Trumpism

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Eric Schiedler »

It was said earlier (and not by me, for I believe it was jupiviv) (edit: it was Diebert) that a positive effect of Trump's behavior is the recent flurry of "letters between enemies" here on this forum.

In my view, this demonstrates two truths. One, the future lives of our actions have far-reaching, subtle and unintended consequences. Two, evil, ignorant behavior can cause sufficient suffering in others to inspire them to re-examine their relationship to Truth. In this manner, minds that turn away from Truth can become causes for effects that turn minds towards Truth. The source of our True Selves can not be found only in actions of merit and this in turn demands from the individual an attitude of submission to the ways of Nature.



Eric Schiedler
Last edited by Eric Schiedler on Mon May 22, 2017 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eric Schiedler
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:13 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Eric Schiedler »

Among people who attribute worldly success to talent (and in that respect use the colloquial sense of the word "genius"), they are egotistically dazzled by scale. The demands of business require the conscious manipulation of patterns of emotional behavior in others. Think of advertising for legal drugs, celebrity endorsements or luxury clothing design as a few examples. It is a low-level talent, but still is nevertheless a consistent and focused use of consciousness, albeit one that is only one step above the animal realms of the consumers.

But the actual total wealth created is arrived at rather randomly. The same talented businessman may make $5 million dollars, or $500 million, or lose it all one day. The survivorship fallacy of this process, a filtering effect, is used to identify those that emerge with a pile of loot and their actions using talent are described in glowing terms in biographies (hagiographies, to me seems to be a more accurate term). This is talent that has a small faint glow of genius, if there is any drive to genius there at all.



Edit: add signature
Eric Schiedler
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Eric, interesting thoughts and I generally agree.

It was me who said something about that effect, being it positive or negative (one could wonder at this stage):
Diebert wrote:well at least Trump brought already two founders back to their creation. Which would confirm my theory that just his brand, his shadow has the power to ignite some energy in people, positive or negative.
Currently I believe, simply because of the utter lack of evidence of the contrary, that people world wide, especially Dan and David are getting caught up in this energy, thereby possibly widening rifts already present but perhaps not being an issue in the past under the uniting flag of several common goals or projects. Perhaps it was even snowed under because of distractions. And it's perfectly natural, to me at least, to see thinkers deviate and disagree all the way, about many things. Occasionally they can agree, like I'm fairly compatible with Jupiviv on world affairs but we seem to be at opposite ends on a few but not all philosophical topics. Or we approach certain things from opposite angles at least, which created a few interesting discussions.

As for your second post, I think you err here on two details: first of all the biography I was reading is not flattering in any sense. Considering who wrote this, it should be clear they are not in the business of making look Trump great in any way. And believe me (ha!)-- they don't, it's a total unmasking potentially. Secondly I think you missed the point, at least the question I raised on the possibility of calling some aspect genius of some kind. Here's what I actually wrote:
  • The image of a man who somehow, possibly purely on instinct, seizes each and every opportunity to move on, to somehow get the fundamental issue of a situation and capitalizes on it. Could you call it genius?
With 'capitalizing' I wasn't even thinking of wealth or financial successes (as it happens, assessments of that during various stages of his life vary wildly). It was purely meant as opportunism and even a cursory glance at mainstream commentary shows terms like 'astute' or even 'ultimate' opportunist. Not by being anti-immigrant, protectionist and strongly nationalistic since he always has voiced those opinions, also in times this didn't gain him much applause by any masses. It's probably just what he learned in real estate, this zero-sum dealing, and he sticks with it as "golden" rule. So how is he opportunistic?
  • Trump is an astute opportunist who is incredibly smart, recognizes his audiences, and plays to their ignorance -- capitalizing on their anger, fears, and sense of victimization to further his political stature. It's classic, dictionary-definition demagoguery -- Huff Post
Better writers than me have struggled with the at times "genius" looking aspects of the capitalization as well:
  • But at some point we need to step back and wonder — is this man a genius? Not in the ordinary, comfortable sense of the term. Not a Yo-yo Ma sense of “genius” — incredibly talented, endlessly decent, the perfect conversationalist. Instead, “genius” in an idiot savant sense of genius. However clumsy, or repulsive, or pathological, a genius in just the ability to see just the right move, even when that move is “obviously the wrong move” according to everyone else.
    -- by Lessig , Harvard Professor of Law, political left
Of course, strangely enough, when I speculate with similar cautious terms, it's called out to be the most idiotic thing ever! This is just to indicate we're dealing here most likely with some emotional issue more than it's about applying measured reason or establishing value. Deeper rifts and suspicions will not lead to any resolution as the "Trump energy", any political core topic really and also time itself only widens the cracks and will not move to any more unity, usually.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS . . .
Trump believes that bills should be paid for, and that you shouldn't spend more than you earn.
Oh FFS.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:So this is what it has come down to: “Everyone's perspective is equally valid”. “Everyone is unique and special”. “We are all geniuses”.
That's not what Weininger is arguing.

