Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Russell Parr wrote:Here's one. To which you responded with one of your trademark witty one-liners.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? 1. I don't know where I stand on drone attacks. I am undecided on my personal view of the efficacy and ethics in the sense that I can't tell if they're worse than any other shit powerful nations do. 2. The Bush Jnr regime initiated the concept and the Obama regime scaled it up. The Obama regime didn't start the geo-poloitical shitfight they inherited or the drone methodology (and their secrecy is neither extraordinary or relevant). 3. Drone attacks have nothing whatever to do with any comparison of Trump to any other regime. They are utterly irrelevant, at this juncture. Therefore, they do not constitute any kind of 'counterpoint' to anything and do not constitute any point of comparison between Trump and any other administration.
We could discuss how Trump is also merely inheriting this enormous mess, what he'll do with it, and how much it will harm or benefit everyone, but I'll pass.
Perhaps 'far left' is a bit exaggerated in your case. My statement has to do with, and is in reference to the excessive demonifying of the right, or those of the right, or even those that aren't outright against the right, that is so prevalent in the media, and in a lot of left leaning people these days.
Do you mean outside of the ubiquitous edifice of the Murdoch empire, which couldn't be any more conservative/right-wing if it tried?
Sure. We could discuss whether or not Fox truly gets to the bottom of the issues, or simply plays up the Left vs Right paradigm like the MSM always has, but I'll pass.
Of course. Political partisanship is something of which I know a great deal. I have spent the last 2 years in pitched battle with 'my side' of the political divide over their partisan bullshit, their hypocrisy, their irrationality and blind authoritarianism. I continue to be so. I know the madness of political partisanship intimately. I've never in my life experienced censorship (being banned) like I experienced on supposedly 'progressive' political blogs. Attachment to a political ideology, whatever it may be, results in madness, but that does not speak, necessarily, to the relative value of a particular socio-political worldview in its raw sense.
And there you have it. Your worldview, in these matters, is dependent on what particular issues you decide to involve yourself with, or are naturally drawn to. In other words: subjectivity and empiricism. This has little to nothing to do with wisdom, except perhaps in the manner that you carry yourself within your venture, as long as you don't get too caught up in within it.
In what sense are things going to shit? Is that a real statement or a politically invented fiction? And if things are going to shit, what was good about the non-shitness and who/what created that?
I'll bite here.

The gap between the rich and the poor is as wide as ever. The US Government continues to serve the rich, the special interests, the corporate lobbyists, at the expense of the middle, working class. The problems that caused the financial crisis in 08 are still here, and in some ways worse than ever. The national debt is at an all time high. The debt limit will again be reached soon, presumably before summer, probably forcing another round of hyperinflation *erm* QE, and probably another government shutdown. The trade deficit remains over a whopping $500 billion per year, undoubtedly pissing off many of our international partners. The petrodollar, which is one of the last things keeping the US afloat from an international standpoint, is continually being eroded upon, and is the main reason for the wars in the middle east.

Need I go on? I don't see you bringing up or addressing any of these things, and that's because your subjective experience leads you towards a different focus. Yes, what you see is shit. What I see is shit. It's all shit. There's poison everywhere, no matter where you look.

To speculate just how bad things really are, or will be, is an immensely complex subject, and reaches beyond our scopes as finite individuals. But we can all agree that things aren't going well. Nothing but symptoms of an imminent collapse. Now, who or what do we blame? This question is too simplistic to ask.

Actually, I know who to blame, as I stated a page or two ago: the bankers and their corrupt corporate and political cronies. It's a simplistic answer but it's the best we have, IMO.
As for where this thread belongs, while I also agree that there are very interesting things to be learned from it, the division is based primarily on political opinions and empirical observations. As I see no resolution being reached soon, my vote goes towards moving it.
This thread is more vibrant and philosophically charged than 80% of what's happened here in the last 12 months, so, no, it ought not be moved. And, to be candid, I'm more than happy to pull rank on the issue as this is not, in fact, a democracy.
This thread might be 90-95% more philosophically charged, but its focus is still irrelevant to the pursuit of enlightenment. But it is rather entertaining. So be it. Hell, it even got jimhaz to admit his own shortcomings, so perhaps there's value yet to be extracted.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't know where I stand on drone attacks. I am undecided on my personal view of the efficacy and ethics in the sense that I can't tell if they're worse than any other shit powerful nations do.
Are *you* being obtuse? Yes, you are! I wasn't aware that "worse than any other shit" constituted a measure for the efficacy and ethics of anything. At least not in the minds of self-proclaimed sages.
The Obama regime didn't start the geo-poloitical shitfight they inherited or the drone methodology (and their secrecy is neither extraordinary or relevant).
They inherited, expanded and escalated it.
Drone attacks have nothing whatever to do with any comparison of Trump to any other regime. They are utterly irrelevant, at this juncture. Therefore, they do not constitute any kind of 'counterpoint' to anything and do not constitute any point of comparison between Trump and any other administration.
This is your arbitrary and nonsensical opinion. If Trump doesn't order the deaths of 100s of civilians, it is an *extremely* relevant point of comparison with previous administrations.
Perhaps 'far left' is a bit exaggerated in your case. My statement has to do with, and is in reference to the excessive demonifying of the right, or those of the right, or even those that aren't outright against the right, that is so prevalent in the media, and in a lot of left leaning people these days.
Do you mean outside of the ubiquitous edifice of the Murdoch empire, which couldn't be any more conservative/right-wing if it tried?
You're about 3 decades behind the times if you think the Murdoch empire is right-wing or remotely distinct from the MSM. The world's second largest media holding company can't afford to embody anyone's, let alone your, personal-political demons.

