Statement about Solway and Trump

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Matt Gregory wrote:I'm thinking with all the technological advances in data collection, statistics and machine learning, the news agencies have figured out how to trigger people's emotions so precisely with media that they've finally figured out mass mind control. The things they are discovering about machine learning is pretty crazy and it would be pretty dumb for the media to not use it. They are in the business of selling audiences to other businesses, so it's naturally the next step.
It's quite possible this was indeed one of the underlying success factors of Trump's campaign, and not his personality. Dan posted something about "'psychographic" data of Cambridge Analytica before. Although I'm pretty sure all big campaigns use them in the same way: Trump just had the biggest and best one, of course. When Geert Wilders last week before our elections appeared in the news about him adopting shelter cats and appearing in gossipy magazines relating to his marriage and privacy (note: being forced to hide in safe houses for 11 years, since he lives in one of the most free country in the world where you can say all you want), there clearly was something being used here which smelled like big data profiling.
The data in question boils down to preferences/decisions based on very quick and unconscious risk-reward analysis. Unfortunately, that's what "determines" politics and finance. Even more reason to believe that both games are rigged and most likely interdependent. With finance especially, the evidence is overwhelming.
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:Nietzsche once observed, “To the swine all things become swinish”. I think that you have spent so much time over the past few years immersed in politics that you now automatically come to see everything from a political perspective. Everything is now filtered through the prism of politics. The idea of being apolitical no longer has any meaning for you. It has become instinctive and subconscious.
That's a very interesting topic, although I'm hesitating to apply it just to Kevin since you and Dan brought the political forefront to this forum. Even while I understand the motive, your opposition is definitely political and arguably bigger and bolder than Kevin's.

So it's not that you're wrong , David, its' just that you seem to have trouble applying things you say about Kevin to yourself.

Yes politics is one of the central things being over-produced nowadays. Everything ends up being political. As if it's the last thing to the last men. We're talking about the forces of nihilism: meaning being destroyed by too much of it being generated in debates, discussions, commentary and in-fights. The thinker Baudrillard has got it right: transparency as flattening process characterized by the disappearance of differences; everything becomes political and politics disappear; like when everything becomes sexual, sex disappears; or everything becoming social and media, in which the social cohesion disappears.

This is not just clever sophistry. You can see the results everywhere: politics are invading the discourse of even the greater thinkers: endless streams of references to information sources, debates on reliability of "facts", defining ones positions in terms of the social-political realm. It's a virus which is spreading, not differentiating but trying to in-differentiate even the philosophers of the Absolute. This is my bone in this battle: political perspectives are used to criticize political perspectives but by some magic it's not seen as political perspective by some at all. Those blinders I'd gladly see become removed.
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 Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:It's my honest assessment of the dynamic.
Yes, and it was Hilary Clinton's honest assessment that Trump supporters are "deplorable and irredeemable", and that didn't go very well for her. Such assessments of large and diverse groups of people comes across as extremely condescending.
That's exactly what 99% of people who have seen QRS philosophy have always said about it. So I've guess we've been wrong all this time.
If 99% of people who have seen QRS philosophy called it "deplorable and irredeemable", how exactly would not condemning the Trump presidency like 50% of the people are doing, ever could constitute any "reputation" damage, being the claim on which this very thread was started. Does it mean reputation in the eyes of a select group philosophers, who could somehow not step over certain political incorrect views of the forum owner with their baby legs, if those views ever would become documented at all?
Oh and 'nerd' is not a pejorative term and hasn't been for, oh, maybe 20 years. We're all nerds here.
That's a personal assessment and not, to my knowing, consistent with the rest of the world or any modern dictionary. But oh well, more importantly, calling something a nerd soap, still would devalue it as a melodramatic, emotional activity. But that is very specific as it implies strongly that it's not reason based at all. But that contradicts many other remarks on the subject by you. Thus the term "nerd soap" does not seem rational or consistent and used as pejorative term serving purely some emotional appeal.
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 »

I think that you have spent so much time over the past few years immersed in politics that you now automatically come to see everything from a political perspective.
This is one of your speculations with which I strongly disagree.