That’s right. It was you, Diebert, and jupiviv who were doing the arguing. For some strange reason, all three of you suddenly decided that you wanted to stretch and distort the concept of genius so that it could include the subhuman mentality of Trump.

No need to bring Weininger into it. He is too busy turning over in his grave.

Kevin Solway wrote:To my knowledge, nobody has speculated that Trump actually is a genius, so this would be a figment of your imagination.
*sigh*
  • Diebert: The image of a man who somehow, possibly purely on instinct, seizes each and every opportunity to move on, to somehow get the fundamental issue of a situation and capitalizes on it. Could you call it genius? In some bizarre way perhaps.
  • jupiviv: However, what endears Trump - as a person if not anything else - to me is the boldness with which he upholds the *pretense* that it can work...... If spirit is what we really are, and genius the expression of spirit, then there is indeed genius in that.
  • Solway: It can indeed be argued that Trump has a "kind" of genius, in the broadest sense of the word. I don't know if I'd agree with that argument, but it can certainly be argued. It cannot be absolutely proven that he doesn't.
Kevin Solway wrote:When a person has achieved all that Trump has achieved, it's perfectly natural that some people will speculate that he achieved it through some kind of genius.
What exactly has Trump achieved? He hasn’t produced anything of value. He contributes nothing to higher thought. He doesn’t raise the level of discourse in the community. He doesn’t inspire anyone to greater things. Quite the reverse, he lowers and debases everything. Everything he touches turns to shit.

Looking at his life overall, he inherited millions of dollars from his father, as well as his cruel bullying streak, invested it in glitzy real estate with mixed success, often running his businesses into the ground and walking away from the resulting debts, frequently ripping off people by simply not paying them for their work and then using bullying legal tactics to scare anyone off who objected, getting himself involved in thousands of lawsuits and generally spending his time each day deceiving people with empty promises and blatant lies. How could any of this possibly be considered an achievement, let alone an act of genius?

On a related note, this raises a concern I have about Trump's intentions in the coming months. Normally, when one of his businesses reaches the state that his White House administration is currently in - i.e. flailing about in turmoil with the authorities closing in - he just runs the business into the ground, declares bankruptcy, walks away from all the damage and debt, sues the life out of anyone who dares to call him into account, and goes off and seeks another bunch of suckers to fleece. It’s a process that has worked well for him for his whole life. But what about when it comes to the White House? There is only one America, after all. There is no escape route for when he bungles things. He can’t possibly treat the White House as a failing business, can he?

It concerns me that this is exactly what he is trying to do. If you look at the way he is behaving - sowing as much chaos and confusion as possible, undermining the media, undermine democratic norms, politicizing the judiciary, engaging in divisive demagoguery, being flippant with classified information, decimating the federal government by not appointing heads of staff and senior employees, and so on and so forth - it all begins to look like Trump is engaged in a sustained campaign to weaken America - indeed, weaken it to the point of collapse. The idea is to create unprecedented levels of turmoil, drive America as much as possible into the ground, present himself to his idiot followers that only he can save them from the chaos, and then use law and order/state of emergency strategies to strengthen and consolidate his power.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.
You are speculating, and your speculations are mistaken. There is no evidence that I have abandoned any of my values, and you haven't provided any evidence that I have.
That’s not true, of course. We have already touched on Trump’s environmental vandalism in a previous discussion. What was your response then? It was an indifferent shrug, wasn’t it?

Trump is firmly in bed with the Christian fundamentalists. For example, he has stopped funding to medical clinics who provide information about abortion (thus, both curtailing free speech and increasing over-population pressures). His education cabinet pick, Betsy DeVos, is a religious fundamentalist who seeks to "advance God's kingdom" by greatly increasing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in schools.

That will do to begin with. The is plenty more, but I can't be bothered detailing it all. The list is already big enough. The survival of the species, the importance of coherent thought, the cause of atheism - disposable values, all of them.

Kevin Solway wrote:If you think it is "strange" why some few people might speculate that Trump has some kind of genius, then you don't know anything about human nature.
I certainly might expect a fundamentalist Christian or an uneducated redneck to speculate whether a Trump is a genius, for they don’t know any better. They have no conception of what genius is to begin with, and they are easily dazzled by Trump’s sub-human shenanigans. But the sight of supposedly wise thinkers on Genius Forum also being dazzled by Trump’s sub-human shenanigans and speculating about whether they are acts of genius? That’s just embarrassing.