Meanwhile, crowd-funded and -sourced journalism, in various forms, will most likely dominate journalism in the future.
In what sense are things going to shit?
I don't know about Russell, but for me, the sense that industrial economies the world over are faltering due to the ongoing decline in the availability of cheaply extractable oil combined with the lack of non-science-fictional alternatives. Socio-political doctrines/narratives like conservatism, capitalism, liberalism and communism are becoming irrelevant as a side consequence of said phenomenon.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

jupiviv wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:I don't know where I stand on drone attacks. I am undecided on my personal view of the efficacy and ethics in the sense that I can't tell if they're worse than any other shit powerful nations do.
Are *you* being obtuse? Yes, you are! I wasn't aware that "worse than any other shit" constituted a measure for the efficacy and ethics of anything. At least not in the minds of self-proclaimed sages.
The Obama regime didn't start the geo-poloitical shitfight they inherited or the drone methodology (and their secrecy is neither extraordinary or relevant).
They inherited, expanded and escalated it.
Gee, I wish I'd noted that.
sca1een
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:41 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by sca1een »

There are hard times ahead, but for people of color the same was true under Reagan and Bush. While neither of these past presidents openly courted the extreme right, they both moved a GOP already tone deaf to the needs of people of color further to the right.

Bill Clinton did the same with the Democratic party. Mass incarceration, destroying the safety net, militarization of police and a continued failed drug war were all supported by Democrats.
The simple fact is our political/economic system has failed us and will continue to do so until we change it.

Regardless of how you voted, our government no longer provides the basic municipal services that we entrusted it to do. Roads, schools, public health, clean environment, worker safety, decent wages for a day's work, a viable pension system, are all in disarray, unless you are wealthy.

The democracy we are supposed to have is no better. Voter suppression, money driven candidates, armies of corporate lobbyist that write legislation and tell officials how to vote are all the norm.

Black Americans can expect something in between Nixon's benign neglect and Reagan's open hostility from Trump. But what will happen to Trump's constituency when he fails to deliver the economic changes that he promised? Will they see the difference between real change and the Trump show, or will they look for scapegoats? That's where our real dangers lies.
best
essay writers team lead
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Eric Schiedler »

Pam Seeback wrote:Assuming that one who has the liberating wisdom of the impersonal nature of spirit is dedicated to liberating the world of its delusion of "I, a person, exist", would this individual not do everything he or she could to remove the suffering of this core illusion/delusion? And how can this happen if the wise one is not true to speaking and acting impersonally?
This reminds me of an ancient story.

During his travels, King Wen came upon an old man in the act of fishing and instantly recognized him as a sage. The King remarked, “His fishing was not really fishing. He was not holding the rod in order to catch a fish. He was undertaking eternal fishing.”

And also of a more modern tale.

In the novel "A Passage to India", the Indian Doctor becomes estranged from his British friend and does not speak of him for 10 years. Then one day, the Doctor reminisces fondly about his memories of friendship. That same day, the wise Brahmin Professor drops by and tells the Doctor that his British friend has arrived from England and will visit him in the afternoon.

The Doctor exclaimed, “What? How long did you know about this?”
“A letter for you announcing his trip arrived a month ago.”
“And why didn’t you tell me sooner?!”
To that, the Brahmin replied, “It is not possible to tell someone anything before they are ready to hear it.”
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Dan, I'll let Russell answer your post to him but I've to pick out a few things here as far as they related to my earlier exchange with you:
3. Drone attacks have nothing whatever to do with any comparison of Trump to any other regime. They are utterly irrelevant, at this juncture. Therefore, they do not constitute any kind of 'counterpoint' to anything and do not constitute any point of comparison between Trump and any other administration.
That's just another bold declaration Dan, and as such utterly useless here. If someone thinks it's relevant and offers then some reasons why he thinks so, it's called a "difference in opinion". But what it's not about is "abandoning" rationality although at time I think you try to make it so. Lets try reasoning, okay?