I am a left-leaning person who currently prefers Trump to Clinton. If I were strongly political then I wouldn't be able to cross political lines so easily.

What we are really addressing here is spiritual behaviour. How should a wise person behave in this world? What is the best way to promote wisdom? What is the most rational course of action?


If this is true, then this should have been the central point of your opening post - it wasn't.

I will address your questions one by one:

1. "How should a wise person behave in this world?"

They should seek to live in accordance with truth and should seek to speak the truth at all times.

2. "What is the best way to promote wisdom?"

Living in accordance with the truth, and speaking the truth.

3. "What is the most rational course of action?"

That which is most in accord with reason and truth.


All of these questions are very easily answered, are they not?

If you wanted this discussion to be about these questions then you wouldn't need to spend any time at all with your many speculations, such as "I knew for sure that Trump was attempting a hostile take-over of America, with the aim of installing a police state." (from your opening post)
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Matt Gregory »

Jupiviv: So tell me, when you say you are in total agreement with David etc., does that mean you think that Trump and Putin are evil geniuses who want to take over the world?

Matt: Yeah, I think that's pretty inescapable. Power is a rush and an addiction and Trump definitely has it and shows no signs of stopping or restraint of any kind. He says that our military is falling apart so he can increase military spending, even though there are no imminent threats to our country. So he's probably increasing it so he can make money investing in that industry. More war will justify even more military spending and therefore more profits. It sickens me to think about how stupid, yet how likely it is.

Jupiviv: Trump's position on military spending is asinine, but not because it will start wars. It's supposed to act as stimulation to the economy and not war. Assuming the money even exists (it doesn't), the economy won't improve because military hardware/installations don't generate revenue or increase productivity. It's basically a stimulus package for military contractors.
Well, Trump might see it as a stimulus, but I've heard him say that our military is decrepit and falling apart, and that he's going to make our military the strongest in the world or something like that. Maybe he's very scared of terrorism and muslims.

Jupiviv:This idea is valid in a universe where only leftist bad ideas don't work. As such, it only serves as elevator music while Trump continues achieving nothing whatsoever. What is ironic however, is that such an idea has a perfect complement in the liberal belief in a universe where only rightist bad ideas don't work.
For some reason I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean here. Could you give examples of what you mean by "bad ideas"?

Jupiviv: Do you also believe that Trump is incomparably more materialistic and belligerent in terms of foreign policy than all the politicians in the Democrat party?

Matt: Oh yeah, Trump is terrible. His treatment of Mexico is utterly shameful. Australia, too. And whoever else, I've lost track. My worst fear is that he'll destabilize the Mideast so much that some large scale nuclear exchange will happen over there, which could spell the end of the human race very quickly.

Jupiviv: I am baffled every time I read this stupid argument about how the world will end because Trump will start one or more unspecified wars. The premise is that for some - again, unspecified - reason, Trump's wars are going to be much worse than the ones started or maintained by his predecessors. Unless you *hate* Trump, there is no reason why you should think that.
Well, I'm equally baffled by your reaction. He's banned citizens and cut off communication with seven countries in the middle east, including Iran, sending a clear message that he does not care about them or what they think. Obama had made some good progress with Iran, but now Trump is going to undo all that and apparently wants to start a war with them. He's reimposed the sanctions, so they've probably resumed their nuclear program. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan are at each others' throats I guess, and a lot of people are concerned about a nuclear exchange there, so they don't need any distractions while they're trying to sort that out. And again, if Iran develops nukes, then it's going to be more threatening to Israel, and that's another pressure cooker.