What next?
  • “It can indeed be argued that Oprah Winfrey has a "kind" of genius, in the broadest sense of the word. I don't know if I'd agree with that argument, but it can certainly be argued. It cannot be absolutely proven that she doesn't. After all, Winfrey does have hundreds of millions of dollars, and she was voted a number of times the most popular celebrity on TV. That counts for something. Weininger argues that all people have some degree of genius, so it's not an outrageous thing to claim that Winfrey has, in some limited manner, made use of what she has. Simply doing your own thing is a "kind" of genius, and no-one will disagree that she does that.”
Inspiring stuff. It sounds like something Oprah herself could have said. Perhaps we can publish it in the Life and Death magazine.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals
Exactly the same thing can be said about the left. You are not making any rational point.
I agree that it can be said about a few pockets of the left, but most of the left is comprised of sensible, intelligent people who understand things like scientific principles, the importance of government transparency and the rule of law. By contrast, 95% of the right consists of people who wouldn't know a scientific principle or a rational thought if they stumbled over one.

The liberal establishment has its flaws, but it is also where nearly all the first-rate people reside. The top scientists, academics, writers, philosophers, military leaders, medical practitioners - that is to say, anyone who possesses genuine expertise and sophisticated thought-processes are naturally part of the liberal establishment and nearly all of them to a tee are utterly horrified at the spectacle of Trump shitting all over the Oval Office.

So in your ham-fisted attempt to oppose the left, you are not only placing yourself in opposition to the college kids and wack-jobs who make up the "authoritarian left", but you are also placing yourself in opposition to the greatest minds and highest quality individuals that are alive today. Well done.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:
Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:So this is what it has come down to: “Everyone's perspective is equally valid”. “Everyone is unique and special”. “We are all geniuses”.
That's not what Weininger is arguing.

That’s right. It was you, Diebert, and jupiviv who were doing the arguing.


NOBODY has argued that all people are geniuses. So your comprehension skills are non-existent.

Diebert: The image of a man who somehow, possibly purely on instinct, seizes each and every opportunity to move on, to somehow get the fundamental issue of a situation and capitalizes on it. Could you call it genius? In some bizarre way perhaps.[/list]
Diebert is NOT saying that Trump is a genius, but is speculating whether he HAS something which COULD be called genius in "some bizarre way".

So your comprehension skills are non-existent.

However, what endears Trump - as a person if not anything else - to me is the boldness with which he upholds the *pretense* that it can work...... If spirit is what we really are, and genius the expression of spirit, then there is indeed genius in that.
Likewise, Jupiviv is NOT saying that Trump is a genius, but is suggesting that there is genius "in" expressing spirit. Again, your comprehension skills are non-existent.

Solway: It can indeed be argued that Trump has a "kind" of genius, in the broadest sense of the word. I don't know if I'd agree with that argument, but it can certainly be argued. It cannot be absolutely proven that he doesn't.
Saying that "It can be argued that Trump has a 'kind' of genius" is neither arguing that Trump is a genius, and nor is it speculating whether Trump is a genius, and nor is it speculating whether he has some kind of genius.

So again, your comprehension skills are non-existent.

Kevin Solway wrote:When a person has achieved all that Trump has achieved, it's perfectly natural that some people will speculate that he achieved it through some kind of genius.
What exactly has Trump achieved?
I've already mentioned what Trump has achieved, and that's the reason I would expect that some people would speculate whether he has some kind of genius.

He doesn’t inspire anyone to greater things.
You definitely don't know that. You are speculating, and I don't trust your speculations.

Kevin Solway wrote:There is no evidence that I have abandoned any of my values, and you haven't provided any evidence that I have.
That’s not true, of course. We have already touched on Trump’s environmental vandalism in a previous discussion. What was your response then? It was an indifferent shrug, wasn’t it?
No, you are LYING. I specifically said that I don't agree with Trump's views on the environment. I didn't say that I don't care about Trump's views on the environment. So your comprehension skills are non-existent.

Kevin Solway wrote:If you think it is "strange" why some few people might speculate that Trump has some kind of genius, then you don't know anything about human nature.
I certainly might expect a fundamentalist Christian or an uneducated redneck to speculate whether a Trump is a genius
Again, I don't know anyone who is speculating that Trump is a genius. You are living in a fantasy world.

