Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Tue May 30, 2017 5:48 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:What it comes down to is which side has the worst principles overall, or "the greater of two evils", and obviously in my opinion I think the Left is significantly the worst at the current time.
Obviously both are crap, so I don't understand supporting Trump or Hillary and playing that game at all, I actually consider that to be the most deluded of the behaviors, but 'free speech is the most beautiful thing in the world', plus irreparably poisoning kids minds with gender neutral/transgender crap is the most disgusting thing in the world, so they're probably the greater of two evils. How a person of right-mind could even look like associating with or defending any tiny part of that group is beyond me, more than enough guilt by association for Dan there.
David Quinn wrote:What disgusts me the most is seeing grown men raging with hysterical fury at a bunch of women (who are children, mentally speaking),
Agreed 100%, it's embarrassing, it might be worse than even the children's stupidity, the feminine opinions should be utterly ignored, their attempts at pushing ignorance subverted, and solutions found around them which include educating. Only a crazy person argues with a brick wall. The only question is why would one such as you look like they're 'picking sides' with children as leader?

Kevin Solway wrote: I agree with Bannon in so far as the establishment needs to be completely dismantled - especially the media, and education, universities, etc.
Absolutely agree. The only possible logical solution, since there is no other possibility for a fix.
David Quinn wrote: It is like watching a screaming fight between a couple going through a very messy divorce....and only serves to drag everyone down. There is nothing healthy about it.
Absolutely correct, how did it take you so long to realize this? Anyone engaging in these discussions seriously or much at all is as deluded as one in the couple.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue May 30, 2017 6:33 pm

JohnJAu wrote: Anyone engaging in these discussions seriously or much at all is as deluded as one in the couple.
It's still somewhat above anyone engaging "not seriously" just to make that claim and then still wedges in a few opinions on the topic as well.

There's zero logical or reasonable base to make definite judgement on the merits of discussing this topic. Implying that there would be only shows how deep emotion or confusion on this might run. Which then supplies both reasons for the relevance and yet also provides some reasons to stay out.

JohnJAu
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by JohnJAu » Tue May 30, 2017 8:00 pm

I was referring more so to the online debates and 'wars' that you'll find on youtube and the such, the engaged persons are most unlikely to make any kind of difference achieving a better world or whatever other delusions fuel them. The usual mindsets and attitudes you see in these discussions exclude the possibility of any real change (assuming that this would be the logical goal of political discussions) occurring, besides an online-opinion if you're very lucky. It's this kind of noble-feeling preaching or drive similar to a Christian's which would be taking it 'seriously'.

Shen
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 8:14 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Shen » Tue May 30, 2017 9:30 pm

David Quinn wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Go read some history books and find out what real persecution and oppression looks like. And nearly all of it has been inflicted by conservative institutions.
Okay.. lets starts with arguably the largest persecution and oppression in the 20th century, okay?

1. Communist Soviets. The pinnacle of revolutionary, socialist world reordering! The anti-thesis to all things conservative

oops.
Well, I did say "nearly all". :)

It's a matter of debate as to whether the Soviet system was really anti-conservative. It started off as a populist uprising against the elites, before quickly descending into normal garden-variety dictatorship. The banning of religion could be considered anti-conservative, except that the communist system itself quickly took over as the new religion. The war against intellectualism was just as rife in the Soviet system as it is in the Republican party today.

Ideally, progression has to be driven by genuinely rational people, otherwise it becomes a lottery. I certainly don't discern much rationality in what the Soviets did. Lenin and Marx were both deluded in many ways, particularly when it came to their understanding of human psychology, thus their system was flawed from the outset.
What system? The premise that a given society's ideology, laws, institutions, etc, reflect the material and productive forces which give it life, viz: "the materialist conception of history" ("MCH")?

Communist Russia (or any other communist government, so far) was not capable of producing the *synthesis* (Diebert) between capital and labour. Anyone who thinks either Marx or Lenin believed that was the case has understood neither.

What is the psychology of a peasant?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 31, 2017 6:34 am

Shen wrote:the *synthesis* (Diebert)
Nah (Lala). Stalin's persecutions, which I had in mind, were more about countering anything anti-revolutionary.

Perhaps just like the philosophical ideal and all its ugly attempts to realize in politics and forum opiniating. Show me the exception to forces of division and decadence! Like there's Marx and after him all interpretations and subsequent subversion. Also the doom of the systematic. The synthesis then only at the start, as reverse hypothesis?
What is the psychology of a peasant?
Since you're mentioning US presidents, how do you see Sanders?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 31, 2017 6:39 am

JohnJAu wrote:I was referring more so to the online debates and 'wars' that you'll find on youtube and the such, the engaged persons are most unlikely to make any kind of difference achieving a better world or whatever other delusions fuel them. The usual mindsets and attitudes you see in these discussions exclude the possibility of any real change (assuming that this would be the logical goal of political discussions) occurring, besides an online-opinion if you're very lucky. It's this kind of noble-feeling preaching or drive similar to a Christian's which would be taking it 'seriously'.
There could still be a purpose to it but not what those engaged persons might think or hope. Nowadays it seems part of make-believe entertainment, a "small feeling" to be part of a bigger feeling, one of hope or anger, especially pissed off anger! Chomp chomp! All consumables in a way. No wonder the biggest fastest moving capital is made right now in harvesting and repacking of all that. One could redefine historical religion in similar ways.