I don't consider myself all that politically sophisticated, I'm just going by what I hear in the news and from what I've observed about Trump's character and his unwillingness to give anything but contempt to other people. Research has shown that contempt is the dealbreaker in human relationships. That's the sign the someone has given up on the other person and has degenerated into attacking them. The last thing we need in a world like this is the largest superpower severing relationships with other nations. I can't even imagine what good that could possibly do. Unless we're so strong that we can just conquer the whole world and create one country, I don't see why the rest of the world wouldn't just try to combine forces and try to contain us or even dismantle us. The fear of the United States in the world was at an all-time high during the Bush years, and I'm sure it's much worse now. But I'm getting off my original point at this point. There are just so many avenues of WTF they're hard to manage. I might sound hysterical, but I'm just trying to think of the worst case scenario and point out that we should try our best to avoid it.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Pam Seeback »

David: 1. "How should a wise person behave in this world?"
Kevin: They should seek to live in accordance with truth and should seek to speak the truth at all times.
This is true.
David: 2. "What is the best way to promote wisdom?"
Kevin: Living in accordance with the truth, and speaking the truth.
This is true.
David: 3. "What is the most rational course of action?"
Kevin: That which is most in accord with reason and truth.
As I understand the relation of reasoning to the truth of emptiness is that any reasoning that is done is done with the knowledge of emptiness as its foundation. If you agree with this statement, then I put forward that for the wise person to reason with those who are not wise (do not have knowledge of emptiness, at least an inkling) is not wise. The scripture about pearls before swine comes to mind.

Is one not casting pearls before swine when one reasons with those who are attached to causes that promote and/or expand the idea of self? I have not been following your 'war' with the SJWs, but given their moniker, I suspect they fall into the category of 'swine.' And although reasoning about such individuals (one of the prime subject matters of this thread) is not casting pearls before swine, to do so, to me, is akin to rolling around in piggy doo-doo #2.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

There's this story about a wise chinaman, his horse, and his son...
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 »

Matt Gregory wrote:but I've heard him say that our military is decrepit and falling apart
That's also the view of at least a significant part of the military leadership, when it comes to the concept of readiness. It's one thing to disagree with that, it's another thing (and way further removed from the truth) to think it's some feverish or unique dream of the Donald. One has to delve into the views of "think" clubs like the Heritage Foundation to trace the roots and details of Trump's plans with the military.
Well, I'm equally baffled by your reaction. He's banned citizens and cut off communication with seven countries in the middle east
Ceasing immigration and severely limiting travel from those countries. Which is not at all like what you're claiming here.
\He's reimposed the sanctions, so they've probably resumed their nuclear program.
It's just not true. They were new unrelated sanctions and if you were actually interested in the facts here, you'd find out it doesn't deviate much from Obama's course at all. Also the new sanctions were not in response to any Iranian nuclear program but ballistic missile tests. While the EU-US-Iran treaty doesn't cover those. Therefore the US is free to impose anything they want unilaterally. In the mean time it won't influence eg the new mega-deal between Iran and Boeing for new planes. Of course.
I might sound hysterical, but I'm just trying to think of the worst case scenario and point out that we should try our best to avoid it.
Yes you do but you do have reason to of course. The American empire is morally bankrupt and economically in full decline, although estimating the exact wealth of the US is as difficult as assessing it for Trump: it depends how you calculate. The fallout from that, whomever is president or whichever party wins elections, might not matter that much in the end.
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 »

Pam Seeback wrote:Is one not casting pearls before swine when one reasons with those who are attached to causes that promote and/or expand the idea of self?
If you can't have a proper conversation with someone you might still write for the benefit of people who are undecided, and who might learn something from what you say. Or you might save your energy for another foe.

