There's drives towards other things which can, concomitantly, lead to immorality - things like pleasure, fame, money, power, etc.
Second, okay - if I grant you that the immoral act of lying is learned, then why the hell do people lie so much? Look at the statistics for God's sake, and then tell me that lying is learned. For example:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/lying-statistics/
http://mentalfloss.com/article/30609/60-people-cant-go-10-minutes-without-lying
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/70/5/979/
^^ This last study has over 1000 citations.
Our system engenders constraints so long as you keep the institutions functional. The press doesn't have to be perfectly free, the judiciary perfectly independent, police power perfectly limited, elections perfectly fair. They just have to not fall below failure level.
Or rather, it's a question of how you can help satisfy the interests of those parties, so that they can help satisfy your interests in turn (or at least let you satisfy them without trouble).
Err, citation needed? I know for a fact I've never said that. This is the second time you've insisted I call myself a Stoic, and the second time I've rejected it. At most I was quite influenced by some of their ideas, but that was in 2015.
Of course! But that holds true even in a dictatorship. If you're an absolute ruler, you think you can satisfy all your desires and ignore everyone else? Of course not. You have to ensure that those who help you rule - all the parties involved in the management of power - can satisfy their interests too, so in turn they let you remain in power, and even help you remain there, because it's in their interest.
The underlying problem isn't political system (we've had good monarchies, good democracies, etc.) but the people running them. And that's what I'm asking - how can we make the people moral given human nature. It seems instead that most people in this thread want to ignore the people and morality, and focus on political system. It's not the system, but the people that matter.
Okay, my apologies then. I somehow remember you saying it, but it may have been at the old forum. Of course I can be wrong. Your comments in this thread at least though, suggest you appreciate the Stoics highly:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/4381#Post_4381
Okay, about what? You being a Stoic or you appreciating the Stoics? Or both?
A fair point. In practice, things don't work out that way, and the difference is institutions. It seems to me, the United States is far from perfect but more free and more just than, say, Russia. Is that because Americans are better than Russians? Or is it because at least some freedoms and some justice have been institutionalized here?
You are, for one.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Well, okay. I obviously agree with you....
Quoting Banno
I already made two posts on this claim. Keep up.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I gave a very clear as well as nuanced answer and will refer back to it. Either address it or stop patronizing me about the alleged innocence and simplicity of your question.
Quoting Wayfarer
Have you ever stopped and asked yourself whether you are selecting the evidence you choose to see?
If it's to be an insinuation, then I won't. (Did you really miss the joke? I'm about to lose all the newfound respect I had for you.)
Quoting Thorongil
Huzzah!
Consider it lost, for, alas, I don't know what you're talking about here. When was the joke made?
It means I'm the greatest for not thinking I'm the greatest. Irony is a mastery of truth.
You're wrong here. Human beings are moral beings, so the natural drive to be moral mostly wins over the drive to be immoral.
Quoting Agustino
The problem is that you were arguing carte blanche (meaning in a completely unqualified way), that morality is a matter of resisting natural urges. But this can't be true because the tendency to be honest which is a moral virtue, is what underlies, and is necessary for communication. Since the ability to communicate relies on this tendency toward honesty, then lying must be something learned after the ability to communicate is learned. We learn how to communicate, then we learn how to lie.
Since honesty is natural for human beings, and lying is learned, and honesty is moral, while lying is immoral, this completely destroys your assertion that morality is a matter of resisting natural tendencies.
Quoting Agustino
The statistics are irrelevant. Mathematics is learned, languages are learned. Consider the number of people involved in these activities. The number of people involved in a particular activity has nothing to do with whether the activity is learned or natural.
Aphorisms? Laughorisms, stupid and flat.
Profundity? A fun-ditty, about this or that.
Though, that is my favorite one, bar none. So expect to hear it over 9000 more time.
Funny, I'm almost entirely opposite of you here. Some indigenous native cultures don't seem to have any sort of Western styled cultural modesty about their bodies; and the clothes that they do wear appear to be more pragmatically inspired by their location. Certain Christian Missionaries had quite a time in Polynesia if I remember correctly.
Parents teach us how to behave, they and society tells us what we should lust for, and we put our own spin on this...I'm not saying we don't have a natural sex drive, only that simple seeing a naked person is not, in itself sufficient to explain lust.
I also don't think the 'moral state' is man's natural state. Man is an animal, one who is subject to the same basis drives as all other animals. Morality is learnt, the same way modesty is learnt.
[as a side comment I don't think Trump lies about important matters, I think he believes what he says, even if everyone else in the world (well maybe not Pence) thinks it's batshit).
Okay.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
I think Stoicism is right, and our common way of dealing with such things by wailing and crying is irrational - although indeed human.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I suggest you just take a look at a history book, and repeat this with a straight face if you can. I'm sure you won't be able to. Morality won here - clearly *facepalm* :
Behold your morality:
What you're saying is so utterly absurd that it should be rejected out of hand, as blatant nonsense. A cursory glance at history is sufficient to convince anyone. Mankind is marked by brutality and viciousness - periods of peace and prosperity are relatively rare.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is your rationalistic explanation. I am judging by how this adheres with the facts. If it is natural for humans to be honest, then I would expect lying to be a rarity - but it's not - it's quite frequent actually.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, because they disagree with you.
Right. Time for a biology lesson son.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3283433/A-majority-American-women-lust-men-despite-relationship-say-makes-want-partner-more.html
Turns out a naked person isn't even required.
That article is isn't germane or explicative of lust :s , it is in fact mind numbing.
Yes, the article isn't the biology lesson, I meant you should study biology, to see that the brain automatically releases certain chemicals upon certain sights - including in the case of seeing a naked woman.
The article however does illustrate that lust is so prevalent, it can be taken as the natural condition of mankind. To depart from the natural condition takes effort and education.
If you want to know the truth about someone, ask them what they think is true of everyone else.
This is the simple fact that progressives around the world do not get. Instead they cry about conservatives being pessimistic, etc. This isn't pessimism. This is realism. I'm optimistic about the future precisely because I'm realistic about the present. We - the human race - are not great. Enough with the hubris.
The problems of the world can never be solved by these pink cloud flying-unicorn loving people, who think there are no problems to solve in the first place. Everything is rosy and shiny around, just Trump is the problem. Give me a break >:O The world has much more serious problems. It's almost unbelievable to see how people are holding onto beliefs based on utterly no evidence, and just reject statistics, evidence, and results of studies as "irrelevant". Sureeeee - let's determine what the natural condition of man is by sitting in an armchair and dreaming up how honesty is required for communication to be possible. That's how we're going to do it. Or by dreaming up ad hominems to dismiss evidence.
And you use a study based on the cultural experiences of United States women in committed relationships to try to somehow demonstrate that lust is not a learned response, well no way (N) . Your response makes no sense.
I don't care if it's a learned response or not. Of course everything you do is to some extent learned. That's irrelevant. But some things are "natural". This may be hard to describe what it means. But basically it's what is there for most people. The behaviours/tendencies that are common.
Very much in the style of Trump, what you believe is true is true, that's not realism, that is idealism.
So what? Do I have to point out to you every time that a human being acts morally in order to argue that human beings are moral beings? Your argument is ridiculous, it's like pointing to the murderers in jail and saying "here's proof that human beings are murderers". You have no basis for any inductive conclusion here. Your skills of inductive reasoning are sorely lacking.
Take a stroll down a city street and compare how many people are acting morally with how many are acting immorally. Even in a war torn country you'll fid that morality far out weighs immorality.
Quoting Agustino
As I said, this argument is also ridiculous. You have already opposed natural tendencies with learnt ones, this was your division not mine. Therefore it is not natural for human beings to speak and communicate with one another, yet we find all human beings engaged in this unnatural activity. So, if you would not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in lying, because lying is unnatural, you would also not expect the majority of human being to be engaged in communication, because communication is unnatural. See how this claim of yours, that if lying was unnatural it would be a rarity, is utterly ridiculous?
The point is, that human beings engage in learnt (unnatural) activities quite frequently, all the time in fact. So to say that you would expect such unnatural activities, like communicating, and lying, to be a rarity simply because they are unnatural, is a farce.
Quoting Agustino
The statistics are irrelevant, because even if the statisticians claim that one hundred percent of the people lie, this does not prove that lying is natural. One hundred percent of grown adults communicate in some way, they do some form of mathematics, but this is irrelevant to the question of whether these things are learnt or natural.
The problem here, is as I pointed out at first, you have a very distorted concept of "natural".
Trump has said he is willing to testify under oath. All that would prove is that he is quite capable of lying under oath, which I believe he has amply demonstrated already.
Why 'vindicated'? Because Comey appeared to say that the aim of the Russian investigation was not Trump himself, but Flynn. Apparently Trump took this to mean, he's off the hook for that investigation.
But what about the fact that Comey said Trump had pressured him to drop the investigation into Flynn, or demanded 'personal loyalty'? Trump denied saying it. So this means that one of them is lying: either Trump is lying, or Comey has committed perjury. Trump said:
So - where Comey said that Trump wasn't being investigated for collusion - that part is true. But where Comey said that Trump demanded personal loyalty, and asked him to drop the Flynn investigation - they're lies! So the part that suits the narrative is true, anything that doesn't, is false. Excellent illustration of 'post-truth' in practice.
I would, if you were worthy of some attention.
Nor to the Bullshitter; which is what we have to hand.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, but you should show evidence that human beings are moral. So far, you've provided nothing but empty speculation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, if you take a stroll down a city street you'll see very few moral acts, and a lot of immoral ones. Whether these are petty immoralities - such cursing a beggar, or bad-mouthing someone - or bigger immoralities such as punching someone in the face. The vast majority of what you'll see though will be neither moral nor immoral behaviour - just people moving around.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, it's ridiculous to think communication is unnatural - that's what's ridiculous. If I stop a random man in the street and tell him communication is unnatural he'll laugh in my face. But it seems apparent you have no problem with holding such a dumb idea. As I told you before, you often remind me of the armchair philosopher, who has little experience with the world.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, it my not prove that lying is natural, but it sure as hell does prove that human beings are immoral in their natural state.
You should stop with the sophistry and focusing on side-issues, and instead concentrate on the focus of this discussion. What is the base state, the natural state, call it however you want to call it - of mankind? And that state is immorality, although human beings also do have, as you say, a desire to be moral. But that desire is often overcome by other desires.
As in war...
"All warfare is based on deception." Sun Tzu (544 - 496 BC).
"In war, truth is the first casualty." Aeschylus (525 - 456 BC).
(Y)
Article
Article
Vacations
Yachts
Another book on the way, his White House memoir - more millions off the fools! >:O
We have laws which are, for a large part obeyed.
Quoting Agustino
The ability to communicate is learned isn't it? Haven't you opposed learned with natural? Why do you now contradict yourself claiming it's ridiculous to think of communication as unnatural? Surely languages are artificial. Don't you believe that language is artificial?
Quoting Agustino
I think the idea of a "base state", or "natural state" of the human being is a very strange idea. What could it possibly be referring to? Are you referring to a baby, a foetus, the ovum at conception? Any designation of such a "base state" would be completely arbitrary. What could you possibly be trying to get at here, with your assumption of a "state" at the base? I know, such an arbitrary base state would only be assumed to support your division between natural and learned. Below the base is natural, above the base is learned. Give it up, learned vs. natural is an untenable division.
Clearly you've dismissed the proverbial tabula rasa in favour of a "base state", but why ask me what it consists of? I am not the one who is assuming such a "base state". I think of living beings in terms of actualizing potential, so I am more inclined towards the tabula rasa perspective. I assume an active base of life, not a state.
Quoting Agustino
What's the point with the garbage ad hominem? One can hole oneself up on the arm chair for many years, reading vast amounts of material. If reading is not "experience with the world", then what is "experience with the world", and what advantage is it supposed to give the philosopher? You know that reading gives one access to many other peoples' "experience with the world", don't you?
Why do we need to have laws if morality is the natural condition? To me, the very fact that we have laws and punishments for breaking the law suggests that the human being is not naturally moral, but requires external pressure and force to be kept in check (the law + its enforcement).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
A particular language is artificial, but the capacity to speak a language is not artificial. It's natural for human beings to communicate verbally through some sort of language.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well this has been pretty much settled already. The tabula rasa perspective is nonsense as shown by Plato (anamnesis), Kant, and modern biology. The mind comes with a pre-established neuro-biological structure which determines its capacities, tendencies, and possibilities. I don't much like Pinker, but this book is good on this subject, to put you up to date with some of the modern developments of biology and the social sciences.
Quoting WhiskeyWhiskers
Have you presented to me some opposing statistics and I missed them? :s
Reading is not experience of the world for the simple reason that when you read, you're interacting with second hand information, which may be inaccurate - the respective author may not have perceived fully or completely the matters that he's describing - or if he has, he may have failed to adequately or completely convey them.
That's why the greatest philosophers in history have been, first and foremost, keen observers of reality, and only secondly readers of philosophy. Take for example Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein to list a couple. Their insights came not from what they read, but rather from their own observations - that's why they were geniuses, because they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived. Their own insights enabled them - taking for example Schopenhauer - to synthesise Kant, Plato, and Eastern wisdom into something completely new.
What made them special wasn't the breadth of their study, but their perception. So that's why I'm telling you that you seem to have just armchair knowledge. Yes, it seems to me from reading your posts that you are very familiar with Platonic/Aristotelian concepts, but I'm not interested in that. Philosophy isn't just playing with words. I'm interested in actual, practical knowledge that is relevant in the world. So when you get lost in discussing small technicalities and this and that - it seems to me that you're purposefully refusing to see the main insight I'm presenting to you. It's like quibbling over a mathematical truth, because there's a missed step in my proof.
