Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6038
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 27, 2017 1:36 am

David Quinn wrote:You don't think that the anti-SJW crusaders are doing the same thing? Of course they are. Not only are they trying to impose their values on everyone else, but they are quick to brand anyone who opposes them as “evil", “dishonest”, “dangerous”, “liars, etc. They are even trying to shut down their media outlets and educational institutions. They are every bit as tyrannical as the SJWs themselves.
Could you give an example of concerted effort of the "anti-SJW" trying to shut down whole media outlets or educational institutions? It's new to me although for sure some individuals here and there would have suggested it. The impressions I have so far would be more like a balance of SJW 95% and anti-SJW 5% when it comes to voice repression.
I just don't see a need to turn purple and blow a gasket over the issue. The expression of truth is suppressed in many different ways from many different quarters. Always has been. The SJWs are just one culprit among many.
The benefit of having a spark of passion fueling some interest to target this particular issue lies in the smaller scale where an individual genius thinker could be more effective. The big wheels of politics with all the unknowns and secrets, all the campaigns, all the institutionalized lying and manipulation on all sides is way more trickier as to find a well reasoned position to argue from and become a force of change or clarity. It would become very convoluted and long-winded.
For thousands of years, religious fundamentalism has suppressed the truth far more pervasively and violently than left-wing advocates ever will. And yet Kevin Solway has somehow seen fit to team up with these very same fundamentalists in the belief that they are now on his side fighting for the cause of truth. Who is he trying to kid?
Many left-wing advocates appear to me just as a continuation of that religious fundamentalism. Apart from that I don't see Solway teaming up with fundamental Christians and Muslims. The only reason there might be a similarity is a shared conservative or oppositional stance against certain negative processes. But to say Kevin "teams up" is as weird as to say you are "teaming up" with the Democratic party in some way just because you both oppose Trump so strongly.
The more we can make society non-resistant to wisdom, the less we have to rely on chance to throw up favorable circumstances. We can take control of the situation. The net can be widened. Increasing numbers of people can have a genuine shot at becoming enlightened.
But you missed my point: by removing resistance there's good reason to believe wisdom cannot develop properly since it needs challenges to overcome, to get to a peak high enough to call genius. Not more "nurturing" and easy programs to enroll into. At best I see a trade-off here. More get a shot and more will be side-tracked or simply too weak of mind. The last men, I suppose?
They can’t fathom how life can be lived when reason and truth begins to overshadow everything else. They feel that their sense of identity is being obliterated. Hence the push back that we see all around us, from both the left and the right.
Agreed! But I'm not convinced that your own public "push back" against Kevin wouldn't be an example of someone whose sense of identity might be under attack. For me Trump is at best a showman, a type of conman whose erratic behavior and intuition will put a lot of pressure on the whole system which I see as void of any spirit at all. You see this as some mortal danger, while I see it as big opportunity. But this should have little to do with a sense of identity unless people see in Trump their own vapid theater play, their own clever pandering to the audience?

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sat May 27, 2017 3:57 am

Dan Rowden wrote:
jupiviv wrote:Hillary's views on immigration - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/i ... on-reform/
'uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.' The Obama administration deported more 'illegals' than any other by orders of magnitude. What's your point with that link?
Orders of magnitude? Clearly you cannot sines, which is why you won't understand that extremely clever joke about the processing time for cosine calculations of numpy arrays on both x86 & x64 Linux Mint, i.e. ~3s, being the order of magnitude of the processing time for sine calculations of same on same, i.e., ~550s, since 550=5.5*10^3. Also ironic, since you're posturing as the joint champion of sines with David against us.

But I digress. The Obama administration simply did the sines differently than previous administrations, like counting BP arrests as removals or counting only removals as enforcement activity. In any case, it is not the (technically) record number of deportations under the Obama administration that are the issue, but Hillary's plans to defend and expand the Obama administration's attempts to circumvent the plenary authority of the Congress over immigration policy.