Shen
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 8:14 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Shen » Wed May 31, 2017 8:42 am

Nah (Lala). Stalin's persecutions, which I had in mind, were more about countering anything anti-revolutionary.
Yes, I know you did -- and Stalin had the self-styled anti-counter-revolutionary Trotsky killed, too.
Perhaps just like the philosophical ideal and all its ugly attempts to realize in politics and forum opiniating. Show me the exception to forces of division and decadence! Like there's Marx and after him all interpretations and subsequent subversion. Also the doom of the systematic. The synthesis then only at the start, as reverse hypothesis?
The point is, a synthesis is not a reverse hypothesis -- forces of division and decadence notwithstanding.

How stupid do you think I am, Ding-dong?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 31, 2017 3:27 pm

Shen wrote:
The synthesis then only at the start, as reverse hypothesis?
The point is, a synthesis is not a reverse hypothesis -- forces of division and decadence notwithstanding.
Yes, you're quite right. My term "reverse hypotheses" was, in fact, entirely made-up and not part of any system or known definition. It's impressive you're able to actually disagree with it :-) But I need to explain: the (idea of) synthesis itself was not meant as reverse hypothesis, the synthesis would be just exactly what it usually means, only more as origination and not as any result. It's just an instance of this concept of reverse procession, a perspective opposite to Hegel or any sense of teleology. Which simply would mean "going down hill" when all the developing dialectic, applications and theories come and go, with ultimately nothing left but meaningless outer shells, something so warped and artificial just to keep in tact. For communism, I'd point to North-Korea as a typical outcome of this regression. There's no communism in it obviously, or anything much at all.

It can be applied to many social processes and there are exceptions as well. But not so many exceptions as one might think.

Shen
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 8:14 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Shen » Wed May 31, 2017 7:46 pm

Yes, haha hoho.

And that would make them conservatives (resisting liberal forces).

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Wed May 31, 2017 9:25 pm

Shen wrote:And that would make them conservatives (resisting liberal forces).
Yes. Same goes for liberalization, when being applied systematically, top-down, institutionalized and profoundly decadent. While it might initially have started as some syntheses of progressive values, science and reform, it turned at some point in something else entirely. Not free, not progressive.

For this reason, when someone like David Quinn talks about progressive values, it needs to be located in the 19th century, at its most "synthetic" stage. But the way he applies them now is certainly conservative, trying to safeguard the changing world against perceived insanity, destruction and so on.

Shen
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 8:14 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Shen » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:18 am

Yes, especially when that's really the point being made about Kevin and his affiliation with right wing politics.

I feel almost like I'm witnessing the trial of Socrates.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:20 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
"I consider a vote for Clinton to be a vote for the SJWs and the feminists, a vote for so-called "social justice", a vote for the status quo, a vote for a person who regards me and those like me (antifeminists) to be "deplorable and irredeemable"."
That's exactly right.

What it comes down to is which side has the worst principles overall, or "the greater of two evils", and obviously in my opinion I think the Left is significantly the worst at the current time.

Unless you have some clear objective proof otherwise, then it just comes down to subjective personal opinion.
This is one point on which I do see an issue with your views. I don't perceive much of a difference between SJWs and alt-rightists in terms of wisdom, i.e. the willingness to use reason regardless of other considerations like western values and polities. Rather, the liberals and SJWs are being untruthful about a reality which is becoming more and more obvious, and the alt-rightists are truthful about the former's untruthfulness. And the increasing awareness of that reality is a result of natural cycles which have nothing much to do with wisdom, rather than some shift in mass consciousness towards wisdom. Indeed, in a lot of respects, both SJWs and anti-SJWs are entirely willing to implicitly agree regarding *some* aspects of that reality, like the reduction of economic phenomena to statistical or arithmetical abstractions. That leads to my final point: the reality which the anti-SJWs are untruthful about - Trump as incorruptible and invincible Golden Golem of Regreatification - is also becoming obvious, and for the most part they aren't showing any signs of changing their approach to it.

The link I posted at the beginning of the Trump thread on the main forum would seem to corroborate this:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven ... t-america/

In sum, I don't think it is possible at present to tell which faction - left, alt-left, right or alt-right - is "significantly the worst".