So look - the purpose of philosophy from the very beginning was finding wisdom in order to live the best life possible. The technicalities are superficialities - they are only as useful as they serve that purpose. An armchair philosopher remains stuck in the technicalities and does nothing to advance wisdom or teach the good life.
..no, for reasons you had literally just quoted. Keep up.
Yeah, give me a shout out when you start making sense please.
Do you not realize that I can just throw your own argument right back at you to address this issue? Take a look at what you say about "the capacity to speak a language".
Quoting Agustino
So, the capacity to follow laws, and be moral is not artificial, but it's natural for human beings to follow some sort of moral codes and laws when they are given them to follow. Therefore morality is natural. Of course there is a lot of slang, and distorted language use out there, because people don't necessarily follow the rules of language use, just like they don't necessarily follow the laws of morality.
But now we've reduced these things to the capacity to learn, saying that they don't actually exist prior to be learned. So we're moving right into the tabula rasa theory now. It holds that the blank slate is the capacity to learn. When we're born, we have the capacity to learn any language, but we only learn particular ones. Likewise, we have the capacity to follow any moral codes, but we only learn to follow particular ones.
Quoting Agustino
OK, so let's say that there are particular capacities which are predetermined by the physical structure of the brain. This does not refute the tabula rasa perspective. Tabula rasa does not imply infinite capacity. The perspective holds that particular capacities are like a blank slate, the conscious mind being one such capacity. The blank slate has the capacity to have something written on it, it doesn't have the capacity to do anything. It does not hold that any particular capacity is absolute. Of course a capacity is limited by the physical structure of the being. No one would claim that a mouse is born with the capacity to reason.
I find it very odd that you would use the tabula rasa perspective to defend your claim that it is "natural" for human beings to use language, then turn around to say that this perspective is "nonsense". What's with the double standard? Tabula rasa is acceptable when it supports your claim, but it's nonsense when it supports my claim.
Quoting Agustino
OK, so a book is not a part of the world. That's a lie. And it makes no difference if the book is fact or fiction, it's still part of the world.
Quoting Agustino
That's a load of crap. All of those philosophers mentioned were well schooled, which means lots of reading. And I've read some from each of them. I see that they have built upon the ideas of others. They did not get their philosophy from going out and perceiving things with their senses. Your statement, "that they perceived deeper than others before them had perceived" appears as nonsense. What are you saying, that their eyes could see deeper into the substances in the world? That's nonsense. Or is it the case that you are really saying that they could think deeper into the subject? If it's the latter, then why must one leave the armchair, and go "experience the world", in order to have success in perceiving deeper.
Quoting Agustino
Didn't Aristotle determine that the life of contemplation is the best possible life? Doesn't leaving the armchair, and the life of contemplation, bring one down to a lower form of existence?
Funny guy. And an ironic statement.
No.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, it's not natural for human beings to follow moral codes and laws when they are provided. That's precisely why we have to use harsh punishments to get them to follow the laws. If you removed the punishments, you'd see that naturally - without the use of external force - human beings would not comply with moral codes and laws.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It's not only about capacities here. It's also about tendencies, reactions, instincts, etc. Just like you have certain physical features you inherit from your parents, you also have some mental features.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, the point is there is something written in there already.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Nope, I haven't made use of the tabula rasa perspective. Where do you see that I have?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Don't be silly. A book is part of the world, but the things that it refers to aren't necessarily parts of the world (in the case of fiction for example, they aren't). Identifying the referents doesn't involve just reading, but your own experience too. If I describe you an apple, and you've never seen one before, it's not likely that you'd be able to instantly identify it when you first see it. Your own experience is relevant in making sense of what you read.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
They didn't have access to anywhere near as much reading material as you do today - referring here to Aristotle, and Plato. Most of the concepts they had developed, they developed by themselves, through their own perceptions and experiments. And yeah, no doubt that philosophers were well-schooled, I'm just saying that being well-schooled, in and of itself, isn't sufficient to be a great philosopher.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's perception that makes the difference, not thought. Thought merely re-arranges what is already given in perception.
That's Schopenhauer. Good information about this is also found in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance if you have read it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, because contemplation isn't the same as sitting in the armchair lost in thoughts. It's actively engaged with, observing and being in touch with the world.
"Facts", evidence, and reason are no longer the sole prime movers of journalism and news media. Mainstream "popular" culture and parts of academia have bought in to a moral economy based on feelings and outrage, and widespread backlash to this is culminating in growing distaste for the mainstream media (Fox included), along with a fascinating (and perhaps now subsiding) internet war of trolls and ideologues (see: the rise of Kek).
Huh, that's odd, I wonder why the entire population is not in jail then.
Quoting Agustino
I see your point. You think that some people have X-ray eyes, and this makes them better philosophers.
Source
It's very similar to the faux 'Campaign Rallies' that Trump holds every few weeks to re-inflate the Presidential ego when it has been bruised by the testimony of public officials and cruel treatment by the horrid 'fake press'.
This fawning adulation is what Trump means by 'loyalty' - he has to be sorrounded by people telling him how great he is, and what a great job he's doing.
They're not in jail because they fear punishment for breaking the law, therefore they don't do it. Simple. It's not because they love the law.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No but perception is important. Not all people perceive the same. It's your fault for thinking they do. And this isn't a matter of eyes, but a matter of consciousness, attentiveness, interest, etc.
Although I've read much, I haven't read the entire thread. Too much irrelevance. I have watched it devolve. Here's how I'd begin talking about 'post truth'...
There are many who call the current political discourse in American politics(particularly when talking about the right wing media talking points along with the president's own words) "post-truth" as a result of the sheer quantity of demonstrably false statements of thought/belief being bandied about as though they were true. There are many many more who quite simply have little to no clue what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so(a necessary prerequisite for continuing to hold demonstrably false belief(s) despite being falsified). That's a big problem. Add to that the overwhelming propensity of media talking heads to begin with an utterly inadequate linguistic framework accompanied by the financial need to keep folk tuned in by whatever means necessary, and you'll quickly notice the inevitably self-perpetuated confusion. Sadly, I cannot help but to note that much of this arose from those with unshakable conviction in false belief who remain ignorant by sheer will alone(conflate their own thought/belief and it's source with truth) and those who've - for whatever reason - who have allowed and honored(often unknowingly, and yet other times clearly not) such religious 'theft' of discursive means by virtue of accepting that particular use of the term "truth" in order to reject other aspects of the religion/belief system, while simultaneously throwing out, and/or neglecting all other notions of truth.
The problem(hinted at directly above) is simple to identify but much more difficult to correct:Most folk simply do not know what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so. As a direct result of disregarding truth and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof, many people nowadays have a very hard time knowing what to believe and why. As it pertains to politics, American or otherwise, the way a topic is framed in language - the actual words used to talk about a topic - will largely determine which aspects of the topic can be sensibly discussed by virtue of establishing the terminology being used to do so. All too often folk get mired in thought and discussion by virtue of adopting an utterly inadequate linguistic framework. Any and all frameworks which cannot take account of what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so is inherently lacking explanatory power where it matters most, especially in this political context(post-truth world). Thus, the opposing narratives both claim their own truth, as they must - assuming sincerity in speech. Yet I often find myself wondering if any one of them could explain what makes a statement true/false, and better yet which ones, if any, could identify a lie.
Banno's earlier addition regarding the difference between being a bullshitter and a liar has the potential to become enlightening, but it all starts with having a good grasp upon how thought/belief is formed and the role that truth plays in all of this...
The thread started out with an argument that a post-truth world will inevitably collapse because it ignores what is the case. I was thinking about what one of our mutual friends, of loving memory, might say about post-truth; that if truth is only what we say it is, then there can be no such thing as post-truth.
In a way, Trump's administration can be seen as a test; If Landru were right, then Trump will be able to continue in his office. If not, truth will at some stage catch up with him.
Not Wayfarer's boss. As a non-citizen and non-resident of the greatest country on Earth, he is not subject to the rule of the Orange One. I imagine his posts on the subject are pure Christian sympathy for those that, through no fault of their own, are.
Well, he most certainly is, because apparently Wayfarer keeps talking about him day in and day out.
To justify that 'because', it appears that one of your fundamental axioms is:
for all X and all Y, if X talks about Y a lot then Y is the boss of X
It would appear then, that Satan is the boss of many Evangelical preachers - a great opportunity for me to plug my latest essay.
Sorry Banno. Didn't see that reply. At best, the US govt. is in a very sad state. Donald Trump is living proof that intelligence and wealth are not connected, for he is a prima facie example of quite the contrary.
Where's Landru?
Landru said about 14 months ago that Trump represents the American ID - those who want to say, f*** government, f*** muslims, f*** mexicans, f*** everyone that doesn't agree with me, but aren't allowed to say it. There's some truth in that, but there's also much more to it than that.
Quoting creativesoul
Actually I think I introduced that distinction earlier in the thread, on the basis of an opinion piece in Vox.
And today the NY Times published the definitive list of Trump's lies, noting that
Hey Jeep!
Interesting. Thanks for the reply, and the bit I mistakenly attributed to Banno. I have my own thought/belief about Trump, and presuming the rendition above is accurate, nothing Landru said strikes me as wrong.
The NY Times has accused Trump of deliberately misrepresenting his own thought/belief. That carries a very heavy burden of proof.
Stating a falsehood is not equivalent to lying. Nor does lying require stating falsehood.
To prove that Trump is lying, the prosecution must provide adequate evidence that he does not believe what he said(whatever the purported lie is).
I saw no proof that Trump didn't believe himself, but I didn't really give it due attention. Too many obviously not proven claims to want to further continue.
Trump may be immoral in some regards, but he's certainly not stupid - that's definitely out of the question. If he was stupid he would have destroyed all the fortune left to him, not grown it, nor would he have become President.
Trump lacks intelligence. He did not lack knowledge regarding how to find people that could be paid in order to get what he wanted.
I beg to disagree with you. If you think Trump lacks intelligence, you're extraordinarily naive:
No, you should listen to what the guy has to say about it. I'm not arguing based on the fact that someone agrees with me, I just gave you a source which has a nice argument for it, so that I don't have to re-state the same thing. Your refusal to even listen to it is pathetic.
One can lack intelligence and be wealthy. One can lack wealth and be intelligent. Trump is proof of that. Smart business men do not go bankrupt unless done intentionally as a means to not keep their word, not pay their debts, and/or not lose their business. Dumb business men can tremendously increase their wealth by virtue of having the right people in the right places.
Sure.
Quoting creativesoul
No, Trump is totally not proof of that. Nor did he intentionally go bankrupt. And by the way, losing a business or two isn't abnormal for a good businessman. Even Henry Ford went bankrupt several times. It doesn't follow from that that he was dumb, or not a good businessman.
Quoting creativesoul
This is false. Look, you don't know what you're talking about, and that's fine, but I can tell you for sure that dumb businessmen can absolutely not increase their wealth. Having the right people in the right places first of all requires intelligence - intelligence to choose them, get them in the right place, and intelligence to motivate them and keep them (as well as intelligence to check that they are not screwing you). Rich people have many around them who want to take their money away, or make easy money off them.
Of course he is. He verges on imbecilic.
That is your opinion, you have offered no evidence of proving that.
It doesn't take intelligence to be lucky enough to afford multi-million dollar financial losses. It doesn't take intelligence to be lucky enough to be able to afford to hire the right people. It does take intelligence to be able to recognize these things...
Sure, but he inherited at most 200 million from his dad. His wealth is at least around 4 billion today. He's made more than he's lost, and he's beaten inflation - at least.
Quoting creativesoul
Look mate. It's no use if you have money to afford hiring the best talent if you (1) can't recognise that talent, (2) can't ensure that that talent is working for you and not against you, (3) can't retain that talent. These are NOT easy tasks at all. If someone gave you 1 million dollars and said do something with them, the chances are you'd lose them, and I don't think you consider yourself dumb. It's not as easy as you make it sound.
Quoting creativesoul
Some of them do, some of them don't. Business skill isn't the same as morality - the two are different. So there's moral good businessmen, and immoral, but skilled businessmen too.
Trump is notoriously uninformed. There is a quote from one of his 'books', 'The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience.' He never reads books and refuses to read briefing papers. He gets all his information from Fox and Breitbart. The only way State Department can get him to read anything is to salt the papers they give him with references to him. He changes his mind continually and often shows no grasp of facts, principles or policies. This is all on the public record and common knowledge.
This may be true, that he's not a very cultured man, but that's totally different from saying that he's dumb. He's very smart, he hasn't however applied his intelligence to such matters.
Quoting Wayfarer
I would be skeptical of this. The real Donald Trump is probably different than what the media and his books have portrayed him to be, because remember, he's trying to build an image that sells. That speaks to the common, lazy folk, who want to hear that it's easy to achieve success. They'll pay for those books. This is an essential marketing principle that Trump has applied his whole life.
Quoting Wayfarer
This is anecdotal.
Quoting Wayfarer
Actually I think Trump is one of the most stubborn politicians - he rarely changes his mind on goals, but frequently on means of achieving them.
Very bitchy, designed to incite
A very timely subject. America is definitely a post-truth environment right now, I can tell you that.
Truth to me is one of the foundational and most important concepts in philosophy. Truth is the reason I mostly reject postmodernism, which I see as a philosophy that eliminates the special status of truth and replaces it with the concept of perspective or interpretation, of which many are equally valid.
Not all sentences express a truth or falsehood. For example, an opinion may be true, false, or neither.
But if you are asserting a purported fact about the world, I would argue that truth is the essential component that constitutes the fact.