If you want to find out what someone's point is with a link, you should read the entire content linked by said link instead of sentence fragments.
No Presidential candidate in living memory (and possibly ever) has made statements and claims of the nature that I quoted.
Even if those claims are unprecedented in terms of falseness, which is very unlikely, the fact that someone voted for Trump despite being aware of them still doesn't give you any insight into their psychology[...]
So, you make no judgement, whatever, about people's psychology on the basis of any fact or event within the political realm? You know that's what you're saying to me right now? Right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdtKbq3Omkw

So you make *all* judgments about people's psychology on the basis of any fact or event within the political realm? You know that's what you're saying to me right now? Right?

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sat May 27, 2017 4:21 am

David Quinn wrote:I see no reason why we cannot create a society in which all intellectual delusions have been thoroughly eliminated throughout the entire culture, so that by the time most people reach the age of 18 they will have acquired a near-perfect intellectual understanding of things, and from there it is up to them to decide how deeply they want to enter into the Infinite.
Even in such a society, there would be delusions, like a "near-perfect intellectual understanding of things", or pride in one's ability to use reason blinding one to the actual boundary between reason and fantasy. But yes, the ideal is certainly to weed out as many unnecessary delusions as possible without replacing them with newer ones. The latter is precisely what has happened in the last 200 or so years. A very small portion of the world's population has been able to forget about some of their natural fears of strangeness and the unknown, because the familiar world around them became exponentially more safe and pleasant.

And, of course, that enrichment of the known came at the price of exploitation both of labour and resources (the latter at an unsustainable level), which neither the left nor the right saw any problem with. So all the progress you are referring to is a thin, and expensive, veneer which the faintest zephyr can blow away.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Sat May 27, 2017 9:34 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote: I just don't see a need to turn purple and blow a gasket over the issue. The expression of truth is suppressed in many different ways from many different quarters. Always has been. The SJWs are just one culprit among many.
The benefit of having a spark of passion fueling some interest to target this particular issue lies in the smaller scale where an individual genius thinker could be more effective. The big wheels of politics with all the unknowns and secrets, all the campaigns, all the institutionalized lying and manipulation on all sides is way more trickier as to find a well reasoned position to argue from and become a force of change or clarity. It would become very convoluted and long-winded.
I understand your point, but one does have to wonder at the effectiveness of it all. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the anti-SJW crusaders achieve their goal of bringing down the entire realm of left-wing political correctness and the SJWs are no longer able to exert their influence on the world. What then? Will people be valuing wisdom and truth with any more vigour? Will egotism have diminished in any way? I think we both know the answer to that. Once the SJWs are gone, other truth-hating forces will simply flow in and fill the void. New types of "SJWs" will come to the fore, and we will be back to square one.

So spiritually speaking, it all seems like an awful lot of hard work and blowing of gaskets for very little gain. It is not addressing egotism at its root. It is merely hacking away at one of its branches.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The more we can make society non-resistant to wisdom, the less we have to rely on chance to throw up favorable circumstances. We can take control of the situation. The net can be widened. Increasing numbers of people can have a genuine shot at becoming enlightened.
But you missed my point: by removing resistance there's good reason to believe wisdom cannot develop properly since it needs challenges to overcome, to get to a peak high enough to call genius.
I wouldn't worry about that. Our egos inside us already generate plenty of resistance on that front. There is no need for us to add to it unnecessarily. Anyone who can overcome the resistance of their own ego will naturally and effortlessly reach the peak of genius.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sat May 27, 2017 12:02 pm

jupiviv wrote:In any case, it is not the (technically) record number of deportations under the Obama administration that are the issue, but Hillary's plans to defend and expand the Obama administration's attempts to circumvent the plenary authority of the Congress over immigration policy.
The Congress has no such authority over immigration. It therefore cannot be 'circumvented'.
A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations, e.g. the granting of federal pardons by the President. It is derived from the Latin term plenus ("full").