And yes, my counterpoint was actually relevant and documented. Read the opinion of ACLU (or dismiss them) filing suit to enforce the Freedom of Information Act saying
  • "There is great damage to the rule of law and human rights law when the United States, of all countries, engages in killings based on secret interpretations of the law, or entirely new and unilateral legal frameworks outside the agreed-upon international framework that places important constraints on the use of lethal force and protects the right to life”.
Now think about it: a systematic global war being thought, for the firs time in post-WW2 history with most details hidden and unaccounted for by the international community, the regular agencies and most importantly the "mass media", from which people used to get a sense of the world, just let it zip by for years. If that doesn't concern you that much -- it's "terror" being fought after all -- lets check civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes and note the remainder of the investigative press saying "estimates are largely compiled by interpreting news reports relying on anonymous officials or accounts from local media, whose credibility may vary". And we're talking possibly about hundreds of non-militants and more than a hundred children (as far as it could even be documented) killed by a modern, "free" government all far abroad with no clear reason or link to our own safety. It doesn't stretch the imagination to call it a "murder machine" which just keeps rolling. And we still haven't addressed the issue about the question if we really can (morally) compare a hundred children burned alive by remote joystick with any other scale or method of destruction.

Now you might find the antics of Trump more disturbing and of course that can be your opinion. But to my mind the above is way more disturbing and irrational. And yes I know Trump will, by the looks of it probably escalate there drone wars and various secret operations. But that was not why I brought it up. The reason I brought it up was to argue for why it's at least reasonable to doubt media like NYT to give us some balanced view on the world, since at the time they were not really reporting on it at all. And that's just one example. Therefore there's nothing irrational or immoral about dismisssing the mainstream media in favour of some other reporting. Which also will have issues and often do have more limited resources and a strong bias. But at least there's not this "façade of faux objectivity" which really should be discredited for what it is, instead of being promoted.
Attachment to a political ideology, whatever it may be, results in madness, but that does not speak, necessarily, to the relative value of a particular socio-political worldview in its raw sense.
It would be interesting to explore this line of thought. How do a political ideologies relate to particular socio-political world views "in its raw sense"? The question needs to be a bit more precise though. What's at stake is here is the question if one can compile certain basic social values as undeniably being linked to wisdom. Personally I take little for granted, since I realize that as soon as circumstances change radically, many thoughts about the matter will change as well, with most people at least. It's a cynical view but it can be documented with some interesting research beyond the personal experience.
For me Kevin has lost his grasp on the world itself. His current statements about politics have no connection to reality, are platitudinous and factually vacant. I am finding that troubling because, as I've said, I share his concerns about specific things but find his response, crazy.
Just my perspective, in case you're interested, but Kevin seems more or less the same as usual. While you and David seem a bit more on edge and eager to condemn. So I still wonder who has changed the most and then I also have to ask the question who is really losing his grasp on their world. Right now I'm just entertaining thoughts and it probably will not be resolved easily like some scientific puzzle. But I think it's good to turn the question around at times, also for you Dan: do you think you might have changed and how much grip you think you still have on "the world" around you right now?
This thread is more vibrant and philosophically charged than 80% of what's happened here in the last 12 months, so, no, it ought not be moved. And, to be candid, I'm more than happy to pull rank on the issue as this is not, in fact, a democracy.
It's vibrant all right! But like people are confusing these days raw Trump energy with him having actual political ideas, for the best or the worst, you seem to be confusing a charged thread containing lots of gossipy and muddled reasoning with actual philosophy. Another possible indicator that you might have lost a bit of your connection with the more penetrating, focussed stuff? If true that would by itself be something what would make this thread valuable, to see if proper focus can get re-established somehow for all.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

Hello sca1een, welcome to the forum.
Black Americans can expect something in between Nixon's benign neglect and Reagan's open hostility from Trump.
I'm glad you brought this up. As a half black man, most of whom's family members are black, and went to black schools, I think I am qualified to address this.

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think Trump is quite as evil towards blacks as the two you mentioned. Yes, he is very much the spoiled rich white boy that probably never had black friends, and seems pretty ignorant of black issues, but the overall climate just isn't as racist as it use to be. I actually do think things in America are improving, albeit slowly, on that front.

The BLM movement, to me, is nothing more than MSM propaganda designed to distract people from realizing and focusing on the main issues, the real problems. This isn't to say that there aren't legit issues being raised by BLM, there certainly are, and always will be, but it is being greatly overblown and exaggerated.

For example, look at these crime rates charts and this article about black incarceration rates. You'd think things are as bad as ever, going by what we see on TV, but that's clearly not the case.

It seems that the arrival and growth of the internet has made people less violent towards each other. To venture more towards the fringe: other than the fact that the internet is keeping more people at home and glued to their phones, I believe that the MSM's ability to control people's opinions regarding the source of our problems, is eroding due to the growth of alternative news sources. The Information Age could also be called the Age of Transparency. The elitists response to this is the establishment of the NSA, an effort to enhance their abilities to manipulate the masses by learning and in turn directing our habits. But their methods are being exposed almost as fast as they are implemented these days, and more and more people are paying attention. 1984 just might be thwarted, after all.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:It is evident that you are compartmentalizing what you are doing these days politically and sealing it off from what you did in the past spiritually
This is just speculation on your part, and it is speculation with which I disagree.