They have no conception of what genius is to begin with
Genius means different things to different people. You don't get to define how other people use the word genius, or how broadly they define it.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals
Exactly the same thing can be said about the left. You are not making any rational point.
I agree that it can be said about a few pockets of the left
No, it can be said about most of the left.

you are also placing yourself in opposition to the greatest minds and highest quality individuals that are alive today.
You are deeply delusional, and not just because you are resorting to the appeal to authority, which is a LOGICAL FALLACY.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Just a repeat of this earlier quote of Prof. Lessig, as it captures better what I was trying to say initially, where in hindsight, the choice of the word "genius" at the Genius Forum was not wise, considering all the obvious connotations. Then again, I do assume basic comprehension abilities where the context is being weighed and a bit of common sense remains present.
Lessig wrote:But at some point we need to step back and wonder — is this man a genius? Not in the ordinary, comfortable sense of the term. Not a Yo-yo Ma sense of “genius” — incredibly talented, endlessly decent, the perfect conversationalist. Instead, “genius” in an idiot savant sense of genius. However clumsy, or repulsive, or pathological, a genius in just the ability to see just the right move, even when that move is “obviously the wrong move” according to everyone else
-- Lessig , Harvard Professor of Law, political left
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:There is only one America, after all. There is no escape route for when he bungles things. He can’t possibly treat the White House as a failing business, can he?
Let's see, if the USA under Trump uses its geopolitical hegemony to preserve an outdated and obsolete reserve currency system that allows them to print an infinite amount of money and accrue an infinite amount of debt on the backs of other nations - would it be a failing business?
We have already touched on Trump’s environmental vandalism in a previous discussion.
What, like extracting limited resources from the earth, wasting them and pretending it isn't a problem or can always be solved with exponentially increasing waves of innovation?
Trump is firmly in bed with the Christian fundamentalists. For example, he has stopped funding to medical clinics who provide information about abortion (thus, both curtailing free speech and increasing over-population pressures). His education cabinet pick, Betsy DeVos, is a religious fundamentalist who seeks to "advance God's kingdom" by greatly increasing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in schools.
I only think the latter, i.e., teaching intelligent design in schools, is a legitimate concern. But to what extent? The US public school system has *far* bigger problems than religious subjects in its curriculum. What's the point of memorising what a text book has to say about evolution if you can't do basic math without a calculator? I myself attended both Christian and Hindu private "missionary" schools with religious curricula, but it didn't hamper my edumacation none.

What else do you have that Trump has done that threatens humanity's survival? Oh right, the executive orders, except that they have solid precedent, are mostly anodyne and can be overturned if interpreted as being unconstitutional. And, of course, Flynn (cue Star Wars theme). Well, what about him? That discussion cannot be had with the information we currently have access to, i.e., speculation based on gossip, militantly biased opinions and disconnected facts.
But the sight of supposedly wise thinkers on Genius Forum also being dazzled by Trump’s sub-human shenanigans and speculating about whether they are acts of genius? That’s just embarrassing.
I criticised Kevin's appraisal of Trump, but he didn't accuse me of irrationality because I disagree with him on what is essentially just tentative speculation about geopolitical events. And here you and Dan are accusing us of being irrational for changing the meaning of "genius" in order to apply it to Trump, even though all of us explicitly stated that the meaning has to be changed or broadened in order to do so. You're obsessing over a non-issue so you can prove that we are votaries of Trump, and thus justify your desire to solder liberal politics onto wisdom. That's what's embarrassing!
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just a repeat of this earlier quote of Prof. Lessig, as it captures better what I was trying to say initially, where in hindsight, the choice of the word "genius" at the Genius Forum was not wise, considering all the obvious connotations. Then again, I do assume basic comprehension abilities where the context is being weighed and a bit of common sense remains present.
Lessig wrote:But at some point we need to step back and wonder — is this man a genius? Not in the ordinary, comfortable sense of the term. Not a Yo-yo Ma sense of “genius” — incredibly talented, endlessly decent, the perfect conversationalist. Instead, “genius” in an idiot savant sense of genius. However clumsy, or repulsive, or pathological, a genius in just the ability to see just the right move, even when that move is “obviously the wrong move” according to everyone else
-- Lessig , Harvard Professor of Law, political left
And I’ll repeat an observation that I made in the Solway/Trump thread:
  • I see Trump as someone who is severely autistic - i.e. one who is highly developed in one specific area, while remaining undeveloped everywhere else. He is highly developed in the con-artist skill of instinctively reading people’s insecurities and fears and knowing how to take advantage of them by spinning them bullshit. He absolutely excels in that, but when it comes to anything else - whether it be structured thought, rationality, the ability to separate truth from fiction, a sense of humour, empathy for others, etc - it’s as though all those areas in his brain have withered away and died.
This, in my view, is Trump’s uniqueness. Because so many parts of him are severely undeveloped, they don’t act as a check to the one thing that he does excel at - namely, ruthlessly promoting himself at the expense of others. It’s not genius. He is, quite simply, a monstrosity. Or to use a more technical sounding term, he suffers from a severe form of arrested development. It's like he decided at the age of six that he didn't need to learn anything about the universe, that all he needed to do to get ahead in the world was to trip others up.