"Mike Pence is currently the VP of United States." Russian meddling aside, unless he is removed from office through impeachment, I believe that this is an undeniable fact about the world.It is not susceptible to interpretation or perspective. A contradictory fact would simply be a false statement.
A skilled businessman need not be a good one. If profit is the sole measure of being a good business man, then any and all means to increase profit are acceptable as long as they do so. All business men give their word. When one promises to do X, then 'X ought be the case' is a true statement. A good business man is trustworthy. A skilled business man may not be. Conflating good with skilled is a mistake in thinking which eliminates the ability to further discriminate between successful business men and good ones. All good ones are successful, but not all successful ones are good.
Ahem... Donald Trump.
So you did, beg your pardon. It's getting piled on thicker by the day, in any case.
Trump makes America irrelevant.
Follow the money.
Merkel on US policy.
"While we are looking at the possibilities of cooperation to benefit everyone, globalization is seen by the American administration more as a process that is not about a win-win situation but about winners and losers," she said.
Trump: Making America irrelevant.
Isn't that a preferable no matter who the president is?
Paraphrase:
"Vlad's such a nice guy. He's sincere, he has a good handshake. And he looked me right in the eye, and said, 'Donald, there's no way my people did these awful things the "fake media" are talking about. They're your real enemy Donald. I'm your friend. You're a great man, and a great leader'. And I believe him. I know that deep down, Vlad is a good guy. And he likes me."
Sometimes else I would have been quite nervous about this.
But now we know how simply inept Trump is and that his cabinet (Tillerson, Mattis, etc.) and congress simply won't go along with a full capitulation to Putin. So NATO isn't going fall apart. And likely the Russians know now how much they can use the Trump card.
The fact is that Trump alternative-universe of his own has made him basically the majority of the time totally irrelevant where he can have his feud with the media. The only time when Trump does have an effect is when some policy decision is a) acceptable to the Republicans and b) not a major security policy issue that would truly rock the boat. And those kind of things naturally do happen (like going out of the Paris Accords).
It's not the media that's fake. It's the person occupying the office of the Presidency.
Have you been reactivated by Crooked? The orders arrived in the mailbox or what happened? X-)
Clinton wasn't 'spouting accusations', she was quoting a media story, and her statement was rated 'true' by politifact at the time (although subject to later clarification by the NY Times).
And after today's developments, it is impossible to deny collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government agencies - it's there in black and white.
And of course you can deny collusion since all we have is proof little idiot Trump Jr. accepting contact from a lawyer claiming to have info. There was no proof of any info being passed on and certainly no proof of the Russians actually interfering in the election
Putin backed Trump purely and simply because he knows it will be a disaster for the US. It is, and has been all along. Superb strategic victory by Putin, but then, he didn't have to do much.
And the fact you post some unfounded opinion someone made that doesn't in any way show Russia actually tampering with the election shows your thinking is subpar as well. And you've shown no game plan of Putin's, nor how it affected the election. More proof of what I just wrote.
I think she did just say it, and she said it more than once, she knew what she was doing...she did a Trump. They are both despicable from my viewpoint. She's a cheat and she is in Wall Street's pocket, and he is a bore, an ignoramus, a "pussy grabbing" misogynist.
You think that cartoon is about the election? No. It's about what happened at the G19.
A neat example pf pro-Trump logic.
:-|
Your reply was garbled nonsense. A nothing reply was only appropriate.
Rationality not thought of biggly where you come from?
Which is exactly what others from around the world want, have wished for and is now their temporary reality.
If it's not it's because some gruesome threat is on the scene from within or without said nation.
And that is the rub. It's only in a crisis when the USA is viewed as the leader and depended upon.
The one question I have for Banno is: when the world calls in the middle of the night with a crisis, is China going to answer?
Some yes, some no. Both the British and the French repeatedly pressed the US to take a leading role in the Cold War. I don't agree with Trump on much, but to the extent that he sent out isolationist fumes during his campaign, I'm with him. I also agree with Merkel that Europe should not think of the US as a reliable ally. That's simply the emergence of the truth into the light of day. Or a re-emergence. :)
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
To the extent that this is true, it has the potential to be a horrific mistake (the recent demolition of Syria wants to testify.) I've made a 180 in recent years. I do not support the emergence of a global government. I think it's every country for itself. Dog eat dog. The little countries already know that. It's time for the bigger ones to put aside sentimental pipe dreams.
I guess I was speaking purely from my experience in the last decade, most prominently with those who I consider close friends from here in the "thinkers" sandbox. From Tobias to Benkei, to Banno and unenlightened, all of them made it perfectly clear that the USA has done more bad than good on the world stage and so I say, like Trump, turn our efforts inward, taking care of our own home first and let someone else "Step Up" and lead this world in times of crisis. When it came down to it, there were only two countries that could possibly lead the way we had and that was either Russia or China. Is it possible that they got their wish? Is Russia now the world leader? And does it matter to us, the USA?
Quoting Mongrel
The other countries have never lost sight of taking care of themselves first. It is only the USA that has been the fool here. It is said that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I have great disdain for that idea and refuse to let it shape my choices in life all the same.
Those who want a world leader are looking for a country that can maintain peace. Russia doesn't have the ability to do that. I think China probably could. It would be in its interest to do that because its on-going development requires peace. It doesn't have any experience acting as a global leader. If it steps into that role, it will be following an American guidebook in the same way Americans looked to the British example and on and on backward.
I've been reading a lot of history lately. I'm presently reading a book about the so-called Solutrean hypothesis. Archaeologists, geneticists, historic geographers all commune to try to understand what a few bones and stone tools mean. Whatever burning issues those ancient people worried over are lost in time as our worries will be also. There's a sort of sweet melancholy in that.. don't you think?
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
There's nothing stopping you from exercising your good intentions and joining with others in doing that. I usually resort to giving money to groups I trust. But I think there's some wisdom in backing off of a governmental role in that.
A prime example is the story of Hoover's efforts to feed starving Russians in the 1920s. Lenin looked on and laughed. He didn't want those Russians to survive. He wanted them to starve to death. It's harsh, but it's a mistake to think the US government is supposed to save the Russians from their own insane leader. That's comic-book logic. The real USA is not superhuman. Agree?
UAE denies the story.
Fake news working, effectively causing the disruption it was meant to cause.
The pressure to 'break' a news story, must be tremendous for news organizations such as the Washington Post, NYTimes, and the rest. It is not surprising that fake news gets reported. I guess the important thing is that the news organizations recognize that they were wrong and retract such stories, unlike many politicians who 'double down' instead or recognizing falsity of their own statements.
I have no special liking for Bezos or his retail outlet Amazon, which recently screwed up my account. It involved my moving and then trying to order something from them, forgetting my password. I went to their site, indicated that I forgot my password and they were supposed to text email me a temporary password, but none came. I called and eventually got to a person who told my that I was locked out because my account had been hacked. I asked why I had no been let know that someone had compromised my information, and the guy said they sent multiple emails which never came to me because of course my information had been hacked. I hung up on him and now bad mouth them whenever possible. >:O
And yes, Amazon's service is dreadful...:)
P.S. WaPo still hasn't made a full retraction of their Vermont or Propornot "stories."
Are you referring to this Vermont story? There's an editor's note at the top: "An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid."
And this PropOrNot story? As the editor's note says, "The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.". A newspaper isn't "fake news" if it simply reports someone else's lies (or mistakes). Else everybody that ever reports on Trump's campaign promises is fake news. Fake news is news that's invented by the reporter.
And a newspaper is fake news when it creates its own mistakes as WaPo did with the ProporNot story or with the Vermont story when they did not come close to doing the due diligence because they've been in a frenzy to get Russia conspiracy theory stories out. That's fake news too.
Holy crap I haven't been around for a bit and missed this. Seems I struck a nerve.
I'll play devil's advocate for a minute if you're still around and argue that this 'democratic' system has largely been appropriated by corporate interests aligned with both major parties, and centered around a combination of neoliberal economic policies with American military interventionism. This military-industrial complex, or whatever you want to call its current manifestation, is clearly not aligned with the will of a large segment of the US population.
So there's a massive disconnect that seems obvious now, and one that cannot be entirely reduced to the racism, sexism, etc. of Trump voters, even though these elements often do exist within that demographic. No, there are legitimate economic and social grievances that IMO we'd do well to take seriously.
If that wedge does exist between voters and political representatives, then 'shirking your democratic duty' could be interpreted as justified and possibly even efficacious to a certain extent, if its opposite involves giving your consent to the corrupt and violent system as it currently exists. Democrats sadly turned away from supporting unions and other working class struggles under the leadership of Bill Clinton. Bernie Sanders seems to have tried to bring the Dems back into their traditional role as the genuine representatives of working class interests, and had a good deal of success doing so,
I just mentioned that this could be a useful tactic to a certain degree, and by that I mean it would seem to make sense for the representatives of a system (used interchangeably with 'political establishment') shocked by the victory of a relative outsider, to make some much needed adjustments. Hopefully this temporary setback will lead to it being more attuned and responsive to the will of the multitude of voters who voiced their collective displeasure with a resounding 'FUCK YOU'.
I'm looking for for the silver lining to this travesty which is the Trump presidency. I'm also interested in larger cultural trends, specifically those which precipitated the creation of an electorate which has lost faith in a political process appropriated by financial interests, and IMO lacking much sense of a 'common good' which looks beyond the immediate enrichment of corporate interests who've appropriated the organs of state to do their bidding.
That's my (somewhat) quick and oversimplified take. We're all trying to make sense of the American political landscape right now, and I'm not sure anyone really knows what going on beyond the belief that we're in a stage of transition.
But yeah, I agree with yours and others' negative opinion of Trump. I'm dealing with very intelligent people here and I expect everyone to be able to make the important distinction between criticism of 'the system' and support of Trump. Let's not thoughtlessly conflate the two, as the supporters of 'the system' would like us to do, and which in turn discredits valid criticisms by associating these with the person of Donald Trump. It's a manipulative tactic, but one that seems to be working rather well thus far as evidenced by this thread.
Disenfranchisement, too.
That's a very good question.
Now that you put it into that perspective I do find a sort of sweet melancholy in that idea.
Quoting Mongrel
Agree. The real USA is Wonder Woman! (Y)
One that maybe should have been asked and answered before telling the USA to take our marbles and go home?
Fool me once shame on you, the USA was making things worse so we came home.
Fool me twice, shame on the USA that gives it's best to the world both culturally and militarily, foolishly thinking that it is appreciated.
I hope China answers the call because it would be to consenting to being "the nation to hate" if the USA wound up responding.
I had not heard of it and it sounds wonderful and if comes to fruition. It appears they are indoctrinating their 'Next" generation as well.
I truly wish China luck in it's endeavor and that they will be able to lead the world through it's "NEXT" crisis because frankly I am tired of the USA being hated for the good we try to do. Like I said to Mongrel, the saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and maybe the new Silk Road will be able to prove the quote wrong.
X-)
Can I pardon myself?
I was surprised to read your response as you always seem unshakable to me. I am not sure where to find "it" though I am still looking, hopeful and not out but feeling the down part.
How Russia Played Trump.
How Russia Played Trump. ][/quote]
Vanity Fair isnt' a leftist rag. It's a centrist rag that was firmly behind Hillary during the election and punched left by attacking Sanders.
The hard split in ideology and politics between Centrists and progressives is a new phenomenon.
More along the lines of not taking shit from people in the name of self preservation. I know that I am the only one that can control how I react to things in life but that is a challenge right now.
Since I cannot form that waterproof type of feather that allow ducks to float, I shall instead pull in my oars for a bit and allow the stream to carry me merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, gently down.
Actually, the article's characterisation of America as a naive child does not ring true. Ham-fisted and self-serving, yes; but that goes with the territory. TIff is right, the Pax Americana will be missed, at least in the West.
No major city in Europe, America, China, Japan, SE Asia, and places in between has been carpet bombed since the middle of the last century.
That is a good thing.
Unlike you, I include people in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Honduras as people who matter in the world. And as long as they're dying at the hands of Americans through bombings or coups, there is no Pax Americana. Or, in other words, America has helped kill millions in those countries in the past 20 years. That is a bad thing.
https://www.vox.com/2017/7/18/15983910/donald-trump-russia-putin-natalia-veselnitskaya-collusion
Sorry, a Russia expert's theory isn't evidence; it's a theory.
X-)
Here's a hypothetical...
Suspect A rolls over on suspect B. Warrant. Suspect B rolls over on suspects C, D, and E. Warrant....
In a Trump's situation, if that actor is not scared, it could be for one of only two possible reasons. Either he's done nothing wrong, and he trusts the judicial system's capacity/ability to render proper judgment. Or he's done all sorts of stuff, and he trusts the system to render improper judgment. Being under investigation for criminal wrongdoings such as being part of a proven conspiracy to get yourself elected bears a heavy heavy toll on one's emotional state(s), we can all be assured of that.
If that investigation can legitimately lead to financial records that help prove criminal wrongdoing of any variety, then Trump had damned well better believe that he is innocent and that the judicial system will render sound judgment, or that he is guilty and that the judicial system will get it wrong.
That's interesting, but I didn't address the reason why he isn't scared, but what he's scared of.
Again, this doesn't really address what I said. I appreciate the effort, though.
If you cannot understand the relevance between my last post and the question you asked, then there's not much more I can do to help you.
How Russia Played Trump
The Mooch and the Mogul, Maureen Dowd
Definitely. CNN, MSNBC and pretty much all MSM have become the dealers of stories where there "appears" to be something, or it "seems" to be the case. Instead of reporting the actual facts in their Russia conspiracy theory frenzy, they're--to tantalize readers obsessed with the story and personally invested in a Russia-tampered election, and they're own biases--constructing narratives of possibility and conjecture....not quite the way Woodward and Bernstein did it.