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat May 27, 2017 12:16 pm

David Quinn wrote:Can you provide a link which properly describes this matter?
Here's one such case.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04 ... ur-choice/

You can also look up people like Veemonro or Sargon of Akaad, who are desperately looking for SJWs to debate them, but the SJWs regard it to be immoral to speak with unbelievers.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sat May 27, 2017 12:46 pm

Regarding Carl, I imagine most feminists would be reticent to debate someone who talks like this:
Before your stupid social justice feminine [sic] bullshit, [mass murders] [2014 Isla Vista killings] didn't happen on this scale, it's CRAZY. This is a disease of the modern age. YOU are responsible for perpetuating it, by disenfranchising these poor fucking guys who don't have any options left. When someone takes the option of absolute INSANELY last resort, you have to wonder, what kind of system is producing them? And I'll tell you what, Laci, it is a FUCKING FEMINIST SYSTEM THAT IS DOING THIS.
I mean, I agree with 70% of what he says but I wouldn't debate him either.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat May 27, 2017 12:59 pm

David Quinn wrote:You don't think that the anti-SJW crusaders are doing the same thing? Of course they are.
No, they're not trying to do it by force, which the authoritarian left are trying to do.

You don't see anti-SJWs trying to forcibly shut down feminist talks, like you do see militant leftist groups trying to forcibly shut down people like Milo, by smashing things up, lighting fires, and hitting people with sticks - even when they are unconscious on the ground.

Not only are they trying to impose their values on everyone else
It's not "imposing" when you spread your values in a civilized way, using the processes of democracy and persuasion.

but they are quick to brand anyone who opposes them as “evil", “dishonest”, “dangerous”, “liars, etc.
I don't think they are "quick" to do it, but they are, for the most part, entirely justified.

For example, Dan attempted to represent me as having never agreed with any of Trump's views. That is definitely dishonest and misleading, and I demonstrated that was the case.

You tried to represent me as not caring about Trump's views on the environment, even though I have repeatedly said, many times, that I don't agree with his views on the environment.

You also said that Breitbart was white supremacist ("far right"), even though you admit that, for you personally, "it's a grey area". [or a black area most likely]

Dan says that all people who supported Trump instead of Clinton, in the face of what Trump says, are "deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible."

In addition, you have continually appealed to the fallacy of guilt by association.

These are all clear cases of dishonesty (or inability to think - I'm not sure which).

SJWs do all these things, unendingly.

They are even trying to shut down educational institutions.
Can you give me an example of anti-SJWs trying to shut down educational institutions. I haven't seen that.

All I'm aware of is that some people think the government should not provide funding for some of the social sciences, such as gender studies. If people want so-called "gender studies" then they'll have to pay for it out of their own pocket. That's not anywhere close to "shutting down" institutions - even in part.

They are every bit as tyrannical as the SJWs themselves.


Show me where anti-SJWs are forcibly trying to stop SJWs from speaking, and I might think you have a point.

For thousands of years, religious fundamentalism has suppressed the truth far more pervasively and violently than left-wing advocates ever will.
You obviously don't know about communist regimes around the world. They have performed pretty much every evil you will ever see in religion, if not more.

And yet Kevin Solway has somehow seen fit to team up with these very same fundamentalists
Once again you are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association.

If I wanted to be equally as illogical as yourself then I could say that you are teaming up with the SJWs and communists.

You are also teaming up with the fundamentalist Islamists, who are on your side.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sat May 27, 2017 1:11 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, Dan attempted to represent me as having never agreed with any of Trump's views. That is definitely dishonest and misleading, and I demonstrated that was the case.
Liar.
Dan says that all people who supported Trump instead of Clinton, in the face of what Trump says, are "deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible."
Liar.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat May 27, 2017 1:21 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:I agree with 70% of what he says but I wouldn't debate him either.
I don't understand why you wouldn't debate him. Lots of people have a rant on the internet. For the most part Carl is very calm and self-controlled - especially when he's speaking to other people in person.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sat May 27, 2017 1:30 pm