As for his supposed ability to see the “right move”, that is a very inadequate way of describing it. The key thing about Trump is that his words and actions are continually fracturing into dozens of tiny splinters. His speech is nearly always composed of half-formed, incomplete, ambiguous, flip-flopping sentences; his true intentions are continually hidden by his ever-changing attitudes - and normal people who value consistent behaviour and like to think in complete thoughts find it very difficult to handle him.

Trump is able to use this splintering to push people's buttons, to spin them big-sounding dreams, to nod and wink conspiratorially at specific groups (such as the white supremacists), and to wriggle out of being pinned down for anything he has said in the past. This is all second-nature to him, of course. Trump doesn't know any other way to behave. In every moment, he instinctively and effortlessly creates Rorschach blots for people to project whatever they want, which allows him to exploit them. And Trump, being severely undeveloped, has no shame whatsoever in exploiting them.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

David Quinn wrote:Trump is able to use this splintering to push people's buttons, to spin them big-sounding dreams, to nod and wink conspiratorially at specific groups (such as the white supremacists), and to wriggle out of being pinned down for anything he has said in the past. This is all second-nature to him, of course. Trump doesn't know any other way to behave. In every moment, he instinctively and effortlessly creates Rorschach blots for people to project whatever they want, which allows him to exploit them. And Trump, being severely undeveloped, has no shame whatsoever in exploiting them.
Based on that description, which I find quite reasonable overall, one does have to ask the question if this is not again adding some amazing capacities to Trump, like "instinctively and effortlessly" making things go his way, which would be of course easier to do in show business or real estate bubbles than in government. But also that is still to be seen.

What do you mean with "severely undeveloped"? Like "morally" or like having a conscience? In any case, I do interpret this as agreeing with my earlier position after all and largely disagreeing with Dan. It's not "crazy" to see Trump intuitively and effortlessly creating situations where things can be manipulated on a big scale and somehow that caused the situation that there's no difference anymore between the appearance or image he created for himself and the present actuality, considering the job he entered. It's also consistent with what Trump believes about branding! Take these quotes from his earlier books:
  • Branding is a way of life, not an event. We know that it is the brand that enables us to fulfill our life’s purpose, so it is worth our energy and time
    -- Midas Touch (2001)
  • My cartoon is real. I am the creator of my own comic book, and I love living in it
    -- How to Get Rich (2004)


Ridiculing these statements can become problematic as they're made by someone who is clearly embodying his own belief. It's up to the rest of the world to tell him, or themselves: no the world doesn't work like that! But the question should be asked if modern society, especially American society does not exactly work as Trump senses and claims and not how people prefer to believe. This is why I value the truth finding in this situation. The rise of Trump as big clarifier and it doesn't need agreeing with anything he says or does, necessarily. It means: paying attention.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:I see Trump as someone who is severely autistic . . .
You don't seem to understand that nobody cares what you think of Trump, or whether you think half of the American population are "third rate" morons, and the other half are brilliant philosophers and scientists.

Your speculations are your own, and you're welcome to them, but don't pretend they are anything more than your personal speculations.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:You're obsessing over a non-issue so you can prove that we are votaries of Trump, and thus justify your desire to solder liberal politics onto wisdom.
What's wrong with liberal policies? Do you dislike freedom?
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:
jupiviv wrote:You're obsessing over a non-issue so you can prove that we are votaries of Trump, and thus justify your desire to solder liberal politics onto wisdom.
What's wrong with liberal policies? Do you dislike freedom?
Next you'll be saying, "What's wrong with social justice warriors? Do you dislike justice?"
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

It has become obvious to me that the reason David is continually using logical fallacies - such as the appeal to authority, guilt by association, appeal to popularity, and every other logical fallacy he can think of - is because he is concerned about the PERCEPTIONS of OTHER PEOPLE.

In other words, all the logical fallacies are irrelevant to him, because they are not the issue. To David, the issue is "What will other people think".

David is clearly not concerned about our perceptions of him, but he's concerned only about how those on the left side of politics will perceive him.

I want to make it clear that I don't care how anyone "perceives" me, no matter whether they are from the left or the right side of politics. In deciding how to live my life, I'm not going to take the self-ordained thought-police mafia into account.


It also raises the very interesting question of just how many people are purposely being extremely irrational, because they are seeking the approval of other people.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Trump is able to use this splintering to push people's buttons, to spin them big-sounding dreams, to nod and wink conspiratorially at specific groups (such as the white supremacists), and to wriggle out of being pinned down for anything he has said in the past. This is all second-nature to him, of course. Trump doesn't know any other way to behave. In every moment, he instinctively and effortlessly creates Rorschach blots for people to project whatever they want, which allows him to exploit them. And Trump, being severely undeveloped, has no shame whatsoever in exploiting them.
Based on that description, which I find quite reasonable overall, one does have to ask the question if this is not again adding some amazing capacities to Trump, like "instinctively and effortlessly" making things go his way, which would be of course easier to do in show business or real estate bubbles than in government. But also that is still to be seen.
It is an amazing capacity in a sense. With it being ingrained, instinctive and effortless, Trump doesn't have to put any thought into it. He doesn't have to engage in any kind of calculation. He can just let it flow without interruption. It is the reason why his fan base thinks he is honest, even though everyone else considers him to be a compulsive liar and a bullshit artist. His fans see him as someone who speaks his mind, who "tells it like it is", in an unfiltered way.