Trump supporting outlets have been recently focusing upon the notion of evidence, claiming that there is none to prove that the Trump campaign worked with Russian operatives in order to influence the American election. That claim itself works from a very dubious presupposition. It assumes that the speaker has knowledge of the evidence. They do not.
Then there are those folk who are putting out possible scenarios. Some of whom at least begin by acknowledging that the investigation is working with evidence that the public does not have access to.
I personally am a bit intrigued by a few different knowns. We know that the American intelligence community has had an ongoing investigation into Russian operatives for decades. As a matter of fact, there were several deeply imbedded operatives in the states who were caught and traded for American operatives captured in Russia during the Obama years. Some of those spies worked in academia at the college level. Others did other things. None-the-less, the common denominator between them all was the end goal. To penetrate and infiltrate the American system for the expressed purpose of influencing American political views in ways that were most favorable to Russia. All of that is known.
Then we have one Paul Manafort. We have hard evidence, in the form of written contract, that clearly shows in plain English, that he, himself, entered into a contractual obligation in which he received millions of dollars in order to satisfy the exact same same end goal as the aforementioned Russian operatives. The question here becomes clear. What is it exactly that makes one a Russian operative if it is not working on behalf of the Russian government for some expressed goal determined by that government? Changing the American public/political narrative in ways that are most favorable to Russia and her interests.
Paul Manafort, meanwhile, became instrumental in satisfying the aforementioned Russian intelligence agency's goal, by virtue of changing the language in the republican platform from that which was not most favorable to Russian to that which was. That is precisely what it takes to influence American political belief and public opinion in terms most favorable to Russia and Russian interests. While the change in language was just a blip on the screen, in terms of the amount of attention it received at the time, it did strike many as odd. However, by that time there had been so many outrageous behaviours by Trump himself, that very little aside from Trump's action received much attention. So, the language changed from supporting rebels against the Russian government, to staying out of it altogether. Manafort satisfied his voluntarily entered into obligation by virtue of making the world match his words(by keeping his promise/word). Then - suddenly - Manafort was no longer a part of the campaign, although the republican platform language remained unchanged.
At the same time, there were other things going on, which garnered the media's and thus the public attention. Namely, the dnc servers had been hacked and wiki-leaks released the e-mails. That had an effect upon Sanders' supporters. What the e-mails showed was that the dnc was not acting impartially with regard to the primary candidates at the time. Rather, they were actually planning and working for the purpose of putting Clinton in the White House. That is wrong for many reasons, and it included plenty of different things which are irrelevant to the Russian aspect, aside from making it known to Americans that the dnc was being less than impartial.
The vital importance of the leaks regarding damning information about Clinton and her campaign wouldn't be realized until much later, and it has nothing to do with the substance of the e-mails themselves, but rather, it has everything to do with who knew about them(outside of the dnc) and when they knew about them, and any and all cooperative efforts to release them at a specific time for the expressed objective of supporting Trump's candidacy. Thus, it becomes apparent that establishing a timeline becomes a necessary tool for understanding how all of the different events relate to one another.
Then there is the case of financial wrongdoing in the form of money laundering and fraud that had been long since under investigation prior to the election. The federal prosecutor for that case had collected all of the evidence that he and his team felt was necessary for a conviction, and were prepared to take it to trial, which was days away. It is worth mentioning that this also involved Russian interests in the form of whose money was being laundered and why. At any rate, despite the fact that the trial was about to start, for some reason or other after becoming president, Trump fired the federal prosecutor in charge of it all. Shortly afterwards, those charged settled out of court and the perpetrators went on their merry way.
Interestingly enough, it is also clear as a bell, that a Trump presidency would most likely be much better than a Clinton presidency in terms of presenting Russia and her interests in the most favorable ways to American citizens. This is a required step in order to put governmental policy in place that is most favorable to Russia.
Now, in light of all this, Trump's language regarding Russia throughout the campaign begins to look a bit less random, and quite a bit more like he's keeping his word.
Circumstantial case? Sure. Is there hard enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump and others were taking actions that satisfied the known primary objective of Russian intelligence operations in the US? Sure.
Need we prove intent here?
That claim itself works from a very dubious presupposition. It assumes that the speaker has knowledge of the evidence.
The claim that "there is no evidence the Russians hacked the DNC and no evidence Trump or his campaign facilitated that."
That's what no evidence means, not that there's no possible evidence out there somewhere
The investigation is broadening.
Thus, it is clear to anyone who knows how evidence is required for warrant and warrant required for expansion that there is most certainly evidence that the public does not know about... yet.
Sorry, you don't get basic Criminal Procedure. A prudent prosecutor has to show ample evidence to even get her case to trial and is then required to share all evidence with the defense once it starts. Its' been 8 months and they have still provided no evidence, and we now know the FBI didn't even examine the DNC servers. So, it may be "broadening" but its discovered and provided bupkas. So, the country certainly cant be expected to believe Russia hacked the election at this point.
That is nonsense. You are saying they have provided no evidence, but the investigation moves on so there must be evidence. They aren't just investigating the hacking of the election, so you have no idea what evidence (if any) they have or where they are going. They still have shown nothing and have shown no ability to provide anything.
Proving that Russians hacked the dnc server and that Trump's campaign facilitated that is not necessary for proving that one satisfied the expressed objective of Russian intelligence operatives.
No, it doesn't because that's exactly what people mean when they say "there's no evidence.' They dont' mean "there's no possible evidence anywhere in the world." Don't be ridiculous.
See my statement above as to why your passage here is nonsense too.
I never said it was, but proving one satisfied the expressed objective of Russian intelligence operations does not mean the Russians hacked the DNC server and that Trump's campaign facilitated that.
You're claiming that there is no evidence, when you mean that there has been no evidence provided.
I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public. That is borne out by the everyday events. Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public.
The one who is lost here is you, and I've made that very clear.
Quoting creativesoul
Yes, and the fact no evidence has been provided, when prosecutors are allowed to release it, after 8 months helps prove how lost you are.
And you further prove how lost you are., You don't need a warrant to release evidence already gathered. That's nonsensical. So, it is not close to clear they have evidence, and the fact they've released none after 8 months makes it most likely they have none. You actually see them providing no evidence after 8 months when they can release it as proof they have it...extremely lost.
May I suggest that you say what you mean?
:-}
Releasing the evidence of an ongoing investigation into the public sphere is not allowed. That is especially true regarding cases of this magnitude.
Sigh...
You're arguing against an imaginary opponent. I didn't say that, nor does it necessarily follow from what I have said. I laid out a line of reasoning whereby we can gather a few facts and draw a conclusion based upon them. You've responded to things I did not claim and ignored what I did.
So, your argument goes like this...
p1. Warrant is not needed to release evidence.
p2. No evidence has been provided.
C. There is no evidence
p1. Warrant requires evidence.
p2. Warrants have been issued.
C1. There is evidence.
Faux news strikes again by virtue of establishing the framework of discussion. This time in terms of "there is no evidence".
That is not true at all, and you haven't come close to cite the case supporting your false statement.
Sigh....
[b]You actually wrote, "I'm claiming that there is evidence, despite the fact that it has not been provided to the public. That is borne out by the everyday events. Evidence provides warrant. Warrant provides expansion. The investigation is expanding. Thus, it is clear that there is evidence despite it's not having been provided to the public."
So, you left the top part I actually addressed to try to make it look like I was "arguing against an imaginary opponent." When you have to lie like you just did., you know you have a bad argument.
Sigh...[/b]
That's not my argument at all as you leave out the key elements of it bein 8 months passed with no evidence and I said it was most likely they have none. Again you lie and misrepresent my argument which further proves how terrible your argument is.
Address mine, and offer yours.
P1..you have no idea what the warrant is for, so it doesnt' mean there's evidence Russia hacked the election or Trumps campaign facilitated it.
P2. Yes, but not necessarily for the hacking of the election. And considering the FBI never examined the DNC servers, what they call evidence may still be nothing.
'
P3. And you prove again how lost you are.
I've offered my argument. As I showed above, you misread and or misrepresented all of them. Address what I actually said without doing so, as I've already addressed yours.
No, the irony is Creativesoul is providing "faux news" by asserting there's evidence when none has been provided after 8 months and nothing points to anyone having any.
p2. Warrants have been issued
C1. There is evidence
The primary premiss is true. The secondary premiss is true. The conclusion follows from the premisses.
Sigh...
1. The primary premise is incomplete because it does not support your claim that a warrant specifically went out concerning the hacking of the election.
2. See number 1.
3. So, no evidence is necessitated by one and/or two, and you further show how lost you are.
I've provided my argument in perfect and clear terms, and you certainly haven't shown I haven't. The only one whose arguments were convoluted--and erroneous, fallacious, and dishonest--have been yours.
You're not very good at this, are you?
The initial investigation concerned Russian interference in the election. That is a given. Warrants were issued based upon evidence relevant to that. That's how it works.
I'm the only one here that's good at this. The initial investigation concerned speculation, not evidence, Russian hacked the election. So, we have no idea why these warrants were issued. That's how it works.
I'm tired teaching you logic, English, and our legal system. So, I'm moving on, leaving you to dance with yourself.....Ciao.
I'd be happy to see an argument stated in argumentative form. As would others, I presume. Can you provide something other than gratuitous assertions?
That's how your thought/belief about the matter works. How warrant and investigation works is another matter altogether, and your understanding isn't necessary for that.
The above shows, quite unfortunately, how little general knowledge some folk have regarding how federal investigations work. Stating that one has no idea why warrants were issued is prima facie evidence of either the author having no idea how the system works, or the author not trusting the system, possibly both.
Warrants expand an investigation by virtue of allowing further(new) actions to be taken, including but not limited to gathering of new evidence by new means. Warrants are issued based upon evidence. Evidence is measured in terms of relevance and adequacy/sufficiency. Thus, when a prosecutor presents evidence as a means for seeking a warrant, the evidence must be relevant and adequate/sufficient. If that is not the case, there is no warrant issued.
With all this in mind, it is quite clear that there is/was some evidence that Russia meddled in the election, for if there were not, there would not have been warrants, and thus the investigation could not have broadened like it has. That is not to say that the evidence was sufficient to prove Trump collusion, it may not have been. However, it was sufficient to warrant furthering the investigation.
So... given that the investigation has broadened, and that requires warrant, and warrant requires evidence, it only follows that there is/was evidence, regardless of whether or not it has been provided to the public.
X-)
We could look at that little skirmish through the lense of post truth. It most certainly fits. Saying that "there is no evidence" means the same thing as "there has been no evidence provided to the public" is a prima facie example of how some of the current narrative is neglecting truth by virtue of neglecting to consider how those types of investigations work.
It's, quite literally, an argument that is grounded upon ignorance of the facts. It serves only to confuse the listener by virtue of muddling the focus. I have no idea of whether or not this is intentional, but it certainly seems to be a means of distraction intended to influence public opinion on the matter at hand. The only problem is that the only folk who fall for it are those who do not understand how the system works. So, any attempt to show the error can and often is taken quite personally. Thus, it requires a much better 'teacher' than me...
:P
Quoting Banno
Now comes the purge.
My guess is Trump is concerned and presently pondering military options.
Threads have their own life, of course, but at the inception I had in mind a discussion about the role of the Post Modernist denial of 'objective' truth in favour of 'subjective' relativism in producing a world in which truth is irrelevant.
The claim, made over several posts and so probably lost, is that the critique of Feyerabend's anything goes applies here; in a world in which validity and evidence do not count, the powerful & wealthy will decide what happens. Anything goes means that everything stays.
So Trump is as much a result of Post modernists as of stupidity.
So, educate me.
So what do they say? Or, what do you say? Be interesting.
As to the Postmodernists, there are many of them with different views. Which one gave you the idea that "anything goes" when it comes to Truth?
Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I don't think that has ever been the case, so the term "post-truth" should be replaced by something that more accurately captures the distinction Banno made in the OP between lying and bullshitting.
That line of thinking is interesting, but it does seem more philosophically than politically relevant since politicians (with some exceptions) have always been full of shit. Thanatos Sand gave some good, obvious recent examples of this phenomena as it relates to more respectable presidents than Trump, and that's just scratching the surface.
"...when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
I agree with what you said in your first paragraph, but the distinction between lying and bullshitting is unclear since "lying" denotes a multitude of different ways to tell untruths or strategic half-truths, or strategic manipulation of spinning of the truth, and bullshitting is just one of them.
If you could make clear what you see as the substantial difference between the terms, that would be helpful.
Yeah, that sounds like Rove's philosophy. He may have been a complete scumbag, but he was clearly as self-aware one.
But at the very least I'd be interested in Banno's fleshing this out a bit more. I read the OP again and perhaps you're right that he's setting up a PoMo strawman.
I think you're on the right track.
I haven't read Frankfurt's book, but my sense of the bullshitter is that he is not just a subjectivist but indifferent to questions of truth and falsity. You say what you say just for the effect, for instance as a move in a negotiation. Might be true, might be false, who cares? I think there is a concern that the bullshitter can naturally morph into a confabulist who isn't even sure when he's telling the truth.
I got ya. I guess it would say that someone who actually freed themselves from the socio-cultural concept of "Truth" they grew up with would be a Platonic ideal that just doesnt' exist in humanity. Even Trump can see that Ivanka is (probably), as opposed to Bannon or Erik Jr, his daughter, and he knows the White House is in Washington, not Valhalla.
Okay, after re-reading this I do sense some problems with attempting to contrast the two.