What you see, and therefore what is evident to you, personally, is only what you see through the filter of your mind, and the limitations of your senses.

Speculations on their own are completely meaningless. You need to come up with something concrete - something clear and demonstrable. As Jupiviv has rightly said, you need to find a logical error.
The statements you make here prove my point.

To recap: The topic we are dealing with here isn’t an abstract one. It is not an issue that can be resolved with an act of pure logic. It is an empirical matter which involves having to assemble a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence from various quarters in order to reach a reasonable conclusion. I find it interesting and revealing that you keep insisting that it should be otherwise.

Asking me for logical proof on these empirical matters is like a Christian asking a scientist for biblical proof to demonstrate the truth of evolutionary theory. It involves a categorical error.

This is a good analogy, actually. Christian fundamentalists are quick to grab hold of the inherent uncertainty of empirical theorizing and exploit it to their own ends. Scientists are just speculating, they say; they are merely engaging in confirmation bias; they are simply seeing things through the filters of their minds - anything they can use to create the illusion that their creationist fantasy is on an equal footing with evolutionary theory and should be taught in schools as such. A false equalizing is thus being used to raise up ignorance and tear down knowledge.

This seems to be the new alt-right way. Head in the sand and keep repeating: it's all just speculation, it's all just speculation, it's all just speculation, it's all just speculation.....

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:We can examine Trump's past behaviour, look into his present psychology and make informed predictions about the future.
It's not the same as with the SJWs. We don't need to speculate about the motives of the SJWs, since what they DO is enough for us to want to oppose them. In the case of Trump, he hasn't created the equivalent of a police state, and it is just speculation that he wants to create such a thing with the entire United States.
Trump is DOING it at this very moment. It is happening right in front of our very eyes, but it is evident that a lot of people just don’t want to see it.

I am not saying that Trump will succeed in creating a police state. It may well be beyond him. His opposition may be too strong. He may decide to give up and play golf instead. Who knows? What I am saying is that, given Trump's psychology and method of doing things, he has no choice but to head in that direction. He does not know any other way to operate.

In any case, I don’t feel a need to keep belabouring the point. I am happy to let Trump’s actions each day serve as my argument, and I am confident that even those with their hands over their eyes and fingers in their ears will eventually come to see the truth of what I am saying.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:. . . A recipe for disaster
It's easy to whip up recipes for disaster, because the human mind is adapted to imagine the worst possible scenarios. On the Alex Jones channel you'll find a hundred other recipes for disaster, some involving aliens. I don't find any of them convincing.
What about the conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the United States? That's on his site, isn't it?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just my perspective, in case you're interested, but Kevin seems more or less the same as usual. While you and David seem a bit more on edge and eager to condemn.
So what do you make of the following comment by Kevin:
If Trump wanted to attempt a "hostile take-over" of America then he would have hired a private army and physically overthrown the current government. He wouldn't seek to be democratically elected by the public.
I don't know about you, but this gets my vote as one of the most unintelligent comments ever made on this forum. It has no connection to reality, embodies no knowledge of history, contains no awareness of what is actually going on at the moment, and no insight into the psychology of the players involved.

I might be edgy, but I don't recall the Kevin of old being this bizarre and ignorant. And this is not an isolated case by any means. It is symptomatic of his entire mode of operation at the moment.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Pam Seeback wrote:
David to Kevin: It is evident that you are compartmentalizing what you are doing these days politically and sealing it off from what you did in the past spiritually and from the realm of wisdom in general. In other words, you are reducing spirituality to the abstract realm and ejecting all considerations of personal behaviour in the empirical world from the equation. It is the very thing you used to criticize academics of doing.
David, I believe what you said to Kevin above merits deeper examination, that it goes to the heart of what it means to have a spiritual conscience.

'Person' is the illusion. This is an absolute truth. And, because of the truth of the illusion of personhood, the suffering of attachment to "I" exists in the world. The world of human politics is just one of the human realms that exemplifies the suffering of the delusion of the existence of an independent self.

Assuming that one who has the liberating wisdom of the impersonal nature of spirit is dedicated to liberating the world of its delusion of "I, a person, exist", would this individual not do everything he or she could to remove the suffering of this core illusion/delusion? And how can this happen if the wise one is not true to speaking and acting impersonally?

I offer this for your consideration and comment. Perhaps keeping the abstract/impersonal realm alive in one's consciousness, thinking about it, talking about it, writing about it, is the only way one can ensure that they stay true to its truth. I always considered this forum to be a worthy vehicle for this outlet.
While spirituality does entail keeping the mind centered upon the impersonal realm of absolute truth, it is not confined to it. This is why the various scriptures from around the world have focused their attention, not just on abstract reasonings, but on the practical matter of how to live truthfully in the world. Even the Buddhist canon, which is probably the most logically-minded of all the spiritual traditions, spends a good deal of time addressing practical issues.