The instinctive nature of it also works to keeps everyone off-balance. Whenever he commits what seems to be a stupid blunder or an offensive remark that would normally be political suicide, yet makes him even more popular, his opponents can't decide if he is simply a mindless buffoon careening and lucking his way through life, or a mad Machiavellian genius engaged in all sorts of evil, cunning plots. The reality involves a combination of the two. He is indeed a mindless buffoon who bumbles along unfettered, but he has managed to cunningly tweak this bumbling in a manner that allows him to expertly confuse and exploit others.

(His speech patterns are good example of this. That meandering, incoherent stream of half-formed thoughts that is so peculiar to him is no accident. We are looking at decades of honing a style that has brought him more and more success at disarming people.)

This in turn gives him the confidence to believe that he can always win, no matter what the situation. He can turn any failure into a success, simply by spontaneously shifting the ground, or engaging in contradictory behaviour, or by being politically incorrect, which has the effect of bamboozling those around him. He also knows that he has a ruthless legal team that can sue the pants off of anyone who tries to get at him and hold him to account, which makes him feel safe enough to continue freewheeling.

It sets up a positive feed-back loop. Being able to turn any failure into success gives him confidence; confidence gives him the freedom to turn any failure into success.

What do you mean with "severely undeveloped"? Like "morally" or like having a conscience?
In many different ways. I have never seen Trump articulate a sophisticated thought. Or engage in a logical deduction. Or display dispassionate curiosity in the universe. Or reminisce with a light-hearted story. Or express warmth. Or empathize. Or laugh. He is very one-dimensional, so one-dimensional that nothing seems to block it.

In any case, I do interpret this as agreeing with my earlier position after all and largely disagreeing with Dan. It's not "crazy" to see Trump intuitively and effortlessly creating situations where things can be manipulated on a big scale and somehow that caused the situation that there's no difference anymore between the appearance or image he created for himself and the present actuality, considering the job he entered.
Yes, but don't forget that we are living in a very unique period that happens to suit Trump's peculiar set of characteristics down to the ground. It is unlikely that he would have made it to the White House without the existence of social media, for example, or without the widespread jadedness that twenty years of the internet has brought, or without the simmering build up of decades of Republican hysteria and conspiracy theories, and so on.

It's also consistent with what Trump believes about branding! Take these quotes from his earlier books:
  • Branding is a way of life, not an event. We know that it is the brand that enables us to fulfill our life’s purpose, so it is worth our energy and time
    -- Midas Touch (2001)
  • My cartoon is real. I am the creator of my own comic book, and I love living in it
    -- How to Get Rich (2004)


Ridiculing these statements can become problematic as they're made by someone who is clearly embodying his own belief.

Yes, it's like when a con-man, at the beginning of his career, has to create the appearance that he is a successful man. So he hires a flashy car and an expensive suit, the principle being that people will only believe you are a rich man and trust you with their money when you look like one. Trump works hard to ensure that his brand remains large and glitzy. He needs his gullible marks to see the brand and to believe in it; it is the tangible proof that he is indeed a great businessman. It is the essence of the con.

It's up to the rest of the world to tell him, or themselves: no the world doesn't work like that! But the question should be asked if modern society, especially American society does not exactly work as Trump senses and claims and not how people prefer to believe. This is why I value the truth finding in this situation. The rise of Trump as big clarifier and it doesn't need agreeing with anything he says or does, necessarily. It means: paying attention.
I understand and agree.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:I want to make it clear that I don't care how anyone "perceives" me, no matter whether they are from the left or the right side of politics.
Then why are you so sensitive to criticism and continually flying off the handle at the merest hint of an insult?

You never used to be like this.

David is clearly not concerned about our perceptions of him, but he's concerned only about how those on the left side of politics will perceive him.
It's more about not creating unnecessary barriers for people to embrace my spiritual work. In my judgment, those who are curious about wisdom tend to be educated and tend to come from the liberal establishment.

You remember Leo Bartoli, don't you? He was one of those types who was anally attached to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It made him tactless and unskillful in dealing with others. There is much more to spiritual life than simply being "truthful" to the exclusion of all else.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jupiviv »

David Quinn wrote:In my judgment, those who are curious about wisdom tend to be educated and tend to come from the liberal establishment.
How is this extension of the definition of wisdom (i.e., "genius") to an entire political demographic *not* identical to what you've been accusing us of doing?