For one thing, the attempt to shape public opinion has almost always involved manipulative appeals to the emotions and biases of the crowd. Facts that don't fit the particular agenda of the speaker/writer are conveniently ignored, while those that do lend it support are highlighted, even exaggerated for maximum effect. Nothing new here.
Another problem, as I see it, is in their respective stances towards truth, which I don't see as all that different: If the liar knows the truth yet still peddles falsehoods (or even omits important information), then s/he is ipso facto showing a lack of concern for the truth, and is therefore a bullshitter (by the definition provided). What's the difference here? Is it that the liar suffers pangs of conscience when deceiving whereas the bullshitter is a sociopath totally devoid of that sort of guilt?
And if some things can be considered more important than truth (e.g. social stability, personal and/or national interests, etc.), a position tacitly acknowledged by both, then the distinction seems to break down even more. Is the main difference found in the extent to which each lies? Is it found in the end(s) for which they lie? Both taken together? Something else besides or along with these? One is conscious and the other unconscious of their lies, perhaps? Does an unconscious lie even make sense? Whatever the case, it all starts to look a bit muddled and arbitrary.
Anyhow, the underlying assumption seems to be that the bullshitter is much worse than the liar, and far more dangerous to the public. Liars may not be perfect, but hey, at least they're not bullshitters. If anything, the difference would seem more a matter of degree than of kind: the bullshitter lies to a greater extent, and in the pursuit of more nefarious ends, than the liar.
Just some quick and philosophically naive thoughts/questions on the topic.
I'm still open to the idea that you may be on to something important here (more of an intuition), but I'm having a hard time pinpointing exactly what it is. In the political arena Trump does seem to represent at least a more brazen disregard for truth than is normally seen, even amongst the professional liars and hypocrites who typically inhabit this world.
Yes exactly right IMO.
Fascinating. Hard to even fathom anyone with such a blatant disregard for truth. It would seem like s/he would still have to maintain the appearance of interest in it, if for no other reason than that they need others to sincerely believe that they have been lied to (in Trump's case, for instance, by the mainstream media and other representatives of the so-called "deep state") in order to rally them to the cause.
Which is great, because it is unmasking everyone else. That's why they hate Trump.
I don't really want to bring this back to Trump, but as much as I dislike the the guy I don't think he can be accused of the extreme position of neither knowing nor caring about the difference between truth and falsehood.
I remember the debate in which his taxes were brought up--specifically the fact that he had exploited loopholes to avoid paying them--and how he responded with the candid "that makes me smart" comment. I took that as a somewhat surprising and unconventional (especially for a politician) admission that he had in fact lied to the IRS, or, at the very least, had placed his financial self-interest above the truth--and the public good for that matter.
It felt like he was using his penchant for deceit as a personal selling point, wearing it as a badge of honor of sorts, as if that personal trait would make him an exceptional politician once it was channeled away from his personal business endeavors and towards the larger interests of his constituency. Ran completely counter to what one would expect from a more polished career politician, and in an odd and troubling way (IMO) that seemed to appeal to his supporters.
Maybe there's a hint here of the possible difference between liar and bullshitter? As if Trump was suggesting something a bit counter-intuitive and anomalous like: "Come on guys, you know all politicians lie, but they normally lie in a way that screws you over by working against your interests...well, I'm a liar too just like them, but you have my word that I'm going to lie on your behalf if elected, and in the service of your interests."
But subordinating truth to personal interest seems to happen all the time among politicians--a group which taken as a whole seems to draw in ambitious types--and Trump may not be as unique as others would like to believe in this regard.
Yes yes, by all means! But that's what the media is already doing! The media is already telling us that the Wolves of Wall Street are the "real men", who have all the money, women and enjoyment! They are constantly being portrayed as the "great" and "successful" men, who have a right to trample everyone else under their feet.
Isn't the hypocrisy outrageous? That the media for example is angered by Trump's comments about women, but they forget that they are his professors? Who taught Trump that the strong man is the man who grabs them by the *****? Trump is just a good student - he wanted to be an actor at one point when he was young. So why do they protest against Trump when they are the ones who taught him that that's what a strong man is supposed to do? Trump is the real face of the liberal media. Their obsessions with sex, their treatment of sex as a source of self-esteem - those are the reasons why Trump is who he is.
From that standpoint Trump is a symptom rather than a cause of this current world order. I sometimes think individual and collective effort would be better expended on working to shift those values and assumptions which currently hold sway instead of just going after Trump as a particularly obnoxious (and now powerful) individual who happens to have gained so much power.
Of course doing both is good IMO, but going after the man while not questioning the world which produced him is a bit shortsighted. He's got money, fame, women and all the things that are so prized by so many. And probably have been for a long time, if not always. But these values are contingent too, and subject to potentially significant historical shifts.
What if people stopped buying things they didn't really need, and read books instead of watching TV or being on their phones all the time, and freely chose to live a life of relative simplicity, and rejected the dominant values of our society by spending their time doing other things than working and buying stuff and numbing themselves with the latest mindless entertainment? Is this so out of the question? Not going to happen anytime soon, obviously, but we could do little things here and now to prepare the way for future generations.
Maybe we needed a buffoon like Trump to finally show us how absurd this current world really is, and how this has been in the making for much longer than Trump has been around.
Not interested in debating anyone on Trump's merits or lack thereof by the way. Again, my main interests are with broader cultural and ontological issues than with the daily nonsense that's US politics. Not saying this isn't at all important.
Eh, I'm a little delirious and need some sleep.
But what?
It's a side effect of knowledge of history. Nice myth anyway.
Thinking along the lines of Nietzsche's joyful affirmation of life in its entirety, and willing the eternal recurrence of the same, all the while railing against particular features of the present (as having originated in things that happened long ago) and projecting new possibilities into the future. That tension has, and probably always will, be a feature of human existence until we're all dead.
I certainly like many things about modern life and would not wish to return to some imagined golden era. But I'd also like to take those good things that have been brought about by the hard work of recent centuries and begin to subordinate the economy to what I feel are more elevated and non-instrumental things.
Just my thoughts.
But, yeah, I really need to get some sleep and come back later with a clear head.
You always butt into discussions and send them down a tangent which has nothing to do with the topic. If you're curious about this, I would suggest that you open a separate thread, since it is afterall a separate issue than what is being discussed here.
Quoting Erik
My point is that we've done nothing to stop those guiding values, but quite the contrary. Every time when you engage in locker room talk for example, you are cementing these guiding values. Every time you use expressions like "no one would want to have sex with him, he doesn't know how to play his cards right" and so forth, you're cementing those values. Just recently I had to straighten out a friend because she said a similar thing about a guy here to me. So I had to question her about what she means, and if she suggests that if he were "a better card player" then he should be a guy we should admire instead of look down upon.
People promote this crap without even knowing what they're doing. If you don't do anything to make these values uncool, but quite the contrary you let it slide each and every time, you're an accomplice to this age. And this is absolutely not harmless fun because people internalise those values without even knowing it because of acting in this manner.
I get that. Not to tangle the issue too much, but to some extent Trump was elected because of his power to evoke nostalgia. So it's interesting that a criticism of him might be that he represents a disease that contemporary philosophy can't address... as if maybe the old guard would have had better intellectual weapons. Do you think they would have? Is it worthy of nostalgia?
How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.
They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!
That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality.
The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show.
And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.
When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good.
Few and treasured as the stars in the heavens are those who are truly moral in their hearts, and love God with all their mind, heart, body and soul.
Nah, I hate Trump because he's a prick.
You really do live in an alternate reality.
[reply="Erik; 91290"]
See the discussion of Pascal's comment. What seems to have disgusted Wittgenstein is not that Pascal is lying, but that she is not even concerned with the truth of her utterance. Quoting Erik
Here is the difference with Trump; despite his comments being shown to be false, they are repeated and acted on. Truth no longer plays a part in the dialogue, nor in the actions they entail.
Again, that's not a significant difference from other presidents. Joseph Wilson has shown that Saddam had no access to uranium or WMDs but George W. Bush's lies about them were acted on and 4000 Americans died, as well as more than a half a million Iraqis died.
Obama told us that he wasn't having the NSA/CIA monitor our phones, so we all proceeded with our phone calls as if they weren't, and it turned out they were.
Bill Clinton over-exaggerated the threat of gang violence in black neighborhood, leading to the enactment of a racist crime bill sending hundreds of thousands of young black men to jail for non-violent drug offenses.
Trump is scum, but to present him as this mendacious, toxic counter to the honest presidents causing no damage with their dishonesty before him is inaccurate.
It's difference in kind because it is not occasional; the lies are presented even for trivialities like the inauguration; or speaking to boy scouts.
In fact, it's mostly centrist Democrats and War-hawk new sites like CNN, MSNBC, WaPO and NYT who have been pushing for more war against Assad and more disastrous training of "rebels' who have greatly turned out to be ISIS or Al-Qaeda. They are also the ones pushing for brinksmanship with Russia with Democratic congressmen even being so reckless as calling the supposed hacking of the election an act of war. So, Trump, as awful as he is has not been the one pushing for brinkmanship this last year.
Quoting Michael
No, but unlike some people I don't have to hide from the truth. It seems that you want to pretend you live in a different world than you actually do.
I never said Trump was no problem...but straw-man away.
From the OP onward I've been sniffing bullshit. Didn't you just want to poke at Landru? That's what Trump does. Speech is a tool for expressing aggression.
Why shouldn't I see this thread as a curious case of hypocrisy? I'm not poking at you btw. I'm asking.
Trump surely puts lying into a whole new dimension, basically that lying simply doesn't matter at all.
The usual way is just to pick the facts that help or advance your agenda and forget deny facts that are against your agenda. That's the typical way politicians work... to avoid straight out lying.
Then there are the lies that can hypothetically be true, like the lie before the Iraqi invasion that Saddam Hussein still had "a vast ongoing WMD program" even after Operation Desert Fox. You can get away with that kind of lie simply by saying "one didn't know back then". Blame "bad" intel.
How Trump is different is that there isn't some agenda, some reason to twist truth, but everything is just rhetoric, objective facts don't exist. Lying doesn't matter as the rhetoric is much more about emotions and promoting an ideological view. Everything is subjective and basically a statement. With Trump, everything is about himself, the petulant, ignorant and mentally lazy narcissist. Someone who basically lacks the basic leadership skills that a President would need.
Yet with Trump supporters any kind of talk about facts is either for or against Trump. Hence accusing of Trump lying is for them just a method of attack from the liberals/Hillary supporters/Deep state or whatever they hate in their concocted alternate-reality. Trump supporters remember well how their candidate was laughed upon and took it as ridicule of them and hence have no incentive to look at how inept Trump has been on the job (no repeal of Obamacare, no wall even with the GOP holding both houses of the Congress). Because that kind of focus, just as checking if Trump lies, is in the post-truth World just playing into the hands of your enemies, the evil Obamas and Clintons of the World. Everything is just rhetoric that plays to one's emotions.
After all, "post-truth" means after truth, which logically implies that lying or telling the truth doesn't matter.
[b]No, politicians straight-up lie all the time. They lie in campaign promises they know they will never keep, they lie about their opponents, they lie about the influence lobbyists and big donors have on their decisions. They also make straight up lies on policies with huge ramifications
George. W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussain having WMD's, leading to a disastrous Iraq War.
Obama straight-up lied about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones when he knew perfectly well they were absolutely doing so.
Reagan lied to the country about taking money from Iran weapons deals to finance the horrendous Contas. You have a bit of a naïve view of politicians, I'm sorry to say.[/b]
No, these lies couldn't hypothetically be true, anymore than Trump's lies, since Bush and company knew damn well they weren't true, and he continued to send Americans to die and kill many Iraqis. The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad.
Oh, Trump has an agenda; it's to get Trump as rich as possible by the time he's done or is kicked out, which won't bum him out too much, since he clearly doesn't enjoy the work. But if you see this as inherently worse than having an agenda of destroying countries and bombing people for Oil and our weapons sales allies as Bush and Obama did, I'd like to hear that explanation. Obama and Bush have left hundreds of thousands (and millions in Bush' case) of bodies in their wake.
We've always had a post-truth (or non-truth) world. Before the Civil Rights movement, people thought it was the truth that Blacks were inferior and deserved terrible treatment. Many still do. Even in this millennium, people calling themselves liberals thought it was the truth that Gays didn't have the right to marry or to be served in businesses held by religious people. And that's not even mentioning all the lies told by politicians and regular people. Trump is terribly dishonest, but you're acting like we were honest saints before; we weren't.
In my defence, Trump is not mentioned in the OP. I think his election has more to do with popular fascination by a sociopath.
Quoting Mongrel
An "I told you so" to Landru was indeed behind the OP. It's kinda nice to have a philosophical debate played out in the real world.
Make of that what you will.
So, everything is already so f***ed that there's no use complaining about how f***ed Trump is.
The fact that you put all of your opinions in bold face just makes it seem like you're shouting at everyone, which is also the tone of your posts. (I know this will elicit more vitriol, but I'm feeling charitable.)
Yeah, they might even know that they are lying, but the real thing is if something can be shown as a lie. A lie we can see is a lie that is knowingly and purposely made. If I promise to do something, but I am not successful in doing it, am I a liar? If I quote one batch of economists and not others, mention certain facts but not other, am I lying? If we are making forecasts about the future and choosing what would be the optimum policy for the best outcome and then the future is totally different, were we lying when making the forecast and picking our actions?
Quoting Thanatos Sand
Actually, just how the White House pushed for the Iraqi invasion is quite well documented. And as intelligence paid a role, then it's quite logical that there allways is possible that something is missing.