The main weapon of the SJWs is to bully people by calling them names, "White, male, sexist, misogynist, racist, right-wing", etc. They want to eject you from whatever space you are in. If you back down in the face of the onslaught, it just encourages them, and they become even worse with their next victim. In the end they control all space - until they eventually turn on themselves and destroy themselves.
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 »

jupiviv wrote: I've speculated that the motivation behind this thread was personal rather than political. Now with Trump in office, the personal has become the political (if it wasn't already) for many people in the west, including you. Since Kevin is your friend and mentor, you want to believe that he will be in general agreement with you on political matters. That's true in a sense, since logically speaking two completely rational people should agree even on political issues unless there is a case of mistaken identity.

In this case, the problem is irrationality rather than mistaken identity. For one thing, all that you (and Dan) seem to care about is that Kevin disagrees with you. There isn't any indication that you are prepared to admit your own irrationality, because every reason you have given for Kevin's disagreement involves Kevin's irrationality.
“To the gossip all things become gossip”, could have been another one of Nietzsche’s remarks. You’re not even close to beginning to understand what this thread is about.
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:I think that you have spent so much time over the past few years immersed in politics that you now automatically come to see everything from a political perspective.
This is one of your speculations with which I strongly disagree.

I am a left-leaning person who currently prefers Trump to Clinton. If I were strongly political then I wouldn't be able to cross political lines so easily.
Radicalization is a powerful force. It changes people.

You were indeed a left-leaning person in the past, but more importantly, you were also apolitical. You were steadfastly above politics. Your mind consistently went beyond politics to address the deeper causes of irrationality and suffering. It didn't just confine itself to one form of human stupidity, but addressed the entire range of it in all areas of society.

A few days ago I teased you about your fandom of Milo, but I do recognize that he does have some interesting insights into the current political situation. So even though I find him easy to mock, I can understand why you might like him. However, it needs to be said, and indeed said over and over again, that the man who wrote Poison for the Heart is vastly superior to Milo in every respect. He is vastly more intelligent, vastly more insightful, vastly more profound. Compared to the blinding light of his timelessness, Milo does not hold a candle to him.

But now here you are, one major radicalization process later, reduced to being a cheerleader of this minor thinker and getting all riled up at anyone who dares to criticize him, or the jihadist cause in general.

As I say, it is all so very, very bizarre.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:What we are really addressing here is spiritual behaviour. How should a wise person behave in this world? What is the best way to promote wisdom? What is the most rational course of action?

If this is true, then this should have been the central point of your opening post - it wasn't.

I will address your questions one by one:

1. "How should a wise person behave in this world?"

They should seek to live in accordance with truth and should seek to speak the truth at all times.

2. "What is the best way to promote wisdom?"

Living in accordance with the truth, and speaking the truth.

3. "What is the most rational course of action?"

That which is most in accord with reason and truth.

All of these questions are very easily answered, are they not?
If it was that easy, you wouldn’t have written a substantial book called Poison for the Heart, nor created a large eclectic website, that employed all sorts of empirical judgments in an authoritative fashion.

Kevin Solway wrote:If you wanted this discussion to be about these questions then you wouldn't need to spend any time at all with your many speculations, such as "I knew for sure that Trump was attempting a hostile take-over of America, with the aim of installing a police state." (from your opening post)
Ok, I concede that I should have been more careful with my language there. So I’ll amend it to, “It was then that the horrifying realization dawned on me that Trump was attempting a hostile take-over of America, with the aim of installing a police state."
Glostik91
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 6:13 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Glostik91 »

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. No one knew Iraq was going to be such a clusterfuck. Bush Jr probably thought the war would be as easy as his father’s Gulf War. Few economists raised the alarm before the mortgage crisis. We can raise the alarm on Trump, but let's not be too divisive and hasty right now because, as I believe Kevin pointed out in the thread, what we have here are empirical assessments concerning the consequences of Trump's presence. All we can do is speculate regarding what Trump promises he will do. He wants to shrink the EPA budget. He wants to pressurize relations with numerous foreign countries. He wants to increase the military budget. He wants to build a wall and deport many illegal immigrants, especially the criminals. He wants to encourage job growth in America via deregulation.