Besides, curiosity about wisdom isn't wisdom. I could easily say that many people in the conservative establishment are "curious" about wisdom. The historical figures considered to be "geniuses" on this forum don't seem to have subscribed to any specifically left-wing ideas either.

Speaking of historical figures considered to be "geniuses", here are a few of them on "genius":

One thing is certain—every woman has this potential to soar up and be transfigured in nonsense with a lovableness, with an unconstraint, a sureness, that befits the weaker sex. As an honorable lover, one discovers every charm in the beloved. Having come across this genius, one does not leave it as a potential but rather develops it into a virtuosity. - Soren Kierkegaard, 19th century Danish pickup artist, alt right celebrity and music critic.

Good friends, people of the world originally have the knowledge of bodhi and prajna within them, but they cannot realize it themselves because of the wandering of the conditioned mind. - Huineng, patriarch of Chan Buddhism and avowed communist.

Creation-that is the great redemption from suffering, and life's growing light. But that the creator may be, suffering is needed and much change. Indeed, there must be much bitter dying in your life, you creators. Thus are you advocates and justifiers of all impermanence. To be the child who is newly born, the creator must also want to be the mother who gives birth and the pangs of the birth-giver. - Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century Christian feminist, stay-at-home dad of three and tireless pro-life activist.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

David Quinn wrote:Why are you so sensitive to criticism and continually flying off the handle at the merest hint of an insult?
I'm not sensitive to criticism but to LOGICAL FALLACIES, and insult is but one of the logical fallacies (e.g. "I'm right because you are fucking insane.").

Logical fallacies are the actual destruction of consciousness, and insult is probably the lowest and most desperate of all logical fallacies.

You never used to be like this.


I have always been equally intolerant of logical fallacies. And I have never believed in pandering to the small-mindedness and judgementalism of academics (whom you evidently regard to be "the greatest minds and highest quality individuals that are alive today"). The perceptions of deeply deluded people, who judge others based on the fallacy of association (including "identity", politics, and skin colour), and the fallacy of "truth in numbers", and the fallacy of "authority", should not be catered to in any way.

In my judgment, those who are curious about wisdom tend to be educated and tend to come from the liberal establishment.
In cases where educated people are interested in wisdom it isn't anything to do with being left wing - especially nowadays. In today's university, having any inclination towards wisdom will see you mercilessly stomped-on. That's why it's called "the regressive left". There's nothing "liberal" about it. It's a hellish prison of insanity.

You remember Leo Bartoli, don't you? He was one of those types who was anally attached to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I don't remember him having much of an idea of truth at all, so I don't see how he can be "attached to truth" if he doesn't even know what it is.

It made him tactless and unskillful in dealing with others.
That wouldn't have been anything to do with the truth.

There is much more to spiritual life than simply being "truthful" to the exclusion of all else.
Judging by what you've written in this thread, you definitely don't know anything about selling the truth. I wouldn't be interested in a sample of it if you paid me a thousand dollars.

Statements such as "You are placing yourself in opposition to the greatest minds and highest quality individuals that are alive today" would have to win a prize as the most condescending, judgemental drivel to have ever been spoken.

The people of which you speak are "the greatest minds and highest quality individuals that are alive today" TO YOU. Keep that last bit in mind. They are not my audience. My audience is not so quick to judge.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

jupiviv wrote:
David Quinn wrote:In my judgment, those who are curious about wisdom tend to be educated and tend to come from the liberal establishment.
How is this extension of the definition of wisdom (i.e., "genius") to an entire political demographic *not* identical to what you've been accusing us of doing?

Besides, curiosity about wisdom isn't wisdom. I could easily say that many people in the conservative establishment are "curious" about wisdom. The historical figures considered to be "geniuses" on this forum don't seem to have subscribed to any specifically left-wing ideas either.
We are probably using our terms a little differently here and therefore we may be at cross purposes.

When I speak about the “liberal establishment”, I am not referring to the current left-wing obsession with feminism, political correctness and identity politics and so on. Rather, I am talking about the progressive movement that began in the Middle Ages, which incorporated the scientific revolution and pushed, in the face of sustained and often violent resistance by the conservative classes, for social reforms that centered around the concept of equality before the law and individual rights.

This courageous movement placed value on truth, objective knowledge, education, and fairness right from the very start - and today we are all beneficiaries of it. I believe this important point sometimes gets lost in the whole anti-Clinton, anti-Democrats fracas which is occurring at the moment.