For instance, if it wasn't for one incompetent Syrian official having secret data on his laptop outside of Syria, basically the Israeli intelligence wouldn't have known of the Syrian nuclear weapons program that they later destroyed. Reason was that Syrians were extra carefull of having anything electronically out of the project. Hence the possibility of Saddam having a WMD Project was there, even if actually very improbable.
Besides, politicians quite often start to believe their own ideas that help their agenda. These ideas you would call lies.
If I falsified documentation on my job, I would be in danger of losing my job and my license (permanently). Honesty is taken very seriously where I work. On a larger scale honesty is important because hospital fraud will likely result in withdrawal of Medicare funding. No hospital in America can survive without Medicare.
So how is it where you live? Is there tolerance of fraud?
How about Finland? Is honesty important in the Finnish society?
I never said that. Your reading here is just awful.
The fact you can't grasp I put my opinions in bold face in long posts so to demarcate my posts from my interlocutors is unimpressive. And the only angry, shouting tone, and only vitriol, has been in your post above, so, you've been a shameless hypocrite, as well.
No, the real thing is the politician lied.
I explicitly mentioned politicians who make promises they know they can't keep. So, you are straw-manning me, which doesnt' make your arguments look good.
This is a pointless ramble that doesn't address anything I said. So, far you've just wasted your time, as you haven't addressed my post at all.
Actually, it's well documented Bush and company knew there were no WMDs and pushed the lie anyway and got thousands of Americans killed and millions of Iraqis killed. The fact you're fine with that is shameful.
This is irrelevant nonsense. the mere possibility a lie may be true doesn't mean the lie wasn't a lie. Theres a mere possibility you may be a murderer, that doesn't change the fact that if I told people you were one, I'd be lying.
Yeah, and that could apply to Trump, too. So, you obviously think he's like the rest.
Trump is simply a manifestation... and a gnarly one at that.
That's about where the US is at the moment...
This has never not been the case.
X-)
His lies aren't a result of an inability to properly identify a truthbearer. He lies to make himself seem bigger and stronger. It's sort of like a human version of a peacock fanning out its tail.
The reason he gets away with it is that nobody expects a builder to lie about the number of stories in a building. It's the expectation of honesty that allows him to get some mileage out of his lies.
So he's not a manifestation of some collective truth malfunction.
That's fine since I made no performative contradictions, and you haven't shown I have, Creatchy
Seems we disagree.
The manifestation of Trump most certainly is an inevitable consequence of a collective misunderstanding regarding truth. Between those that know and don't value it enough and those who do not know you have enough to elect someone like Trump.
Well... add a splash of distrust and a dollop of not being able to further discriminate between logical possibility - which is a direct consequence of truth conceived as anything other than correspondence - then the recipe is complete.
That's offering the speaker the benefit of the doubt, by the way. It could also be that the speaker doesn't know what they're talking about, what they believe, or a case of deliberately misrespresenting their own thought/belief.
Are you American btw?
I agree that people expect honesty... generally speaking presume it in everyday conversation. I
I'm curious, though...
What leads you to think/believe that most folk know how to tell the difference between true and false statements, and/or what counts as lying.
I am American.
Except I never did that since I repeated my assertion that x--not a post-truth world, but a non-truth world--has never not been the case, which renders the notion of a post-truth world inaccurate.
So, you just made a very performative error. And since you agreed with me that we've never not had a non-truth world, and thus are not having a post-truth world, the performative contradiction is yours as well. Congrats...:)
Yup. Nearly everyone knows whether or not some claims are true/false. Simple ones that are easily verifiable/falsifiable. They can look for themselves. Most claims aren't so easily assessed. Political speak is most certainly not so easy for a layperson to effectively critique.
Ask people if they know what makes a statement true or not.
Here's something worth considering...
I've noticed that Trump has a habit of making completely unverifiable/unfalsifiable claims. He says things that force folk to choose between which source to trust.
"We're not in a Post-Truth world..."
...conflicts with this claim...
"It has never not been the case that a post truth world..."
Well that gets nuanced... very quickly.
Of course it is. You refer to it in your first sentence:
I never made the second statement, so now you're just pathetically lying, and those statements don't even contradict.
So, you're living in your own non-truth world, since you're just a liar, now.
"This has never not been the case."
Keep in mind that it was a direct response to the following:
If the term this does not include everything within that quote, then the term this has no clear meaning/referent.
If the term this does include everything in the quote, then the term this refers to everything in that quote..
...has always been the case.
Sorry Mongrel...
The aforementioned nuance warrants attention. I'll set it out. Let me know what you think afterwards... if you would, that is.
Let truth be X. We arrive at...
I think you'll agree that difficulty ascertaining the X is a separate issue from failing to value X.
You see the problem?
'the "X"' is not "X"
Equivocation is at hand.
That issue actually reflects yet another problem that arises in a post truth world.
Strange. I don't see that. Trump was a demagogue, taking advantage of a democracy the way his kind have been known to do for thousands of years.
I do not think the following...
...is applicable to my position. I mean, it just doesn't make much sense to me. On my view, it would be translated like this...
Difficulty ascertaining the correspondence is a separate issue from failing to value correspondence.
On my view values are similar to lots of other things in that they require thought/belief as a result of consisting in/of mental correlations, but more importantly...
Values are attributed... solely and exclusively.
Being valuable isn't.
Hence... the aforementioned nuance.
Yup. I really do believe that if more folk knew the central role that truth plays in their own thought/belief system, they would be better armed.
I may be many things, but an insincere speaker is not one of them. There's a bit of irony here in that you're just now realizing that I'm speaking sincerely.
You have no reason at all to think otherwise of me, unless distrust is the starting point.
Yet another consequence of misunderstanding truth and the role that it plays within everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written.
When yes or no questions are scoffed at, and intentionally avoiding commitment in speech is accepted as the norm... glorified even... as though it is an admirable thing to do. Getting away with it and all...
Cleverness is often infused with insincerity. Most cannot distinguish the two, or it doesn't dawn on them, as a result of accepting insincerity as the norm.
Yet another consequence of misunderstanding truth and it's role...
a post truth world...
The post truth world is - on my view - a consequence of very few folk knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, and that has very very far reaching consequences(it underwrites everything about politics), not to mention that it goes against a sense of universal trust in others that we all must have in order to acquire language.
...has always been the case, and then saying that "we're not in a Post-Truth world" is to both affirm and deny the existence of a post truth world. That is a performative contradiction.
A quick glance at the historical records shows that truth and the role that it plays in everything ever thought/believed, spoken, and/or written has been largely misunderstood and/or de-valued.
Neither is acceptable. Those two sets of circumstances have been simultaneously operating in the collective thought/belief system for thousands of years.
Post truth world...
That has never not been the case.
You very well may be right Michael...
That is a more charitable reading. Indeed.
To that, I would've responded differently...
How can one care about that which they cannot ascertain?
So whereas one person might not know whether or not a certain health care act will actually benefit the people, another doesn't give a damn either way and just wants to score a win for the optics.
At this point, you're just ranting and raving and not saying anything coherent, whatsoever.
Yes, but that's not what you said in your previous incoherent ramble, and "this" is not a "post-truth" world since it's not "post-truth."
Except we're not in a "Post-Truth" world; were in the "same-lack-of-Truth-we've-always-had world.
Politician's have a reputation for being dishonest. Nothing new here...
I agree.
If most folk had the right kind of understanding, that could be corrected. As long as most folk do not have that, politicians who betray the trust of the overwhelming majority of those over whom they wield power cannot be identified isolated and exorcised.
Legislation is legitimized moral thought/belief, and nothing more...
Politicians' moral thought/belief has efficacy. They - quite literally - legitimize their own moral thought/belief.
Think about that for a moment or two...
Those who knowingly harm the overwhelming majority of citizens and justify doing so by virtue of acting on behalf of the interest of the very few will continue to glorify the notion that political corruption is the norm so that there is no legal recourse.
Here's an interesting fact to consider...
Elected officials do not necessarily write the legislation that they pass. Perhaps this be put a bit differently... Legislation that becomes law is not necessarily written by elected officials. The law effects/affects ordinary citizens.
:-x
No, it's not, since to say we're in a Post-Truth world is to say we were once in a "Truth world," and I made very clear we never has a "Truth-world." So, you're speaking performative nonsense.
No, Non-Truth world; this has never not been the case. See my last post for clarification.
Banno seemed to suggest that the very notion of objective reality no longer holds sway, and that this development has been caused by various postmodern thinkers; so it is they who are to blame for our current predicament, with Trump being the most egregious example of a general trend. I doubt that Trump has any familiarity with, or interest in, the likes of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, and others who have engaged in questioning the idea of a purely objective, disinterested perspective devoid of historically and socially-conditioned guiding presuppositions.
I mentioned one of the sophists in Plato's dialogues who seemed to have a developed understanding of the intimate and difficult relationship between truth, being, power, etc. The point I was suggesting is that this is not a new issue at all. The character of Thrasymachus in The Republic, for instance, shows some striking similarities with the contemptible figure of Donald Trump.
Anyhow, I'll gladly accept the post-truth characterization if someone can show that important political figures in previous ages were genuinely devoted to things like truth, justice, the common good etc. Imperialism, genocide, two world wars, the growing alignment of corporate with political power, etc. should, at the very least, give us pause before acquiescing to this claim.
Let's be honest for a minute and admit that that type of integrity is definitely not the trait most political figures have lived by.
Post-truth? Pft. Just another lie.
Sure. Neither is it the trait that most people who have ever stepped foot on Earth have lived by.
So now they want to destroy Trump - but only because destroying Trump is a way of putting the mask back on and pretending everything is good - a way of deceiving themselves again.
Trump's just trying to feed his ego and bank account.
Not only (if at all). He's also doing terrible, and apparently criminal, things. That's why so many want him gone.
But blatant hypocrisy continues unabated, even among the ostensible defenders of a world dedicated to truth against Trump's repeated assaults.
Look at all the politicians up in arms about Russia's meddling in US domestic politics, including many who've supported our continued involvement in shaping the internal affairs of other nations. Were we living in a 'post-truth' world while engaging in clandestine (or overt) efforts to destabilize and influence the internal politics of other nations in favor of our perceived interests? What were those interests? Freedom? Democracy? Justice? Please.
I was never taught that my country supported oppressive dictators on occasion; or that we helped overthrow democratically-elected governments in favor of stooges for our (business) interests; or that we supported militant Islamic groups and cynically told them God was on their side; or that we give more money to Israel than any other nation, while this country has had a policy of forcefully removing native Palestinians from their homes; etc.
What I was taught was that we fought a war of independence against tyranny and for freedom, justice, democracy, and other inspiring things. And further, that these values continue to guide our actions around the globe.
Again, I would ask those committed to the idea that we've now moved into a 'post-truth' world: When exactly did we live in an age dedicated to truth?
These considerations are not meant to suggest moral equivalency between our actions and those of others, but only to challenge the idea that truth has ever been valued as highly as it's being made to appear at the moment, or above other interrelated things like global military and financial interests.
So truth in politics, as I see it, has almost always been subordinated to other, much less ethereal, things. I just don't see how anybody seriously dedicated to truth could think otherwise, although I'm very much open to having this cynical view challenged.
Agreed.
Mid-20th century, according to a Harvard Professor:
[quote=http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/07/politics-in-a-post-truth-age/]“I don’t think it’s new. If you look at political campaigns in the 19th century, there’s [some] pretty vicious rhetoric,” added Jennifer Hochschild, the H.L. Jayne Professor of Government at Harvard. “The media were very, very, very partisan through much of the 18th and 19th centuries. The notion of the nonpartisan, fair, and balanced media is really a kind of mid-20th century phenomenon.[/quote]
>:) Say one thing and do another, isn't that what we expect of one another?
Quoting Erik
>:O
The commies and Arabs, for example, were always presented as embodying evil and contrasted with our inherent goodness and purity. Movies like the original Red Dawn, Rocky (forgot the number but the one with Ivan Drago), and many others I watched during my impressionable childhood invariably depicted these 'others' in caricatured ways.
Yet again, it's not so much that communists and Arab terrorists are actually good while we're actually evil--but rather that reality (truth) is much more complex than this simplified and manipulative narrative would have us believe. I'm sure they did the same to us, vilifying the evil capitalists and the Great Satan.
It came as a great shock and sadness to me that reality (objective truth?) didn't square with this image that had been projected upon me, and, as evidenced by this thread, I'm still struggling to come to grips with that radical disconnect between truth and appearance.
Ah absolutely they did. I come from a communist country so I know they did. But here, the difference was that everyone knew but pretended they didn't know they were lying.
Quoting Erik
That's strange. For me since childhood the propaganda was never believable. I never believed it, but I was always disappointed we have built such a crooked world.
Seems like we're going around in circles after 47 pages. I still feel like there's something here that I may be missing.
I found some interesting things in ssu's post, for instance, and would like to think them through.
To me, it sounds like ssu was saying it's okay to lie, so long as we pretend we're after the truth ;) ;) ;)
It also didn't help that I grew up in a very blue-collar household with parents who were both high school dropouts. There were no lively conversations about politics, philosophy, culture, and other sorts of things I imagine more educated and affluent families converse about around the dinner table.
I think it's mostly about the culture that surrounds you. As I said, for me, nobody believed the state propaganda, but they pretended they do. And everyone knew this. So that culture is already subversive - this attitude was probably implanted in people by the viciousness of the secret police. So quite to the contrary of producing obedience, they produced disobedience. The US seems to have adopted the Brave New World model instead of the Big Brother one though. Give them mindless entertainment while we do the real business ;) .