Kierkegaard was disdainful of the very idea of keeping everything purely abstract and logical. He saw, correctly, that spirituality was much more to do with character and courage, with how willing we are, as human beings, to introduce the truth into our lives. He didn’t create a separate air-tight division between spirituality and worldliness (or politics). He brought every aspect of human behaviour into the equation.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kevin Solway wrote:Do you see how this isn't going anywhere?
Oh, most assuredly :) So, other than this stuff, how are things going in Taswegia?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Dan Rowden »

Glostik91 wrote:Without Trump actually having done anything much, (it’s been hardly 3 months) we can’t know with any serious resolve whether Trump’s presence will be a net positive or negative.
I appreciate the sceptical and cautious tone of this, along with the desire to actually be fair to Trump, but I don't find that the state of play warrants that caution. For me it is not remotely accurate to say Trump hasn't done much yet. The negative or positive quality of what he's done is, obviously, an entirely subjective call, but the truth is he's done plenty. Even if some of those actions are somewhat symbolic, the symbolism is nevertheless startling and instructive. Here's a pretty thorough timeline:

https://presterity.org/reference/First+100+Days

And, really, a one hour investigation into Trump's Cabinet picks tells you everything you need to know about this administration. And now we have the White House 'skinny budget' which is also deeply instructive.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:It is an empirical matter which involves having to assemble a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence from various quarters in order to reach a reasonable conclusion.
Every person under the sun thinks they are assembling sufficient amounts of circumstantial evidence and reaching reasonable conclusions. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred they are not reaching reasonable conclusions, but they will never be able to know it.

It involves a categorical error.
Ok, so if you want to go for the vastly lower standard of "fairly convincing evidence" (the "worldly matters" standard) then you have failed to provide anything that convinces me. If anything, what you've told me convinces me of the opposite of what you intend, because what you are presenting sounds to me like you are grasping at straws. You need to come up with something much better, and much more convincing.

A person might tell me that they have amassed a huge amount of circumstantial evidence, gathered by millions of people over thousands of years, that a God person exists, and that the world will come to an end next week. I probably won't be convinced.

Trump is DOING it at this very moment.
I don't see Trump creating a police state. I am currently more concerned about socialist governments creating a police state. Canada, for example.

It is happening right in front of our very eyes, but it is evident that a lot of people just don’t want to see it.


You can tell me that someone is walking on water, or that the sun is falling out of the sky, as many times as you like but unless I see it happening, I'm not going to believe it.

I am confident that even those with their hands over their eyes and fingers in their ears will eventually come to see the truth of what I am saying.
Confidence doesn't do anything to convince me. Confidence comes before a fall.

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:. . . A recipe for disaster
It's easy to whip up recipes for disaster, because the human mind is adapted to imagine the worst possible scenarios. On the Alex Jones channel you'll find a hundred other recipes for disaster, some involving aliens. I don't find any of them convincing.
What about the conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the United States? That's on his site, isn't it?
It probably is. As I said, I'm not convinced of such theories. A number of world experts on document forgeries, whose authority is used in courts of law, have put forward some fairly convincing evidence that Obama's document is a forgery, but it is not enough to convince me. I need more convincing.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

[He may decide to give up and play golf instead]

I’m getting the impression he is not enjoying his power at all. He is having trouble bluffing his way through political realities, and seems older, tired and down in the dumps. At some point I hope it kills him, but too early yet – his disapproval rating is only 58 percent and it would be better if he was usurped when that gets to 70%.

Hopefully the stock market will have a severe correction in the meantime – the sooner the bible belt starts to suffer the better. I hope they suffer very greatly as soon as possible and they blame not just Trump, but the republican party (albeit this seems unlikely). In my view that party is far more corrupt than the Dems – I see them as the main cause of the lack of distribution.

[and, really, a one hour investigation into Trump's Cabinet picks tells you everything you need to know about this administration]

I find his lack of 2nd level appointments troubling and most probably quite sinister – he obviously wants to downsize big time, but you need departmental leadership to do that to have any form of due diligence (which is something the Great Deal maker is completely adverse to), so perhaps this is really about his team needing more time to pick nutters that will be loyal to them whatever they do – not to the Republican party.

One wonders how many public services will not be already regressing due to a lack of advisory level management and leadership, particularly as those he has picked to head the departments are of low intellectual quality or simply incompetent.

“On 18 January, two days before Trump's inauguration, it was reported that he had by then nominated only 28 people to fill 690 positions requiring Senate confirmation.[9] In particular, there had been no nominations below the Cabinet level for the departments of State or Defence, and the staff for the National Security Council was incomplete, while none of the NSC leadership had any NSC experience. It was also reported that hundreds of briefing papers had been created by Obama's NSC and sent to Team Trump, but no one knew if they had been reviewed.