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:15 am

jupiviv wrote:In sum, I don't think it is possible at present to tell which faction - left, alt-left, right or alt-right - is "significantly the worst".
Due to the complexity of it, it's impossible to come up with an objective measure. For me, the deciding factor is freedom of speech, but others may vary.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2005
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:44 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
jupiviv wrote:In sum, I don't think it is possible at present to tell which faction - left, alt-left, right or alt-right - is "significantly the worst".
Due to the complexity of it, it's impossible to come up with an objective measure. For me, the deciding factor is freedom of speech, but others may vary.
But it's not rational to value freedom of speech more than, or even as much as, rationality, as you yourself implied here:
You don't allow access to press conferences in the Whitehouse to just anyone. Certain standards need to be met.
So the goal should be free speech as one of the ways in which *rational* discourse is fostered, not just discourse in general and unqualified by any standards of truth, decorum or morality. I'm fine with shutting the SJWs down for irrational behaviour but also apply the same standards to the cosmetically different irrationality of the anti-SJWs.

amee
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by amee » Wed Jun 28, 2017 8:28 pm

I don't like the nebulous term "trumpism", as what happened when he was elected represents something that has nothing to do with Trump himself. The fact that he was elected at all is already a victory, because the point for some of us who voted for him was simply to throw a monkey wrench into the existing political system, which had forgotten the purpose of governance and has abandoned the majority of Americans, especially the traditional Democrats.

I personally voted for Trump as a way to register a complaint, especially with the Democratic Party, whom I have loyally voted with ever since I was of voting age. The Democratic Party is currently unrecognizable, and had long sold out. The poor are getting poorer and no amount of hard work was possible to get most of us out of this trap. And, someone like Hilary Clinton, just looked like more abandonment to me.

I agree that it would be nice if, aside from successfully being a monkey wrench in the corrupt political system, something of substance could actually be built from the chaos. But, at least when I voted for Trump, I knew that substantial change would be just the icing on the cake, if Trump won at all.

There's still hope. If we could tap into the talent you outline in this article, that might help. What would be even better is a non-partisan group that reshaped the dates and hopelessly divided two-party landscape into one that could actually function and be effective in actually governing this country.
a quite good essay expert))

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jun 29, 2017 5:46 am

Okay, I just split some posts off into the new topic Is rational or political discourse even desired?. Mainly because it was really about something else.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:06 am

Hello Amee, welcome, thanks for participating here.
amee wrote:I don't like the nebulous term "trumpism", as what happened when he was elected represents something that has nothing to do with Trump himself.
You have a point. Initially I started this topic with the title "Trump" but after the election I changed it to cover a wider topic. If it has little to do with Trump, I don't now for sure. The election and the amount of support is clearly a phenomenon. Over time the discussion has gone into conservatism, policies on race (also split off), the mass media, Liberals, globalism and so on. It's just the way it goes with political threads. But the main idea was to discuss anything involving philosophy and politics espoused by Donald Trump and his most trusted, including the reactionary movement against it. It's a bit too big of a topic in the end though.
The fact that he was elected at all is already a victory, because the point for some of us who voted for him was simply to throw a monkey wrench into the existing political system, which had forgotten the purpose of governance and has abandoned the majority of Americans, especially the traditional Democrats.
That is for me the reason I was reasonably content with the outcome. There are dangers of course but hope and change only truly come with increased danger, I believe. So the risk might be worth it. Life has always been about risks, not to mention insanities.
I agree that it would be nice if, aside from successfully being a monkey wrench in the corrupt political system, something of substance could actually be built from the chaos. But, at least when I voted for Trump, I knew that substantial change would be just the icing on the cake, if Trump won at all.
While I didn't vote, being a Dutch citizen, and I might have voted for a 3rd party if I had participated, your words ring true. The question is if the system and as such society can handle the wrench. It might become overheated or at least the anti-movement would. It might become utterly nonsensical if it wasn't already there already. But the ones who voice fears for the consequences of chaos, anger, suspicions and emotions riding high inside a society do have a point.
There's still hope. If we could tap into the talent you outline in this article, that might help. What would be even better is a non-partisan group that reshaped the dates and hopelessly divided two-party landscape into one that could actually function and be effective in actually governing this country.
The short term goal would be the end of the Democratic party. It needs to crack open. As for the Republicans, I think as a party it already fractionated and rotted since Tea Party times. Since Palin. It's only going to be worse for them when Trump is done.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Nov 05, 2017 2:36 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Thu Jun 29, 2017 6:06 am
The short term goal would be the end of the Democratic party. It needs to crack open. As for the Republicans, I think as a party it already fractionated and rotted since Tea Party times. Since Palin. It's only going to be worse for them when Trump is done.
Could it be that both political parties are doomed?

Yup. Get on with it!

Post Reply