What can we, or what do I think concerning Trump’s presence? Will it be a net positive or negative? I understand that suppressing feminism today is beneficial to reason and truth, but Trump, as a tool, is out of the frying pan and into the fire. Whether this results in cleansing politics or its pulverization is up to speculation as well. However it does seem to me that Kevin neglects reasonable speculation that Trump could be a terrible force of destruction and untruth, much worse than whatever empowerment feminism would have gained via Clinton. The a-factual demagogic rhetoric and incendiary propaganda coming from Trump's corner are dangerous and have the potential to be worse than Bush Jr, if that's even possible. Given a combative congress, Trump will be hindered, but if a massive terrorist attack occurs on US soil, (one in which Trump has agitated by his antics) Trump and congress will catch fire and unite in an unholy chemical reaction which I think will serve to destroy economies, environments, and human lives on a scale not seen in generations. Supporting Trump, in my opinion, is wanting to walk a dangerous tight rope, one in which I and many others don't think is beneficial enough to warrant walking.

But let's say that a terrorist attack does not occur in the next 4-8 years. What other benefits could we have to reasonably gamble on Trump? (other than suppressing feminism and a masculine cleansing agent) I think there may be at least one other potential benefit. Islam is a cancer and blight of insanity and untruth upon the world. Any work to suppress Islam is a good work. Granted Trump promotes Christianity, which I also find to be a cancer upon the world, and I have noticed Christians and some people of the West irrationalize themselves into believing Christianity is preferable to Islam. I do not understand that preference. I'd rather we live in a secular society where no religion has a right to infringe upon me. Fortunately it just so happens that I live in a society which was founded in part upon the recognition that Christian/religious doctrines have horrifying consequences when coupled with government. So, so long as Trump suppresses Islam, and at the same time does not promote a Christian government, a good work has been achieved. However, (and this is a big however) if Trump's suppression of Islam agitates a major terrorist attack, this good will become a great evil not seen in generations.

Time will tell whether Trump's presence will serve as a net positive or negative, and we all have our opinions, but until the 4 year cycle has been completed I don't think we ought to be too divisive and hasty in our judgements. This too is my opinion of course.
a gutter rat looking at stars
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:A few days ago I teased you about your fandom of Milo
I'm not a "fan" of Milo. So this is yet more speculation and denigrating speech on your part. I watch and enjoy some of his videos. I consider that he has a degree of genius. That doesn't make me a "fan".

getting all riled up at anyone who dares to criticize him
You can criticize him all you like for what he says, but to mock him for his appearance is not a rational or fair thing to do - at least, not when we're trying to have a serious discussion. I would defend anyone in this way, not just Milo.
Trump was attempting a hostile take-over of America, with the aim of installing a police state.
This is mere speculation on your part, and I'm not interested in such speculations. I think the speculation is entirely unfounded.

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.
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 »

A term like "police state" allows for different and more balanced and certainly wiser perspectives. It should be mentioned that for many Trump supporters, a police state is exactly what they hope Trump would act against or they are asserting that the current attacks on Trump from within the national security organizations would constitute one. Here's an interesting paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the subject, emphasis mine:
Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no objective standards defining a police state. This concept can be viewed as a balance or scale. Along this spectrum, any law that has the effect of removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, while any law that limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

An electronic police state is one in which the government aggressively uses electronic technologies to record, organize, search, and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens.
The debate is still out there if Trump actually is trying to limit government besides lifting many business regulation. Clearly he's downsizing State Department and has appointed quite a few vocal supporters of limited government so far on various important positions. And yet his ambitions to spend on the military and infrastructure would indicate a growing government, assuming it would retain control over it all.

Definitely one has to eye the electronic surveillance system as developed under G.W Bush and Obama as important steps to a police state, in terms of infrastructure. All a government now needs to do is designate some person of group as "terrorist", "spy" or "Russian 5th column" and the big machine will trace and track you. It's literally 1984 in potential if not practise.