Sure, he's quite calm when speaking to people he ostensibly agrees with. Most of his later videos he says 'fuck' every second sentence. His anger is palpable. That's somewhat understandable but I think it would be quite off-putting for anyone wanting to debate him. I eventually stopped watching his videos because of that anger. Same with a number of blokes speaking our against SJW folly. As much as I agreed with most of what they had to say the anger was too much.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Sat May 27, 2017 1:45 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:For example, Dan attempted to represent me as having never agreed with any of Trump's views. That is definitely dishonest and misleading, and I demonstrated that was the case.
Liar.
This is what you said, and I quote:
You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.
I clearly demonstrated that I agree with a number of Trump's values, and that in some ways I also approve of his mentality (at least when compared to that of Clinton).

I don't believe that Trump is "sub-human", in the sense that David does.

Dan says that all people who supported Trump instead of Clinton, in the face of what Trump says, are "deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible."
Liar.
This is what you said, and I quote:
that people who stood before this man and heard him declare unto them that, "Only I can fix it." and "I will give you everything." - each time to rapturous cheers - and still voted for him, are, indeed, deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sat May 27, 2017 1:49 pm

Since we don't allow images, just imagine a big fat picture of a Captain Picard facepalm.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden » Sat May 27, 2017 3:41 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You don't think that the anti-SJW crusaders are doing the same thing? Of course they are.
No, they're not trying to do it by force, which the authoritarian left are trying to do.
They find ways to silence people. Take Trump himself, for example. When his ghostwriter for 'Art of the Deal', Tony Schwartz, began to speak out against Trump becoming President, Trump had his lawyer (and Executive Vice President of the Trump Organisation) send him a cease and desist order and demand that Schwartz return all royalties earned from writing the book.

This is one of the ways that the authoritarian 'right', at least those with means and money, tries to silence people.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 27, 2017 8:28 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Can you provide a link which properly describes this matter?
Here's one such case.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04 ... ur-choice/

You can also look up people like Veemonro or Sargon of Akaad, who are desperately looking for SJWs to debate them, but the SJWs regard it to be immoral to speak with unbelievers.
Just two quick examples from many developments here, first only happened days ago, the second a few weeks back.

1- Twitter Germany blocked this tweet from Geert Wilders who is a main "new right" opposition figure in Dutch politics, being the second largest party. The tweet in question called for "de-islamatication " of society after Manchester, in the context of promoting Western values of progress which he links to Judea-Christian heritage and enlightenment thinking. Please note that I disagree with Wilders overall and despise many of his tactics and overt populism. And yet he'd never shut anyone else down for some uncomfortable or despicable view.

2- Dutch politicians and known media figures openly pushing for defunding (by shaming advertisers) a major "alternative", provocative, utterly non-PC news outlet called Geenstijl ("Tasteless") because they allowed, even encouraged, sexual comments to appear underneath a picture of a journalist criticizing their particular usage of female nudity. See Advertisers boycott controversial Dutch sites over sexism claims. Note that GeenStijl also is extremely critical on the establishment, the SJW overall, the EU, handling of Ukraine etc. Coincedence?

The above is similar to the case in the US where "Sleeping Giants" calls for advertisers to stop appearing on Breitbart, for example because they post the views of feminist academic Dr Emily Grossman on why women might drop out of science and maths at such a rate.

One would think the men at Genius Forum might get a little alerted when news sites or politicians get shut down after writing about gender issues or the dangers of a rising influx of religion into their "valued" modern society!

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 27, 2017 8:48 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You don't think that the anti-SJW crusaders are doing the same thing? Of course they are.
No, they're not trying to do it by force, which the authoritarian left are trying to do.
They find ways to silence people. Take Trump himself, for example. When his ghostwriter for 'Art of the Deal', Tony Schwartz, began to speak out against Trump becoming President, Trump had his lawyer (and Executive Vice President of the Trump Organisation) send him a cease and desist order and demand that Schwartz return all royalties earned from writing the book.

This is one of the ways that the authoritarian 'right', at least those with means and money, tries to silence people.
That's reaching Dan. That Tony Schwartz is attacked because he first fully endorsed the content of the book and the perfect collaboration but only later, after all the cash flows ran dry, turns around and makes himself the victim of deception.