On February 28, 2017, Trump announced he did not intend on filling many of the numerous governmental positions that were still vacant, as he considered them unnecessary. According to CNN on February 25, nearly 2,000 vacant governmental positions existed.””


Sounds rather dictatorial to me, as surely this goes further than just libertarian conservativism. It is all going to be top down shit and didn't that work out well for the russians.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What about the conspiracy theory that Obama wasn’t born in the United States? That's on his site, isn't it?
It probably is. As I said, I'm not convinced of such theories. A number of world experts on document forgeries, whose authority is used in courts of law, have put forward some fairly convincing evidence that Obama's document is a forgery, but it is not enough to convince me. I need more convincing.
To add to the gossipy theorizing, Obama's own half-brother Malik was recently tweeting a Kenya birth certificate for BO again. Most likely the guy was paid or just craves the attention. The document is almost certainly fake. With family like that, you don't need any Alex Jones :-)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:I am not saying that Trump will succeed in creating a police state. It may well be beyond him. His opposition may be too strong. He may decide to give up and play golf instead. Who knows?
Yes, you're just JAQ-ing off now (see: Rational Wiki definition) in the similar style of a progressive version of the Glenn Beck show. For raising this issue, some stronger rational backing is required. Otherwise what we're looking at is emotion based suspicion, impossible to disprove, impossible to debate even with that attitude.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:The topic we are dealing with here isn’t an abstract one. It is not an issue that can be resolved with an act of pure logic. It is an empirical matter which involves having to assemble a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence from various quarters in order to reach a reasonable conclusion. I find it interesting and revealing that you keep insisting that it should be otherwise.
That's not what I'm reading, David, you display a need to misinterpret Kevin perhaps because you might not like the possible conclusion that you came storming back on the forum after your "break from philosophic activism" with a highly politically charged and emotional message, nearly undoing your own reputation while saying you came to defend it. Kevin is not asking you to prove your point with pure logic but to make distinctions between your heaps of circumstantial evidence leading to your conclusion about foreign politicians on one end or the abstract wisdom and the unfettered reasonable mind itself at the other end. There's an area in the middle where they can meet but you're not using much caution and seem to simply conflate the two because "you feel sure".
This is a good analogy, actually. Christian fundamentalists are quick to grab hold of the inherent uncertainty of empirical theorizing and exploit it to their own ends.
Yes, fundamentalists prefer to judge worldly affairs with their interpretations of their holy books, like you reach firm conclusions based on the belief that your mind can provide the rationality to justify such stance. And like Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, you do not accept much opposition. Any opposition can only be from heathens or perhaps another, inferior denomination, leading to yet another schism.

It seems that the sage David Quinn has turned his trust in reason into a church where his own ratio has become an unquestionable, unshakable god! This has been of course always the greatest temptation with any philosophy, to start applying it into a system of ideology, a practical "living standard" or method of analysis, like Marxism or the great many cults of the world. For sure the wise will attempt to apply their wisdom to all matters, great and small. That's what the mind does unless the wise mind keeps his silence. Whatever he does, passively or actively, the "stick will hit thirty times". Life is suffering and addressing its issues will contain always further ignorance. And yet there's the will to power, the will to change, the desire to progress and vanquish our enemies. Just don't mistake it for something with overarching importance as that's when the clouds start moving in.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

I wonder if this quote from Kierkegaard, the context of which has been said all along by David and Dan in relation to Kevin, applies. Maybe the hatred of Gamergate has made Kevin’s enlightenment die.

“When a fisherman has caught a fish in his net and wishes to keep it alive, what must he do? He must immediately put it in water; otherwise it becomes exhausted and dies after a time. And why must he put it in water? Because water is the fish’s element, and everything that is kept alive must be kept in its element. And what about love? Love’s element is infinitude, inexhaustibility, immeasurability. If you wish to keep your love, you must take care that it remains in its element. Otherwise, it droops and dies not after a time, but at once, which itself is a sign of its perfection, that it can live only in its element the infinite.

I don't think you can say that David has been too far away from his element, but Kevin has at least in terms of the Gamergate issue. A sentence like the one below by Kevin might be an indication that he was actually emotionally hurt by the SJWs. The brevity of some of Kevin's responses also seems a bit defensive. Of course, I've no way of knowing if I'm reading a 'between the lines' that just does not exist.

"I don't believe that the way of the authoritarian left, which is to shame people, to insult them, to get people sacked from their jobs, to smear them, to silence them, to physically attack them, to wish them dead, etc, is the way forward"
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I am not saying that Trump will succeed in creating a police state. It may well be beyond him. His opposition may be too strong. He may decide to give up and play golf instead. Who knows?
Yes, you're just JAQ-ing off now (see: Rational Wiki definition) in the similar style of a progressive version of the Glenn Beck show.
I have no idea what you're talking about, Diebert.

Perhaps my first sentence should have been clearer. I meant: "I'm not saying that Trump will definitely succeed in creating a police state."