That's evidence-less support, and Harvard professors are often wrong. And the mid-20th century was full of lies from politicians and regular people. From top-down, politicians were making lies about communists in our midst that led to the horrendous Mccarthy hearings, there were lies about all the supposed terrible crimes by Blacks and Latinos, lies about the extreme dangers from comic books, and lies told to justify segregation and anti-Gay laws.
And this is erroneous, since the media, including the Walter Winchell's, backed all the above nonsense up.
I think I'm one of the few people here who's extremely receptive to some of your seemingly reactionary social positions! >:)
I'd maybe disagree with you on this, though. Two people typically say they will love each other until death with the genuine intention to follow it through, I'd imagine, but eventually new circumstances in the relationship change their level of commitment.
It would only be a lie IMO if they knew beforehand they had no intention of upholding that commitment. That's possible in some cases (e.g. a marriage entered into by one party strictly to get the other's money) but I'm not so cynical to think it characterizes most relationships.
That's not a matter of truth, as I understand it, but rather more of undervalued things like constancy and duty and commitment.
I do see and appreciate how you find these myriad things--many cultural rather than overtly political--to be related to the topic at hand. I'll give you that.
I don't think the term "post-truth" refers to falsity. As explained here, "Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. Post-truth differs from traditional contesting and falsifying of truth by rendering it of 'secondary' importance." and also "A defining trait of post-truth politics is that campaigners continue to repeat their talking points, even if these are found to be untrue by the media or independent experts."
So whereas traditionally if someone was found to be lying then they might try to claim ignorance or backpedal or something like that, in a post-truth world they would just turn a deaf ear and carry on.
At least partly, it definitely does. You can't have a phrase like "Post-Truth" without reference to falsity. And what you refer to above has also always happened, including the mid-20th century. If you don't think McCarthyite hysteria and racist paranoia and hatred wasn't fueled by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals were ignored in the mid-20th century and all other periods, you need to read about them some more.
No, it doesn't. Things have always happened that way.
There are quite a few actually, but support for me is not very vocal let's say.
Quoting Erik
It's good that you added the "I'd imagine" bit :P
Quoting Erik
But I do think it does characterise most relationships. Most relationships are formed on the basis of mutual advantage, or enlightened egoism, and not on the basis of love. They stay together because, for example, they'd feel lonely otherwise. Or they stay together because they need to satisfy their sexual desires and lust. Or they stay together because they're seen better socially speaking if they have a partner. And so forth.
If you remove one of those reasons, they end up divorcing. Why do you think divorce rate is at 50%? How could divorce rate be at 50% if they genuinely loved on another?
Quoting Erik
Thank you! I do appreciate your posts too!
That's a lot of confused people. Are you sure you're not the tuba player complaining that the band is going the wrong way?
I also agree with a lot of what he says. If we could just persuade him to drop the belligerence over trivial stuff...
I see a little of each side.
On the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence that institutions are less trusted now than they were several generations ago. A chunk of that is down to Vietnam. But then there's the stuff Chris Hayes writes about in Twilight of the Elites. (Essential reading!)
That doesn't mean people no longer believe in truth, but they're no longer sure where to find it.
Then there's Trump. I remember hearing a bit on NPR where a Trump supporter in coal country said he didn't think Trump would or could actually bring back coal jobs, but it was just nice that he was saying something. Showed that he cared.
Okay, so the "literal" truth of what he said was not even an issue. Trump was in essence "virtue signaling."
And there's similar behaviour around the numbering of floors in Trump Tower. People like the high floor numbers, even though they know they're not "literally" right. Everyone agrees to play along. It's all pretend.
Didn't NIetzsche say (maybe in Genealogy of Morals?), "What if truth is not a value? What then?"
And you can pile onto this the saturation of our culture with media, the loss of distinction between fiction and non-fiction in a gazillion ways, and I think, yeah, there's a real problem here.
Right. My understanding is that Watergate was also a factor in the development of suspicion. I'll look out for Twilight of the Elites.. sounds good.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
There's an interesting generational factor here. In my generation (X), facades, whether it was the Leave it to Beaver family or James Bond, who sported nice suits and sipped martinis while basically standing as an image of the Cold War, were recast as grotesque images. The grunge naval gazing was meant to suggest that our generation was turning away from those lies to something more real within us.
I continue to struggle to get the newer generation's aesthetic. I find it exhausting. It's like they create hollow spaces and fill them with all sorts of images from the past and the result is a much more refined and complex version. The recent Star Trek reboot movies are typical. They've taken the characters and the setting and rewritten it. There's a depth to it that the original didn't have. That depth is coming from the age of the more simplistic and raw original.
I have to wonder how that complex aesthetic plays out with their approach to politics and the media.
Trust is not an indicator of Truth. The German people greatly trusted in the lies of their Nazi leaders about the Jews, and White Americans were buying their governments lies about the threat of communists in America and the need for racial segregation, and these were all periods of non-Truth. And the Blacks, Jews--great targets during McCarthyism--and Gays weren't exactly trusting America's government. Also, there is never overwhelming evidence on things as intangible as Trust, and an unqualified, biased newsman like Chris Hayes certainly isn't one who can provide it.
This is something politicians have done before Trump, during Trump, and will continue to do after Trump.
With the saturation of media, has also come independent media (Intercept, WikiLeaks, Counterpunch, people with cell phones) able to and committed to exposing Truths--about things like DAPL, racist police brutality, American war crimes--that corporate media has shied away from, purposely avoided, or lied about. So, considering the media we had before was dishonest too--despite the few Murrows--the "saturation" of media has not been the problem.
There's a difference between being a fool who has, or at least feels and believes (even if delusively) that he or she has good intentions, and a devious one who lies cynically and exploitatively merely to serve their own ends and/or advantage.
So, there is a vast difference between the lover who says I will love you forever, and then finds that they had been under the illusions of a romantic dream that did not work out as they expected, and the person who says cunningly "I love you" in order to deceive another into allowing themselves to be exploited.
Is the one who has deceived not only the other person but also themselves not infinitely worse off than the one who has merely deceived the other? ;)
What do you mean by "better off"? One is innocent and the other guilty. Which is, of course, not to claim that all self-deception is innocent. ;)
The one who deceives only the other person is more self-aware than the other one.
Quoting John
Is being unaware of something the same as being innocent? :P
What real advantage is self-awareness if it leads one to use it for evil ends?
Quoting Agustino
Not necessarily, which is already implicit in " not to claim that all self-deception is innocent" since self-deception is possible only insofar as one is (consciously, at least) unaware that one is deceiving oneself, no?
You are not driving towards a conclusion that there is no valid distinction between innocence and ignorance, are you?
Without self-awareness one doesn't even have the chance of stopping oneself from committing evil. Self-awareness is presupposed in becoming good.
Quoting John
I think it's rather a question of making yourself consciously unaware of something.
Quoting John
Yes I am, hurry press on the breaks!! >:O
No, actually I wouldn't make such a distinction. Innocence is not even thinking or having the impulse to do something evil - so that's more than just being self-aware, since when you're self-aware you just know what is going on, but you're not innocent if you have vile intentions going on that you either have to suppress or manage, etc.
That's true, but self-awareness is also presupposed in doing evil. So, once one crosses the threshold to self-awareness; if one uses that self-awareness for evil purposes, the path to good is all the harder; which means that one would have been better not to cross that threshold.
Quoting Agustino
I agree that we can "make ourselves unaware of something"; but I don't think either the making or the unawareness can rightly be said to be "conscious". I do hold, though, that insofar as we make ourselves unaware of something; we are no longer innocent of that thing, and become guilty of it instead.
Quoting Agustino
I think we can do things innocently which if done with some kind of knowledge, even if not done intentionally or consciously, and hence done in that sense ignorantly, would be called somewhat "evil". If the act is done with full self-consciousness and awareness of the harm to the other, though, then it becomes, not merely somewhat, but more fully, evil. So, I think there is a spectrum, a range, from good to evil; with no human act being absolutely good or absolutely evil. A similar spectrum operates from innocence, through ignorance, to awareness and knowledge. the more we are aware, the more we know, the more accountable we become.
The 'Russia Collusion' story - it has now been documented that Trump Jnr and other senior campaign officials met with Russian agents in the hope that they would obtain material damaging to Trump's adversary. This is what 'collusion' means, and it is now beyond doubt that this occurred.
Nevertheless, up until the actual email trail was leaked a couple of weeks ago, both Trumps denied that such a meeting ever took place; in other words, they lied about it. Now that it is impossible to lie about it, they're trying to downplay it, saying that the meeting was 'only' about the issue of adoption of Russian infants. Another lie! Covering up lies with lies. But what is really disturbing, is that the fact of these lies, and the initial fact of actual collusion, are no source of shame for Trump, apparently. According to today's reports:
But then, this was quoted in the context of Trump interfering with Jnr's prepared statement about the 'Russia meeting'. So more confusion - even though there's nothing to hide, Trump acts like he is trying to hide something. I suppose there is no telling the truth to those who deceive themselves.
There are so many big issues that Trump clearly doesn't grasp. And he doesn't have any idea that these are things he doesn't know. It's like when he promises to 'fix the healthcare system', and then the GOP tries (and fails) to pass a bill which will in effect abolish healthcare for tens of millions of people. Trump himself doesn't understand what they're trying to do, or what his position on it is. He simply waves his arms around, and says 'Obamacare is a disaster', without any understanding of what it means. Even his assistants acknowledge that he doesn't understand healthcare.
That's where 'post truth' originated. And still, 80% of 'republicans' think Trump is doing great. They, like him, can't distinguish fact from fiction, or truth from wishful thinking.
Actually, this was intention to collude since no information was exchanged. In fact, the only info we know that harmed Clinton was the info that showed how the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders for Clinton. That is what collusion means, not Donny Jr's pathetic failed attempt.
Again, lying is not collusion, nor is lying about a meeting where no actual collusion took place. There are many things disturbing about Donald Trump; this one is low on the list.
Looking like one is hiding something is not the same as hiding something, and looking like someone is hiding something does not mean what Trump is hiding is colluding to fix the election, something intelligent services, and everybody else, have failed to provide evidence of.
I agree with most of this, but Obamacare was a disaster. It left 24 million uninsured, was too expensive, and was left far too much in the hands of the Insurance companies. Obama had the vote for Single Payer, but he gave into the insurance companies. That being said, Obamacare was still better than what Trump and the GOP propose, which is pretty much nothing.
No, Post-Truth falsely originated, since our government and politicians have always lied to us for their benefit. Trump may be more banal and unwieldly at it. But Bush, Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon et al were all liars, as have been most of our congressmen and national media. To think otherwise is naivete.
That said... the arguments from many hereabouts go roughly like this...
We're not in a post-truth world. Rather, it's always been that way(insert your choice of assertions/objections/reasons). We've always been in such a world, and it doesn't make much sense to call it 'post' truth.
It doesn't follow from the fact that many and/or most politicians misrepresent their own thought/belief that truth doesn't matter or that we live in a 'non-truth world'. If everyone lied, truth would still be operative in this world. Without truth there can be no such thing as a lie.
If one doesn't understand that, they do not understand the role that truth plays in all thought/belief. A collective misunderstanding results in a nation of people not knowing the difference between lying, making a true statement, and/or stating a falsehood. In a nation that has a majority of it's people who place absolute trust - unshakable certainty - in the truthfulness of demonstrable falsehoods, you'll find an inherently compromised collective mindset.
Those people wouldn't know a post-truth world if they lived in one.
It is quite simply not the case that every politician throughout American history has been the same with regard to lying, and the reasons for doing so. There were(and still are) people who realize the crucial role that trust and truth play in the success and sustainability of a nation like the US. Some of those people were once in government, some of those people still are, and the effects/affects of their input helped craft legislation that once assured the success of the majority. If that were not the case, anti-trust laws would not have ever existed.
A late answer, Mongrel
Yes. Finns generally see themselves as honest people and there is a lot of trust even in strangers thanks to the high level of social cohesion in the country. There isn't much corruption either, hence fraud and lying isn't institutionalized in the society. Yet I wouldn't assume real differences in the amount of lies we tell compared to other people, I think lying is a human trait which doesn't actually vary so much in the end.
Politicians and political life is somewhat similar, yet it isn't as vociferous and hostile as in the US as here administrations have to be coalition governments. In a small country with small circles American style mudslinging and lying like Trump (sorry for the US president example again) would simply ostracize the politician (or party) that he or she couldn't work with other parties in government. Also the political landscape isn't so polarized.
I think the categories and the manner of lying in politics is quite universal. at least in Western countries. The style can be different.
You have a point in that this isn't anything new.
Quoting creativesoul
Yet other nations aren't built on the same foundations. The Russian Empire, especially in it's last form as being the Soviet Union, didn't cherish something like the truth and everybody knew it. And hence in the end there wasn't nobody that believed in it.
Yet a lot in our "post-truth" times comes also from disinformation and the new ways that propaganda has developed from the old ways of the 19th and 20th Centuries when there were Limited number of media outlets and ways to get information. First thing is to get people to be distrustful of what you earlier could trust, basically argument of "mainstream media being fake news". Then have them believe the "alternate media", which has the "real facts" hidden otherwise from the masses.
I take it that you're not interested in continuing this conversation?
There are 3 major schools of thought regarding truth. There are countless ways to use the term in everyday common parlance. The record clearly shows exactly what I said. It's not about me. It's about language use. More precisely, it's about what thought/belief consists in/of.
I'd be more than happy for you to show me where I go wrong while following the rules of valid argumentation.
Yeah, I'm sure that how thought/belief formation initially happens isn't determined by us.
Anyway...
Michael sharpened the focus earlier by virtue of pointing out that the notion of a 'post-truth' world includes certain types of behaviour that amount to willfully ignoring facts in lieu of maintaining ones narrative that would otherwise have to be amended according to them...