In any case, this has very little to do with silencing people or news papers. If that's all you can think of, it would mean there's really not much going on in that regard we have to worry about then! At least give us the exclusion of certain journalists during White House briefings at some point as "punishment". That would have been more interesting to talk about.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 27, 2017 8:53 pm

Dan Rowden wrote:Sure, he's quite calm when speaking to people he ostensibly agrees with. Most of his later videos he says 'fuck' every second sentence. His anger is palpable. That's somewhat understandable but I think it would be quite off-putting for anyone wanting to debate him. I eventually stopped watching his videos because of that anger. Same with a number of blokes speaking our against SJW folly. As much as I agreed with most of what they had to say the anger was too much.
It might mean you're just getting old. It's well known, at least to me, that new media and younger fucking audiences in general are now being addressed with CRAAAzy moronic hyperboles so that their depraved cunt-centered mind are able to absorb it in between all the fucking tweeting, assholic facing and shitty apping.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat May 27, 2017 9:22 pm

David Quinn wrote: Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the anti-SJW crusaders achieve their goal of bringing down the entire realm of left-wing political correctness and the SJWs are no longer able to exert their influence on the world. What then? Will people be valuing wisdom and truth with any more vigour? Will egotism have diminished in any way? I think we both know the answer to that. Once the SJWs are gone, other truth-hating forces will simply flow in and fill the void. New types of "SJWs" will come to the fore, and we will be back to square one.
But if these "SJW" phenomena are deeply linked to egotism and feminine mindsets having gone wild while being institutionalized in a progressive but rather naive society, attempts to "bring it down" or just counter could expose any deeper issues and the resistance will naturally rise. Also as pure exposition it seems like a wonderful angle in itself.
So spiritually speaking, it all seems like an awful lot of hard work and blowing of gaskets for very little gain. It is not addressing egotism at its root. It is merely hacking away at one of its branches.
In my view this particular branch has an unusual strong connection to the root: it seems to run very deep. As far as "gain", well, all philosophy could be examined that way, I suppose. As for now it's more a matter of noticing the rise of this particular weed all over the place. And personally I don't think in terms of "bringing down" anything or liberate the world. What the planet and its population as a whole is going to do, can only remain somewhat of a mystery since we simply lack the knowledge of all the details. A wise person will prefer a certain direction but only because his concern is wisdom. Any linkage to "gain" in any other meaning would be nothing but assumption without much evidence attached to it. Wisdom could easily prosper extremely well in a post-apocalyptic, scorched world for all we know!
David Quinn wrote:
But you missed my point: by removing resistance there's good reason to believe wisdom cannot develop properly since it needs challenges to overcome, to get to a peak high enough to call genius.
I wouldn't worry about that. Our egos inside us already generate plenty of resistance on that front. There is no need for us to add to it unnecessarily. Anyone who can overcome the resistance of their own ego will naturally and effortlessly reach the peak of genius.
One could use that very same argument and conclude simply that striving for any society "more supportive to wisdom" is just another instance of an "awful lot of hard work and blowing of gaskets for very little gain". There's already plenty of resistance as you noticed. One should wonder if safeguarding society in any way should have priority or somehow garner concern since "anyone who can overcome the resistance of their own ego" will effortlessly succeed in any case, right? So what little is gained by making it easier in one or two aspects?