It seems that the sage David Quinn has turned his trust in reason into a church where his own ratio has become an unquestionable, unshakable god!
It's funny, it used to be the likes of Robert Larkin, Laird, Naturyl, and Alex Jacob who said these kinds of things. We live in strange times.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by David Quinn »

I was looking through a few old threads and came across this one back in 2006 - Work. Given the new strict guidelines being advocated for what is acceptable on the main forum, it probably ought to be moved to Worldly Matters. That aside, it's interesting to see some of Kevin's older views:
Even though I am receiving an income in the more socially acceptable sense, I don't consider that "unemployed" people are necessarily not working.

And I know that many "employed" people are actually not working, or doing an extremely small amount of it. Many "working people" are crooks and con-men whose only "work" is to lie and rip-off other people, or to rape the environment and call the profits their own.

Most of the "work" people are doing, such as 99% of journalism and marketing, or playing the shares market, or work in the fashion industry, or the business of religion, is only contributing to the degradation of society. It would be better described as vandalism.
Yep, times have certainly changed.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

jimhaz wrote:"I don't believe that the way of the authoritarian left, which is to shame people, to insult them, to get people sacked from their jobs, to smear them, to silence them, to physically attack them, to wish them dead, etc, is the way forward"
Although I've not been involved in or been at any receiving end of the SJW or authoritarian left, there's a lot of evidence for the above actually happening in spades. The socially "progressive" left is simply more inclined to militant behaviour and aggressive protest than the right, like feminine behaviour compared to masculine behaviour (ignoring the excesses here, which are nearly always within the masculine domain). It's a psychological and useful truth which is discussed all over this forum and in the early writings of its founders. No need to second guess it all now just because of a New York Times subscription or new found worries over international politics.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Kevin Solway »

jimhaz wrote:A sentence like the one below by Kevin might be an indication that he was actually emotionally hurt by the SJWs.

"I don't believe that the way of the authoritarian left, which is to shame people, to insult them, to get people sacked from their jobs, to smear them, to silence them, to physically attack them, to wish them dead, etc, is the way forward"
That sentence I wrote describes the creation of hell on earth. It is what happened in communist Russia, where people were afraid to speak their minds even in the privacy of their own homes because of the fear of the consequences. I see us heading down that same path if we don't do something radical to halt the decline.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:
Diebert wrote:
David Quinn wrote:I am not saying that Trump will succeed in creating a police state. It may well be beyond him. His opposition may be too strong. He may decide to give up and play golf instead. Who knows?
Yes, you're just JAQ-ing off now (see: Rational Wiki definition) in the similar style of a progressive version of the Glenn Beck show.
I have no idea what you're talking about, Diebert.

Perhaps my first sentence should have been clearer. I meant: "I'm not saying that Trump will definitely succeed in creating a police state."
Yes, you were just asking questions since he might, after listing some ominous, circumstantial evidence for it. In other words: a leftist version of the Glen Beck theatricals. Impossible to argue with: one tunes in and nods in agreement or one turns it off altogether. At this forum, as long as it's living, it will be challenged at infinitum.
It seems that the sage David Quinn has turned his trust in reason into a church where his own ratio has become an unquestionable, unshakable god!
It's funny, it used to be the likes of Robert Larkin, Laird, Naturyl, and Alex Jacob who said these kinds of things. We live in strange times.
Their argument as I understood it was that you couldn't use the rational capacity of ones mind to deal with the ultimate philosophical questions. The fact that one can, to clear the path, does not mean automatically that it's possible to see everything in the world "as it is", including politics, morality, motivation of others, various plots hatched in the corridors of power, future prediction and so on. Which is what you seem to attempt. It looks like a misapplication of reason.

In fact, you might be doing what these people demanded from you at the time as well : that you'd supply a clearly defined lifestyle or "ideological guide book" together with your enlightenment with the same level of validity, which they then could examine and criticize on flaws (which obviously will turn up). At the time you didn't let yourself to be pigeonholed like that. But it seems you've entered that hole now by yourself completely voluntary.
David Quinn wrote:I was looking through a few old threads and came across this one back in 2006 - Work. Given the new strict guidelines being advocated for what is acceptable on the main forum, it probably ought to be moved to Worldly Matters. That aside, it's interesting to see some of Kevin's older views:
Even though I am receiving an income in the more socially acceptable sense, I don't consider that "unemployed" people are necessarily not working.

And I know that many "employed" people are actually not working, or doing an extremely small amount of it. Many "working people" are crooks and con-men whose only "work" is to lie and rip-off other people, or to rape the environment and call the profits their own.