With all that, it's a bit absurd to pile, like most of mainstream media outlets and TV pundits are doing, the accusation of police state on the new President's ambitions. Even if he'd deport all illegals and build a giant wall around the whole country, it would't make it a "police state" yet, by definition. It would become Israel I suppose.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote: I've speculated that the motivation behind this thread was personal rather than political. Now with Trump in office, the personal has become the political (if it wasn't already) for many people in the west, including you. Since Kevin is your friend and mentor, you want to believe that he will be in general agreement with you on political matters. That's true in a sense, since logically speaking two completely rational people should agree even on political issues unless there is a case of mistaken identity.

In this case, the problem is irrationality rather than mistaken identity. For one thing, all that you (and Dan) seem to care about is that Kevin disagrees with you. There isn't any indication that you are prepared to admit your own irrationality, because every reason you have given for Kevin's disagreement involves Kevin's irrationality.
“To the gossip all things become gossip”, could have been another one of Nietzsche’s remarks. You’re not even close to beginning to understand what this thread is about.
It's a very simple argument - if you are so opposed to Trump that anything less than an equal degree of opposition from anyone else is indicative of gross irrationality on their part, you should have made that clearly known when Trump became the Republican candidate. You could have had that discussion on another thread on this forum started to discuss Trump specifically before he actually won.

The fact that you chose to voice your opposition months *after* Trump won the election, and as a reaction to a specific person's inadequate anathema towards Trump, would indicate that the motivation behind said voicing of opposition was not caused directly, or at least solely, by your own opposition to Trump.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by jupiviv »

Kevin Solway wrote: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.
That's not a reasonable argument. You're assuming that being democratically elected nullifies the possibility of a takeover in itself. I don't think Trump has anywhere near the disposable capital or revenue to hire let alone maintain a private army.

Based purely on what Trump is actually *doing*, as opposed to *saying*, he doesn't seem to be acting towards or according to any personal goal or principle. Rather, like I have said before, Trump is providing the equivalent of elevator music while the US government is defaulting.

Only governments can "bleed red ink" perpetually and not go out of business! Economies are finite, for one firm or others to run surpluses (make profits) other firms must run deficits. The private sector is possessed of a singular constraint - by the iron law of capitalism firms cannot run deficits for long and remain in business. The compounding of business failures over time would wipe out the economy entirely unless there is a *special* kind of firm that can run deficits continuously and not fail. This, then is the primary function of the public sector - to borrow at a loss and by so doing enable credit to expand, to put funds into the economy, to guarantee the profits of firms and tycoons, to roll over debts as they mature and service the rest as long as possible.

If the US didn't supply their own credit along with a large fraction of their own resources, they'd be Turkey, looking to invade Mexico to steal their tacos.
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:A few days ago I teased you about your fandom of Milo
I'm not a "fan" of Milo. So this is yet more speculation and denigrating speech on your part. I watch and enjoy some of his videos. I consider that he has a degree of genius. That doesn't make me a "fan".
Fair enough. I've said my piece. It is up to you how you respond. I do hope that you expand your horizons back out beyond the SJW universe again, as I think you are currently squandering your gifts. But it's your life, and so I'll leave it at that.

Kevin Solway wrote: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.
A quick glance at history shows that there are many different ways to affect a hostile take-over, and also many examples of democratically-elected governments transforming into authoritarian regimes. The one you describe seems impractical as far as modern America is concerned, and it's just not Trump's style. No, he will just continue to do what he is already doing - namely, erode trust in the democratic norms and institutions until they collapse.