Of course I'm pushing this issue into a somewhat black and white contrast to show underlying contradictions. My main point remains that it's completely unknown how a modern society would react to more exposure, more wisdom, more truthful reasoning on the infinite and so on. It's entirely speculative. For these kind of things one can only know ones own experiences and extrapolate. And that's really my point here: we should not make positions on politics, war, media and social mores the dividing line between what's wise and foolish or idiotic. Doing that is presumptive at best, ignorant and confused at its worst.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Sun May 28, 2017 3:00 am

Dan Rowden wrote:
jupiviv wrote:In any case, it is not the (technically) record number of deportations under the Obama administration that are the issue, but Hillary's plans to defend and expand the Obama administration's attempts to circumvent the plenary authority of the Congress over immigration policy.
The Congress has no such authority over immigration. It therefore cannot be 'circumvented'.
A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations, e.g. the granting of federal pardons by the President. It is derived from the Latin term plenus ("full").
Dan Rowden wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:For example, Dan attempted to represent me as having never agreed with any of Trump's views. That is definitely dishonest and misleading, and I demonstrated that was the case.
Liar.
Dan says that all people who supported Trump instead of Clinton, in the face of what Trump says, are "deluded and insane and no other sensible judgement is possible."
Liar.
Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977)

This Court has repeatedly emphasized that "over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over" the admission of aliens.

Since you don't allow images, just imagine a gif of a gyrating juvenile. Actually, fuck it.

INB4 image fatwa [note from Dutch moderator: please don't embed animations to express a brief feeling - thanks!]

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Sun May 28, 2017 5:19 am

Dan Rowden wrote:Trump had his lawyer (and Executive Vice President of the Trump Organisation) send him a cease and desist order
If you believe that someone has broken the law, in the case of libel, then it's perfectly normal, and indeed expected by the courts, to send them a "cease and desist" letter, in advance of further actions.

Whether the person has in fact broken the law needs to be determined by the courts. If found guilty then the ghost writer may have to pay Trump a lot more than he ever earned by writing the book.

It's not fair to call it "silencing" if it is about bringing justice.

Likewise with the media. If they are publishing stories which are false, and which cause harm, and for which they do not have strong justification, then there should be severe penalties.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Sun May 28, 2017 12:47 pm

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You don't think that the anti-SJW crusaders are doing the same thing? Of course they are.
No, they're not trying to do it by force, which the authoritarian left are trying to do.
Some of your own comments:

“I agree with Bannon in so far as the establishment needs to be completely dismantled - especially the media, and education, universities, etc. “

"Search the internet for "fake news" and you'll see how informed the mainstream media are. They find it impossible to report the truth. In my view the establishment is a religious institution that badly needs to be torn down.”

"If I were [Trump] I would probably ban most of the reporters from the mainstream media from his press conferences, and only provide entry for people based on their merit as real journalists who report the facts. "

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Not only are they trying to impose their values on everyone else
It's not "imposing" when you spread your values in a civilized way, using the processes of democracy and persuasion.
That is absolute bullshit. You are LYING. Your comprehension skills are non-existent. You are deeply delusional. Nobody cares what you think. You are making a fool of yourself. Your brain has turned to mush. You are living in a fantasy world.

Can you give me an example of anti-SJWs trying to shut down educational institutions. I haven't seen that.
“I agree with Bannon in so far as the establishment needs to be completely dismantled - especially the media, and education, universities, etc. “

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:For thousands of years, religious fundamentalism has suppressed the truth far more pervasively and violently than left-wing advocates ever will.
You obviously don't know about communist regimes around the world.
And yet I somehow managed to speak with Diebert about the topic earlier in this thread.

They have performed pretty much every evil you will ever see in religion, if not more.
That is because these regimes were essentially religious in nature themselves.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:And yet Kevin Solway has somehow seen fit to team up with these very same fundamentalists
Once again you are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
Leaving aside the medieval-style fundamentalism which permeates the Republican party and the Trump administration, your hero and good buddy, Milo Yiannopoulos, who you want to team up with to do town hall style debates, is himself a Christian fundamentalist and a very muddle-headed one at that. For example, he claims that "everywhere that doesn’t have a good Christian heritage is a fucked-up place with bad morals", and "ultimately our sense of right and wrong comes from the Bible" (Joe Rogan Smacks Up Milo Yiannopoulos).

I would feel guilty if I was associating with him too.

If I wanted to be equally as illogical as yourself then I could say that you are teaming up with the SJWs and communists.
From the Solway/Trump thread: "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"."