Ok, I agree with this. A more apt description would be a "Rare-Truth" world.
Such is the "Rare-Truth" world we have always inhabited.
Which is good, since there never has been a "post-Truth" world since we never even had a "mostly-Truth" world.
This is true, and a Bernie Sanders, a politician of integrity and true compassion for all Americans shows this. But most politicians on both sides of the aisle have been lying, deceitful scum or lying deceitful semi-scum and I include Nixon, the Bushes, Reagan and Trump in the former and Obama and the Clintons in the latter.
There has always been deceitful dishonest government propaganda and controlling of information, and our recent president and this recent period hasn't made that worse. As I've said earlier, we actually have independent media like Intercept, Counterpunch, WikiLeaks and citizens with cell phones we never had before.
People should be distrustful of mainstream media which has disseminated fake news. They are owned by corporate conglomerated well invested in corporate interests. This is why they spread lies about WMDs and backed the awful Iraq war for almost its entirety. Its' why they spread lies about Bernie Sanders' followers throwing chairs at conventions. Its why they spread incessant anti-Assad propaganda to back a bloody Syria war that has seen the rise of ISIS and Al-Qaeda at CIA training. It's why they didn't cover the story of the DNC rigging the Democratic primary because Time Warner and Jeffrey Bezos backed Hillary Clinton. Mainstream media threw away our trust long ago.
And the alternate media is the one who broke these stories. WikiLeaks reported US Army war crimes during the civil war. And it was with the help of Glenn Greenwald of the alternate media, Intercept, who helped the whistleblower Snowden. WikiLeaks also broke the story of the DNC corruptly colluding with the Clinton campaign to rig the Democratic election, and even give Hillary the debate questions beforehand. What a shock, mainstream media had completely ignored this. So, yes, mainstream media has hidden many of the real facts from the masses and its shameful.
There seems to be little disagreement about what the problems are. The disagreement, mostly anyway, is about what to call the world. As if that matters much...
Names are arbitrary. Call it what you will as long as it is properly described, and/or taken account of. In fact, leave the name out altogether.
Look at what led to where we are... the current level of distrust... what's considered the norm...
Telling the truth...
On your view, what is the criterion which when satisfied counts as telling the truth?
It has not always been the case that publicly elected officials say things that are known to be false, despite that being pointed out. Continue the narrative...
If enough people say "X", and they say "X" enough, then some people will start believing "X".
Now, if "X" is false, and can be shown as such, what kind of mindset would it take for a listener to continue believing "X" despite their being shown that it's false?
What if circumstances change and "X" becomes true?
What if "X" cannot be shown to be false, but it is misleading none-the-less... very misleading?
What if "X" is held to be the case, but those holding "X" have no knowledge of how "X" has become the case?
Now, we could peruse history looking for situations when those in power were knowingly and deliberately claiming that "X" was true, while knowing it was not, and actively doing everything in their power to make so...
Let "X" be "Obamacare is in a death spiral", or... "Obamacare is a disaster", or "Obamacare will implode"...
I would say there is the ethical level, which is telling the truth is when one tells what one believes to be true. So, even if Dave stole the cookie, but Mark thinks Jack did, Mark saying Jack stole it is "telling the truth" on an ethical level.
In the strict real/metaphysical level. Telling the truth would have to be actually telling the truth, saying Dave stole the cookie. I think while we would like everyone to be able to do the latter, I think a functional definition of "telling the truth" would be the former. In other words, I wouldn't call Mark in that situation a "liar."
You're giving politicians too much credit. They purposefully and knowingly lie all the time. They lie about:
1. What favors they owe their major donors
2. Why they voted for bills, particularly when they vote to help their donors.
3. They lie about why they're worth tens of millions on a 6 figure salary.
4. They lie in their campaign promises.
5. They lie about why we're going to war
6. They lie about why they voted for war
7. They lie when they say "things need to take time."
8. They lie about their foundations and their donations from horrid countries like Saudi Arabia
9. They lie about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitoring our phones.
10. They lie when they say why they didn't prosecute the Banks for the 08 crash.
11. The list goes on and on.
No argument in general here, but...
I find no value in naming levels although I may...
What does talking about the "ethical" and the "strict real/metaphysical" level add to the understanding of what telling the truth consists of?
Do you realize the burden of proof that accusing another of lying carries?
I explained that very clearly in my post #572. Go read it again.
That's your personal view. There is definitely value in them and I've shown some in post #572
There's another way to get at the point...
Is it reasonable to expect someone to assert only true statements, given that it is unreasonable to require that one hold only true belief?
Again, a simple yes or no question...
The truth conditions of a statement of thought/belief do not include the speaker's belief, but the existential conditions do.
What does the term "truth" refer to here?
What if circumstances change and "X" becomes true as a result of the changes? "X" was once false, but is now true. So, it can no longer be shown to be false.
What if "X" is held to be the case by a large group of people who have no knowledge regarding how "X" has become the case?
Now, we could peruse history looking for situations when those in power were knowingly and deliberately claiming that "X" was true, while knowing it was not, but doing everything in their power to make it so. We needn't look far...
Let "X" be "Obamacare is in a death spiral", or... "Obamacare is a disaster", or "Obamacare will implode"...
e.g. "If a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!"
It hardly counts as letting it fail if you make it happen. It's like claiming that the car will crash and then cutting the brakes to prove yourself right. And I bet many would eat it up. Trump forces the insurance companies to raise their prices or drop out all together by stopping the CSRs but blames it on Obamacare, and his supporters will believe him, despite the fact that it being Trump's fault is right there in the open. That's "post-truth". With an ordinary lie you'd hide the fact that you played a decisive role.
Stumbled across this IMO relevant quote from Orwell, obviously predating the arrival of Trump and therefore spoken within what's supposed to have been the golden age of Truth.
This basic fact concerning human psychology has been exploited by politicians for a very long time, so again there doesn't seem anything radically new going on. It's a symbiotic relationship between a politician's proclivity to lie and the general population's tendency to believe those lies as long as their worldview is bolstered.
Maybe the profusion of media sources these days allow one to seek out any perspective they desire, specifically those which will validate rather than challenge their opinions. Those opinions in turn seem typically grounded in emotions rather than facts. Seems natural to seek out facts which reinforce our emotional biases and ignore, or diminish the significance of, those that don't. Is this new?
I also think many of us are more susceptible to this phenomena than we'd like to believe. Sure, it makes us feel good to fancy ourselves defenders of honesty and objectivity who have no strong political biases or assumptions, and who will follow the truth wherever it leads, regardless of whether or not it challenges our worldview. How many of us can honestly say that? I certainly can't say it.
I think Nietzsche made a good point (I forgot where) that honesty is rare even amongst the strongest, the bravest, the most genuine human beings. We must conceal many unflattering 'truths' about ourselves simply in order to cope effectively in this world. Why truth? Maybe illusions are more satisfying and life affirming.
Whatever the case, I still don't see this as a 'post-truth' world by way of contrast with a different, and more honest, one. As Banno mentioned, we're not just talking about Trump here (so pointing out his copious and ridiculous use of lies is not enough), but a more general trend in the direction of eschewing objective truth in favor of emotionally satisfying illusions which have little contact with, or regard for, a common 'reality.'
This process is apparently taking place in an intentional way, as something that both the manufacturers of bullshit and their consumers realize is not indicative of the truth of things. In other words, truth has become irrelevant and we can concoct any narrative we like as long as it validates our opinions and makes us feel good. That would be 'post-truth' IMO. Truth is no longer even valued or desired. That would separate this age from previous ones which valued truth even when deceiving, as paradoxical as that sounds.
I think I'm starting to get the gist of the issue, but I still think the term post-truth is extremely misleading and should therefore be replaced by something else, preferably something less likely to lead to the sort of confusions we're seeing here.
I continue to think that the average political partisan genuinely believes in the truth of their position(s); this goes for Trump voters who sincerely believe in things like the Deep State, and its ostensible desire to sabotage the Trump presidency by any means necessary. Playing devil's advocate: Is that idea totally ridiculous? Is the notion of an entrenched and corrupt 'establishment' designed to protect corporate global interests against any threats really so absurd?
Done rambling.
>:O >:O >:O I don't know what planet you're living on man, but if I was Trump, and ANYONE - even Kim Jong Un - called me saying they have compromising information on my adversary, I would meet with them to get that information. What's so bad about that? Of course I would!
You don't even know what collusion means - it's hidden collaboration for an ILLEGAL purpose. There's nothing illegal in receiving compromising information about the other candidate while I'm running for office. I suggest you drop hugging that pony so tightly, you might see the world aright.
Also, receiving information, or meeting with someone isn't the same as a collaboration. A collaboration entails that I also give them something.
You think so? I think one can do evil without awareness, but would that cease to be evil just because they don't perceive it as evil? What if someone has good intentions, but through their actions and ignorance actually cause a lot of evil? Are they not responsible? :s
Quoting John
Right. Well to me innocence represents that state in which one is not capable to do evil. Adam and Eve were innocent before the Fall, they were not capable of evil before eating of the Tree. That's why the Serpent had to deceive them, and pressure them to eat of the Tree, they wouldn't think of doing that themselves.
Quoting John
I would agree with this, except that I don't think we, as sinful human beings, are fully capable of innocence in this life.
Doesn't have to be illegal.
Quoting Agustino
According to this, that would be illegal.
I believe the actual law (or one of them, at least) in question is § 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510) which states that:
The key part is "other thing of value", which may include compromising material on an opponent.
There's an interview with law experts here about that law and Trump Jr.'s meeting:
Since you're the one who refuses to make an argument in this discussion, the one fearful to commit here is you..
And no, demanding someone answer a specific yes or no question, particularly one they refuse to answer themselves, is not an integral part of having a conversation. It's a way to try to control the discourse, not continue it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collusion
Quoting Michael
I doubt it. The law seems to be focused on financial contributions which could make the candidate in question indebted to the foreign national, hence compromising national interests. But this isn't the case with the said information. For all you know, the foreign national in this case could simply hate the other candidate, so he passes on the information. It doesn't suggest that the candidate that receives the information is in any way indebted to them.
And it certainly isn't determined by me. So, I'm wondering if you know what it is? A simple yes or no question.
And feel free to make an argument and actually have a conversation. You're clearly scared to do so.
The law says "make a contribution or a donation of money or [my emphasis] other thing of value" which expressly states that this "other thing of value" isn't money.
Quoting Agustino
It says "secret agreement or cooperation especially [my emphasis] for an illegal or [my emphasis] deceitful purpose".
And if we're just throwing dictionaries around, then https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collusion:
"Secret or [my emphasis] illegal cooperation or conspiracy in order to deceive others."
But just ordinary language use is sufficient. I can collude with Baden to unfairly moderate your posts. This is a perfectly acceptable use of the term.
There's also information on its etymology in your Merriam Webster link:
Yes, but the other thing of value is something that can be used to blackmail or request favors from the candidate. Nobody would consider information to be of this nature.
Quoting Michael
Yes, and that's illegal in-so-far as this forum is concerned, in that it's not a moral & righteous activity. But I do see your point.
Doesn't say anything like this in the statute.
Sure, but the law always needs to be interpreted in application. The spirit of the law isn't to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals, but rather to prevent a foreign national influencing or controlling a candidate. I do believe you perceive this.
Who said that and where?
It doesn't intend to prevent any kind of discussion with foreign nationals. It intends to prevent receiving money or other things of value from foreign nationals. A no strings attached donation is illegal.
Why?
Then the Clinton Foundation was definitely breaking the law,and definitely its ethical fibre, since they took money from foreign nationals as awful as Saudi Arabia, and that both facilitated a 1 million dollar birthday present from Qatar to Bill, they refused to disclose and 20 mil in campaign contributions to HIllary's campaign and a 900,000 a year job for Chelsea. That doesn't even include a 30 mil sale of uranium to Putin.
No the why is ABSOLUTELY not irrelevant. The why is the reason the law exists in the first place.
Besides, some of your examples seem completely wrong anyway. The law I'm referring to is in relation to elections.
Yes, but why is it illegal? Because we all know that there is no such thing as a "no strings attached" donation.
Firstly, no educated person should use the banal term "whataboutism;" it's a vulgar platitude meant to preclude relevant mention of contradiction, just as you tried to do to me above. And it is entirely relevant since the same people that are rightly jumping on Trump for possibly breaking the law--and wrongly prematurely screaming "collusion"--were the same ones who defended the Clintons' collusions to the hilt.
They can seem wrong to you all you like, but that doesn't make them wrong, you haven't shown them to be wrong, and they're not wrong. And some of my examples involved elections, and the others were relevant to the topic of collusion.
According to this, "to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections ".
Then the Russians providing Trump Jr. with compromising material on an opponent wasn't "no strings attached", and so entails indebtedness, refuting your attempted justification.
I don't care if Clinton or anyone else also committed a crime. I'm arguing that there's a case that Trump Jr. did. Pointing to other criminals is a complete non sequitur.
If only some of them involved elections then some of them didn't, proving my point that some of your examples are wrong as they have nothing to do with the law I'm talking about.
And I don't care if you care; I care, and I showed why Clinton's crimes are relevant.
You did not prove your point, since I showed you why even the non-election examples are relevant to the discussion. And being irrelevant does not make something wrong. So, even if my correct points were irrelevant, and they're not, that wouldn't make them wrong, and they're not.
Relevant to my argument with Agustino over whether or not Trump Jr. committed a crime? No, they're not relevant. So if you want to bring up Clinton's crimes, it makes no sense to do so in response to me.
You brought up non-election issues in response to my claims regarding an election law. So, yes, they're irrelevant.