Most of the "work" people are doing, such as 99% of journalism and marketing, or playing the shares market, or work in the fashion industry, or the business of religion, is only contributing to the degradation of society. It would be better described as vandalism.
Yep, times have certainly changed.
Those "guidelines" were born in a time that on average one or two posters per week were active here. So the main page became rather quickly filled with rants and unhinged stories. Not a good introduction for newcomers, wouldn't you agree? A bit more firmness seemed sensible and was completely circumstantial. The same was happening now, to have what seemed to me like a confusing political discussion with the philosophical implications rather well hidden, all featuring central on the front page, which would not invite the thinking type who would naturally be past such never-ending disagreements about the ten thousand things. However, this is all subjective though and I would never claim it as the ultimate position. Someone might argue that the forum would be more lively and interesting if we'd just let "everything go". That's certainly a possibility but I just don't believe it as I've seen before where it leads to and what kind of people start building nests at the forum. The same principle is valid to our minds, our lives, all personal discipline and hygiene, which appears to be a case of balancing and adaptation to circumstance.

As for Kevin's post, which merely answered a simple question in another thread, isn't that largely what he's been saying as well in this very thread? Perhaps he decreased 99% to 95% as far as the uselessness of journalism. If you take his post seriously, you'd have to also see why it's so irrelevant to condemn Trump for the things you listed. In that light, that of a degraded society full of vandals, it becomes actually utterly irrelevant and emotional to make such strong case against one single leader.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David, I almost forgot this one
David Quinn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just my perspective, in case you're interested, but Kevin seems more or less the same as usual. While you and David seem a bit more on edge and eager to condemn.
So what do you make of the following comment by Kevin:
If Trump wanted to attempt a "hostile take-over" of America then he would have hired a private army and physically overthrown the current government. He wouldn't seek to be democratically elected by the public.
I don't know about you, but this gets my vote as one of the most unintelligent comments ever made on this forum. It has no connection to reality, embodies no knowledge of history, contains no awareness of what is actually going on at the moment, and no insight into the psychology of the players involved.

I might be edgy, but I don't recall the Kevin of old being this bizarre and ignorant. And this is not an isolated case by any means. It is symptomatic of his entire mode of operation at the moment.
Don't you think "one of the most unintelligent comments " would qualify as one of the most hyperbole statements ever made on this forum?

All I see Kevin is doing here is interpreting your phrase "hostile takeover" in one possible but still reasonable manner. The term comes from the business world where the target company's management does not want the takeover but cannot prevent it. It's unclear how this would translate to a government. Indeed the only way to envision it is by using military force since to own a country would mean abolish the constitution or make constitutional changes for where not even a slight majority is in sight even when using the most feverish imagination.

Kevin's reply might have been invoking some hyperbole as well but it appears to function like a demonstration of what a phrase like "hostile takeover" would imply logically. It's puzzling that this would be so difficult to pick up and I need to explain this all here. Are we talking really about such a complex and arcane matter?
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jimhaz »

[Kevin wrote: That sentence I wrote describes the creation of hell on earth. It is what happened in communist Russia, where people were afraid to speak their minds even in the privacy of their own homes because of the fear of the consequences. I see us heading down that same path if we don't do something radical to halt the decline]
I agree it is a danger, and that’s why I ended up agreeing with you about Milo.

I am however less worried about that trend than the forces of overt falsehood – there are enough libertarians around to oppose left authoritarianism, and there will continue to be men with higher testosterone for some time.

The reasons I’m not anxious about left authoritarianism is for two reasons - World debt leading to some form of systematic change and global warming.

At some point we are all going to be poor, relative to now, a radical shake-up appears to be destiny, and masculinity will arise again. I think this will easily happen prior to the more gradual “taming by the shrews”.

I’ve always viewed the republican party, and the LNP here, and their supporters as almost entirely scum. There is already a bad foundation and now Trump and the other Robbing Hoods are being added to it.

On the things they are, in principle, correct about, almost all persons with an ability to think decently, already agree to some extent. We are of course quite segmented by experiences and personality type which does weaken us – we have to compromise much more as a result of the segmentation. We are also very weak due to technology.

I understand why you think a radical shake-up is necessary to cut through this segmentation and weakening – I’ve often thought so myself – that it is the only way.

I however need to have faith in those creating the change. The real philosophy taught here by you QRS is to get your foundations right, from which then you may become properly immersed with reality. I want at least some of those qualities in agents that will change society. They need to at least partly understand cause and effect and the interconnectedness of things, and they need to have some objective knowledge of themselves. They’ve got to have adequate wisdom, not just macho actions.

I get the impression that you feel the fight against the authoritarian left, is something that you actually have a chance to have an positive impact upon, whereas the all the other issues are just too big and not adequately related to truthfulness. Fair enough, I won’t view your Gamergate activities as being something that went against the goals of your philosophy. No problems.

Your flippancy and that of others re the Trump drama pisses me off. A sage is not exempt from evaluating and weighing all risks that affect people. A sage should also expect that change be undertaken in the most logical and least harmful fashion.

Yes, some of us anti-Trumpers may be overstating the more extreme risks, but I see this like global warming – when you observe situations that point to the worst effects being quite possible, you dam well want a properly considered holistic solution.
Locked