Of course, you're right, it's all speculation. I could be wrong. It would be fantastic if I was. But to my eyes at least, the signs don't look good.
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:The problem is that David's views are not philosophical truths, which could be proven absolutely using logic, but are mere subjective speculations which can be entirely false. And clearly I don't find David's views to be at all persuasive, and I believe them to be false. Such matters as David raises are subjective, and are not absolute.
So what? That's twice you've made this utterly meaningless point as though you're trying to school someone in remedial points of logic and philosophy. It's an unnecessary point to make, especially when outside of the rather careful verbiage of this thread you've said things like:

"There's literally nothing worse than the SJWs and the feminists."

I think we all have the sense to extend each other the Charity Principle in this discussion and to not pretend that the views of others are being expressed as pseudo absolutes simply when they're being expressed with confidence.

75% of the entire philosophic output of QRS is non-absolute, but not rendered one whit less meaningful thereby.
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:
Kevin Solway wrote:The problem is that David's views are not philosophical truths, which could be proven absolutely using logic, but are mere subjective speculations which can be entirely false. And clearly I don't find David's views to be at all persuasive, and I believe them to be false. Such matters as David raises are subjective, and are not absolute.
So what? That's twice you've made this utterly meaningless point as though you're trying to school someone in remedial points of logic and philosophy. It's an unnecessary point to make, especially when outside of the rather careful verbiage of this thread you've said things like:

"There's literally nothing worse than the SJWs and the feminists."
David and you are the ones accusing Kevin of ruining his capacity for rational thought by meddling in politics. To prove that accusation, you need to provide philosophical reasons and not empirical/subjective ones. The latter is what you have provided so far. Instead, you should provide examples of Kevin making logical errors due to his political stances, denying or making up empirical facts, et cetera.
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:
Kevin Solway wrote:The problem is that David's views are not philosophical truths, which could be proven absolutely using logic, but are mere subjective speculations which can be entirely false. And clearly I don't find David's views to be at all persuasive, and I believe them to be false. Such matters as David raises are subjective, and are not absolute.
So what? That's twice you've made this utterly meaningless point as though you're trying to school someone in remedial points of logic and philosophy. It's an unnecessary point to make, especially when outside of the rather careful verbiage of this thread you've said things like:

"There's literally nothing worse than the SJWs and the feminists."
David and you are the ones accusing Kevin of ruining his capacity for rational thought by meddling in politics.
That is, pure and simply, wrong. I have said no such thing. I have no issue at all with Kevin involving himself in matters that are essentially political (such as the battle against crazy SJWs). It's not the simple fact of it but the apparent positions having been adopted as a consequence that trouble me. Go back and read my opening post.
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 »

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Such matters as David raises are subjective, and are not absolute.
So what?
So it is arguable that a better place for this thread would be the "worldly matters" forum. I am reminding David and the reader that even though David speaks in absolute terms, and with supreme "confidence" about his beliefs, he could well be 100% wrong in all of his political views, since they all rest on one another, and fall like a house of cards.
[quoting me] "There's literally nothing worse than the SJWs and the feminists."
I could easily make a case for such a statement, based on what SJWs and feminists actually do, and have done. I would not have to guess about their motives or what they might do in the future. In this way I could achieve a fair degree of justifiable confidence.

By contrast, a convincing case cannot be made that Trump is seeking world domination by force, or that he wants to create a police state, since he hasn't done these things, and one is severely limited to guessing about his motives. Therefore I don't believe that supreme confidence in such matters is at all justified.
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:That is, pure and simply, wrong. I have said no such thing. I have no issue at all with Kevin involving himself in matters that are essentially political (such as the battle against crazy SJWs). It's not the simple fact of it but the apparent positions having been adopted as a consequence that trouble me. Go back and read my opening post.
This is just a roundabout way of saying that you think Kevin is acting irrationally because he involves himself with a political position you happen to dislike. Which was precisely my point about motivation - you can't stand Kevin supporting things you do not support.