You're not even pretending to be consistent anymore, Kevin. I can see why you like Trump.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn » Sun May 28, 2017 1:19 pm

I'm making this my last post in this thread, and on this topic. The whole anti-SJW fracas, in its current form, disgusts me. It is like watching a screaming fight between a couple going through a very messy divorce. Dan mentioned the extreme anger which drives these people and how off-putting it is. Who in their right mind would want to be involved with that kind of frenzy? Not me at least.

What disgusts me the most is seeing grown men raging with hysterical fury at a bunch of women (who are children, mentally speaking), simply because they won't go along with what these men want. It is like watching adults shouting hysterically at young children. How undignified can you get? There are genuine issues involved, but at the moment they are being swamped by torrents of hate and vindictiveness that make resolution impossible and only serves to drag everyone down. There is nothing healthy about it.

I've got better things to do with my life. So adios!

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun May 28, 2017 4:37 pm

David Quinn wrote:I'm making this my last post in this thread, and on this topic. The whole anti-SJW fracas, in its current form, disgusts me. It is like watching a screaming fight between a couple going through a very messy divorce. Dan mentioned the extreme anger which drives these people and how off-putting it is. Who in their right mind would want to be involved with that kind of frenzy? Not me at least.

What disgusts me the most is seeing grown men raging with hysterical fury at a bunch of women (who are children, mentally speaking), simply because they won't go along with what these men want. It is like watching adults shouting hysterically at young children. How undignified can you get? There are genuine issues involved, but at the moment they are being swamped by torrents of hate and vindictiveness that make resolution impossible and only serves to drag everyone down. There is nothing healthy about it.

I've got better things to do with my life. So adios!
Fair enough but hard to ignore the irony here since it was you personally starting the topic initially, announcing and discussing some kind of "divorce" at this forum. Only now it didn't go your way or the responses of various people were questioning various aspects, and you and Dan kept responding again and again now in a second older thread on the topic, it's suddenly the obsession of the other. Ah well. It's the thing driving men insane in their divorces, according to the Rich Zubaty types so there's nothing new under the sun.

If there's actual genuine "anger" here in these discussions, that's hard to say. If "idiot" and "bullshit" are indicators, then a lot of people have been wound up to some degree. But I see it as voiced frustration with what sometimes looked like abuse of logic and various misinterpretations of statements. What can be concluded however, is that there are some deeper differences in worldview, ideology and "eschatology" showing. And various surprisingly deep attachments to these ideas as well.

The most surprising discovery for me is to learn how deeply wedged the "wisdom of the infinite" has become to certain ideas about organization of society, morality, hopes for the future, interpretation of news stories and so on. That is a worrying development. It's true that a wise man will bring his own being in how he acts in the world and therefore his positions on politics. But to turn that into some kind of battle with fellow men, with fellow wise men, does not make sense. When that happens it would be best to investigate the foundations again and try to understand where the attachments have grown instead of just assuming the other has walked away from wisdom. It's tempting to start thinking in that direction but I realize now nobody walked away from anything. That's a realization with profound consequences.

Did anyone participating in these discussions ever really changed that much in any regards on their politics or world view? Perhaps we just see limitations or particularities of persons which always were there but less important in a context of the absolute. Which would indicate that any translation of eternal wisdom to some practical orientation in life should be eyed suspiciously and might be wrought with potential contradictions and flaws. Why? Because our positions in life are caused by too many things: upbringing, education, intellectual capacity, social identity, habit, belief in a future, trust in goodness or society or faith in the reason of a dominant civic order and so on. All these things will vary and thus shape our orientation no matter how similar the starting point is in terms of the fundamental truths of existence.

Is it impossible then to develop any truly wise orientation on life, politics, media and future developments? Of course I believe it's possible. But it's very difficult: one might need to drill down to a couple of fundamental processes in society and evaluate like they do in social sciences or anthropology. But often it's entering the realm of academic thought: it cannot be claimed as core truth on life or existence. Too many variables, too many uncertainties attached.