The conservative classes, by contrast, operate in a very different mind space. They fear the freedom and individuality of the progressive outlook. Freedom means thinking for yourself and assuming responsibility for your actions - which, from the conservative perspective, is tantamount to playing with the devil. The conservative culture requires its citizens to pledge loyalty to the community, to the nation, to the fundamentalist religion, to old school concepts of family, and so on. They prefer to submit to a strong charismatic leader than assume responsibility for their lives. Passivity and group-think are the hallmarks of conservatism.

I’m sure there are plenty of young people in the rust belts of America who, genetically at least, have the potential to understand and practice wisdom. But unfortunately, their culture destroys their minds from the very start.

So I don't go along with the idea that both sides of the political divide are equal, that the conservative mentality is just as conducive to wisdom as the progressive one. That’s clearly nonsensical. The progressive culture, with its emphasis on individuality and education, is vastly superior in every respect. It may have lost its way a little bit over the past few years, but looking at the bigger picture, its underlying principles remain sound.

Creation-that is the great redemption from suffering, and life's growing light. But that the creator may be, suffering is needed and much change. Indeed, there must be much bitter dying in your life, you creators. Thus are you advocates and justifiers of all impermanence. To be the child who is newly born, the creator must also want to be the mother who gives birth and the pangs of the birth-giver. - Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century Christian feminist, stay-at-home dad of three and tireless pro-life activist.
It is interesting that you quote Nietzsche, given that he ended up rejecting the kind of politics that currently drives the Republican/Trump supporters. As you probably know, he was for a while good friends with Richard Wagner, the noted composer who was obsessed with making Germany great again. But after dabbling in this for a while, Nietzsche came to see how petty and unspiritual the whole thing was. He severed his friendship with Wagner and openly denounced his politics, much to his personal and social cost. Good for him. He has my respect.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:Why are you so sensitive to criticism and continually flying off the handle at the merest hint of an insult?
I'm not sensitive to criticism but to LOGICAL FALLACIES, and insult is but one of the logical fallacies (e.g. "I'm right because you are fucking insane.").

Logical fallacies are the actual destruction of consciousness, and insult is probably the lowest and most desperate of all logical fallacies.
Then why do you continually pepper your posts with insults?

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You never used to be like this.

I have always been equally intolerant of logical fallacies. And I have never believed in pandering to the small-mindedness and judgementalism of academics (whom you evidently regard to be "the greatest minds and highest quality individuals that are alive today"). The perceptions of deeply deluded people, who judge others based on the fallacy of association (including "identity", politics, and skin colour), and the fallacy of "truth in numbers", and the fallacy of "authority", should not be catered to in any way.
You have here negatively judged a whole group of people simply on the basis of their association with academia.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:In my judgment, those who are curious about wisdom tend to be educated and tend to come from the liberal establishment.
In cases where educated people are interested in wisdom it isn't anything to do with being left wing - especially nowadays. In today's university, having any inclination towards wisdom will see you mercilessly stomped-on. That's why it's called "the regressive left". There's nothing "liberal" about it. It's a hellish prison of insanity.
What a load of hyperbolic nonsense. 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.

Go to a conservative campus and start talking about Buddhist wisdom and see how far it gets you.

Kevin Solway wrote:
David Quinn wrote:There is much more to spiritual life than simply being "truthful" to the exclusion of all else.
Judging by what you've written in this thread, you definitely don't know anything about selling the truth. I wouldn't be interested in a sample of it if you paid me a thousand dollars.
It gets you riled up easily enough. I’ll settle for that.

Atheists are so easy to wind up. I think it’s funny to take the piss out of them.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

You have here negatively judged a whole group of people simply on the basis of their association with academia.


No, I'm not judging people based on their "association", but on their actions. It wouldn't matter to me if they called themselves academics or business people, if their actions were the same.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by Kevin Solway »

I wish that David had made it clear from the very start that his primary concern was the perceptions of other people - specifically, deluded left-wing academics. It would have saved a lot of time.

So we can now understand that the whole thrust of David's words, his objections, his many speculations, his diagnoses of mental illness, his determinations of who is human and who is not, and his warped interpretations and misrepresentations, arise from his trying to view the world through the lens of deluded left-wing academics, whose perceptions are what really matter. Logical fallacies are no longer fallacies, and immorality is no longer immoral through the perception of deluded people.
jimhaz
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2002 7:28 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by jimhaz »

Left wingers gave you the dole you survive on.

Best you move to the US and get a job as a janitor where you can be directly involved in cleaning out the lefties in uni's. Not sure what your wage will be though. Minimum wage of course but how anyone would know what Trump's minimum wage policy might end up is beyond me. Whatever he half-thinks through, or assesses to his best advantage, on the day it seems.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... imum-wage/
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Trumpism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

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.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Trumpism

Post by David Quinn »

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.
Locked