I don't like or support Trump or Milo. The truths they point out have been and are being pointed out *far* more lucidly and civilly by others both on and off the internet. Why, then, am I not joining you in piling hatred upon Trump and chastising Kevin for not doing the same? Simple - unless Kevin starts championing anything *apart* from the truths spoken by those people, and unless he refuses to acknowledge the existence of better alternatives, he is acting rationally as far as I'm concerned. As it happens, Kevin isn't championing Trump's incoherence or Milo's shady business practices. Nor are Hillary or Bernie better as alternatives to Trump, or SJW celebrities to Milo, or the MSM to Breitbart. The choices are all either at or near zero sum, which in fact they *always* were (except, according the David, since the liberal establishment conquered the world with science and equality).

I remember David mentioning Sam Harris somewhere in this thread. I don't support Sam Harris for the same reason I don't Milo. They taint the idea of rationality by applying it only to unpopular and egregious forms of irrationality, while ignoring or actively espousing the more popular and palatable forms. Does that mean I'm going to post a "Statement about David and Harris"? Not unless I have an axe to grind with him.

Back to Kevin: he has a page about Dave Sim on his website. Dave Sim is a right-wing libertarian who hates gays, believes in God and wants a return to traditional gender roles. I know because I read all of his comics years before I knew about any of you, and he influenced teenaged me very deeply. In fact it was through a google search about *him* that I discovered Kevin's website! In my view, and probably Kevin's as well, he is a much deeper thinker than Milo, most/all journalists and Harris put together.

Paraphrasing David: what does Kevin (an Australian) and jupiviv (an Indian) have in common, besides being members of this forum? Well, they have all spent the last few decades immersing themselves in Simian politics and visiting Simian sites. I think its time you or David issued a "Statement about Kevin, Jupiter and Sim".
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:Such matters as David raises are subjective, and are not absolute.
So what?
So it is arguable that a better place for this thread would be the "worldly matters" forum. I am reminding David and the reader that even though David speaks in absolute terms, and with supreme "confidence" about his beliefs, he could well be 100% wrong in all of his political views, since they all rest on one another, and fall like a house of cards.
And of course, this point has been reiterated over and over again.

It should also be noted that both Dan and David continually brush off excellent counterpoints from others that illustrate Trump is not much worse, if at all, than his predecessors. Instead, they react to Kevin's (and to some degree, others') nonchalance towards Trump's shortcomings with hysterical objections towards Trump and the far right. It's not so much that they're wrong; they're right in a lot of ways. But it's over the top, and ignorant of the bigger picture, of the build up that led us to where we are today. This is typical far left behaviour. They've been duped by extreme leftist propaganda, which is almost all that the MSM pushes these days.

Kevin's enemy is feminism. He sees Trump as a sort of antithesis to this.

Dan and David's enemy is the far right. As such, they've taken up and promote far left stances.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

It has been asked, just what is the MSM. Here is a good summary. Slightly dated, but relevant nonetheless.

Also, this interesting little article just popped up over at Zerohedge. Most interesting to me is the linkage of the media to the CIA, and of course, humorously relevant are the NYT mentions.

Oh and one more thing. Breitbart, to me, is little more than far right propaganda. So I definitely disagree with Kevin or anyone that thinks they're worth a damn. Bannon and co. may very well be dangerous extremists, and Trump's associating with them isn't a good thing. Far from it. So Dan and David's concerns there are legit. But as far as I can tell, Trump's heart of hearts isn't with the alt-right movement. To me, he saw the public allegiance with them and their movement as an opportunity to gain votes, and it worked. That said, as self-serving and bombastic as he is, I think he really is trying to improve some things, not including the stupid wall, in ways that only a business minded republican can. But it's too early to tell if it's just lip service, or a genuine effort. We'll see.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: Statement about Solway and Trump

Post by Russell Parr »

RIPieces to one of the true kings of the world, David Rockefeller.

The greatest threat to the public at large is, and always have been the bankers and their corporate and political cronies. Just ask Benjamin Franklin. Or Thomas Jefferson. Or Woodrow Wilson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, etc..
Locked