The challenge for any man of the infinite would be to rise above it, to keep rising above himself, to keep overcoming himself.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv » Mon May 29, 2017 6:48 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Did anyone participating in these discussions ever really changed that much in any regards on their politics or world view? Perhaps we just see limitations or particularities of persons which always were there but less important in a context of the absolute. Which would indicate that any translation of eternal wisdom to some practical orientation in life should be eyed suspiciously and might be wrought with potential contradictions and flaws. Why? Because our positions in life are caused by too many things: upbringing, education, intellectual capacity, social identity, habit, belief in a future, trust level in the goodness of society or faith in the reason of a dominant civic order and so on. All these things will vary and shape our orientation no matter how similar the starting point is in terms of truths of existence.
I supported one or another worldview at different points in my life, but at bottom I was always a social, political and religious atheist. The real problem is the unwillingness to apply logic to A while being perfectly willing to apply it to B, based on sexual attraction, longing for maternal love, upbringing, education and so on influencing positively or negatively as the case may be.

Take David's apparently new-found obsession with the "progressive movement". Whatever doesn't support his ridiculous definition of the "progressive movement" is part of the "religious conservative movement". Much of progressive thinking relies on fantasies about scientific and technological progress to support the idea that ignorance, suffering and immorality can be innovated away by said "progress". It is *typically* magical thinking, but the fact that it uses scientific vocabulary makes it more rational than the "conservative movement". The fact that the latter can be characterised, equally as validly, in *exactly* the same way as the former is apparently lost on him. In fact, that sort of characterisation seems to be the core of Milo, Bannon et al's philosophy.

At bottom, all of this boils down to the fear of being *alone*, which is the greatest and most primal fear, trumping even that of starvation or loss. No one fears death, but to be alone in the world is to die to it. If you can't agree with anyone on some basic level, then you also have no reason to love anyone, regardless of whether they are your parents, wife, son, relatives, liberally-minded friends etc. Modernity has slain many foes, but not this one. At best, it can tattoo itself with aspects of it like hunters emulating the appearances of predators. The whole of post-modernism seems to be a reaction to the human mind's inability to come to terms with this fear in the spare time afforded by all the contentment and security.

So Kevin's observation that people think in an extremely deluded way because they want approval from others is spot on. What does it matter if this approval comes from liberals, mammy, imam, Trump fans etc.? I've said this before on this forum in a pm or a post, but anyways, Kevin's first Youtube pm to me was - if you pursue wisdom, you can never make a woman happy. It is a testament to his wisdom that I'm still regularly reminded of that single sentence.

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

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue May 30, 2017 1:19 pm

David Quinn wrote:[quoting me]“I agree with Bannon in so far as the establishment needs to be completely dismantled - especially the media, and education, universities, etc. “
That's right. They need to be dismantled and then rebuilt from the ground up. Not through violence, but through reason and democratic processes.
"If I were [Trump] I would probably ban most of the reporters from the mainstream media from his press conferences, and only provide entry for people based on their merit as real journalists who report the facts. "
This is what we expect of our political leaders. You don't allow access to press conferences in the Whitehouse to just anyone. Certain standards need to be met.

Can you give me an example of anti-SJWs trying to shut down educational institutions. I haven't seen that.
“I agree with Bannon in so far as the establishment needs to be completely dismantled - especially the media, and education, universities, etc. “
Again, I have said that they need to be rebuilt. You are leaving that part out. And it needs to be done democratically and in a civilized way, and not through violence. In the U.S the Universities are increasingly being run by the radical left-wing students, and this is not the way it should be.

They have performed pretty much every evil you will ever see in religion, if not more.
That is because these regimes were essentially religious in nature themselves.
That's correct, and the authoritarian left, the SJWs, and the feminists, are religious in nature.

Milo . . . a Christian fundamentalist
He's certainly a deluded Christian, but I haven't seen evidence that he's a fundamentalist, who seeks to believe every word literally.

Again, there are "religious" people on both sides, so you're not making any kind of a point here. The fundamentalist Islamists are on the side of the left.

"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.

Post Reply