Re: Trumpism
Posted: Thu May 18, 2017 9:17 pm
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
If I misrepresented your position, then it follows that you *don't* believe that anything less than outright hatred for Trump is irrational. Which, by extension, means that you consider *preference* for Trump to a certain extent to be rational. So, what is that extent, and why does it not apply to, say, Diebert calling him a genius in "some bizarre way perhaps", or me finding his foursquare bluster endearing?Dan Rowden wrote:Ask me a question that isn't a strawman and I'll respond.So why do you consider the expression of anything less than outright *hatred* for Trump irrational?
'Outright hatred' for Trump is not a characterisation of my position that I can relate to. Certainly I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is, but the core issue for me is the his standing as POTUS. There's nothing positive in that scenario, nothing to defend, mitigate, normalise or be remotely equivocal about. Frankly, Trump has turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I figured he'd be pretty bad.jupiviv wrote:If I misrepresented your position, then it follows that you *don't* believe that anything less than outright hatred for Trump is irrational.Dan Rowden wrote:Ask me a question that isn't a strawman and I'll respond.So why do you consider the expression of anything less than outright *hatred* for Trump irrational?
Opposing "literally everything the guy stands for and is" is the definition of outright hatred in my book. I don't even view hateful people that I know *personally* in that fashion, and I regularly meet a few of them.Dan Rowden wrote:'Outright hatred' for Trump is not a characterisation of my position that I can relate to. Certainly I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is, but the core issue for me is the his standing as POTUS. There's nothing positive in that scenario, nothing to defend, mitigate, normalise or be remotely equivocal about. Frankly, Trump has turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I figured he'd be pretty bad.
What Kevin actually said:In his current madness, Kevin seems to think viewing Trump in this way somehow means that you supported Clinton or think the 'establishment' is just fine.
Q.E.D. This is ideologically driven opposition par excellence. You also haven't presented any evidence or context because, I guess, these "facts of existence" are so obvious that it's "literally batshit" to expect such to be provided.I do, however, regard the idea that Clinton would have been worse than Trump to be literally batshit.
It's clear that none of us actually consider him to be a genius in any meaningful way. Diebert said that he is a genius in "a bizarre way" and I played on that notion. No one has built any narrative about Trump being a genius except you. So your problem isn't really with said non-existent narrative, but rather pontifex maximus Calvinus' unwillingness to subscribe to its antipode.Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing? I know that was Kevin's point but it's just utter bollocks. What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it?
He is a conscious and intelligent human being, and he is articulating the reasons for his opposition to certain things. The problem is that his opposition to those things are just words. He isn't opposing fiscal irresponsibility and warmongering any more than his predecessors, and his solutions to the problems he identifies correctly are either pulp fiction or invalid, or in some cases equally as bad as the problems themselves. But would Hillary or anyone else in the field do better in any significant way? I don't think so.Now, if it were the case that Trump were a conscious and intelligent human being and he was going against certain conventions and was able to articulate the reasons for it I'd have little issue with that.
Both you and David seem to use "executive orders" as an all-purpose term for Trump's supposed dismantling of democratic principles, but what specific harmful consequences of those executive orders are you referring to?He's literally fucking with the good stuff - the sound and reasonable principles and checks and balances of democratic governance.
We most definitely need the media for that, because none of us are personally present to witness or hear anything Trump does or says. You are even talking in terms of phrases the media has popularised about Trump: "executive orders", "Flynn" and so on.We don't actually need the media to form a sound and accurate view of how screwed up he and this Presidency is.
Ha ha. I cannot disagree more. Nothing I value would be hampered by the lack of information about what strangers consider to be interesting things happening around the world. Besides, the very notion that the the qualifier "free" makes things inherently good is risible as far as I'm concerned.A bad free media is still better than no media.
You definitely don't know everything Trump stands for, or is, so you are making a fool of yourself.Dan Rowden wrote:I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is
All you are doing on this forum is calling people insane who are not insane, and calling people idiots who are not idiots. And you are not making any kind of rational argument.[Speaking of me] In his current madness . . .
Kevin seems to think viewing Trump in this way somehow means that you supported Clinton or think the 'establishment' is just fine.
So this is what it has come down to: “Everyone's perspective is equally valid”. “Everyone is unique and special”. “We are all geniuses”.Kevin Solway wrote:Repeatedly saying that people are "insane" because they think Trump is superior to Clinton (and the SJWs) is pointless, because those people will in turn think that you are insane for having such thoughts. They see things which you do not see (whether it be a "streaker" or whatever), and you see things which they do not. Unless you have a clear proof that your vision is absolutely correct, and that the vision of others is mistaken, then you have nothing.
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. After all, Trump does have hundreds of millions of dollars, and was democratically elected as president of the most wealthy nation on earth, almost singlehandedly, and in the face of immense opposition. That counts for something. Weininger argues that all people have some degree of genius, so it's not an outrageous thing to claim that Trump has, in some limited manner, made use of what he has. Simply doing your own thing is a "kind" of genius, and no-one will disagree that he does that.
The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.They see things which you do not see (whether it be a "streaker" or whatever), and you see things which they do not. Unless you have a clear proof that your vision is absolutely correct, and that the vision of others is mistaken, then you have nothing.
It really is the strangest thing, isn't it?Dan Rowden wrote:Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing? I know that was Kevin's point but it's just utter bollocks. What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it? Is it about constructing some sort of weird apologia?
For me, it’s all unfolding exactly as I expected. I looked into his soul last August and saw immediately that Trump as president would be a disaster on every level. It’s all so very predictable.Dan Rowden wrote:Frankly, Trump has turned out to be much worse than I had anticipated and I figured he'd be pretty bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9MdW8RISCIDavid Quinn wrote:I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.
Like misrepresenting and character assassinating others, pretending you know more than you do and welding wisdom with politics?The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.
Actually, it's unfolding exactly as I expected (and wrote) months ago, i.e., Trump fitting in perfectly to the role of the "heel" who gets to pretend to be an agent of earth-shaking change (for good or bad, or good-good, or good-bad, or bad-good etc.) that never happens, while the rabble also pretends likewise because they can't make sense of the real changes which are occurring. Meanwhile, business as usual is sustained until it can't be. When it can't be, Trump takes the blame and nobly retires to a life of book deals and chat shows.For me, it’s all unfolding exactly as I expected. I looked into his soul last August and saw immediately that Trump as president would be a disaster on every level. It’s all so very predictable.
Please. It's not about a trivial disagreement about Trump, or any ideological difference, it's about a person who values and exhorts wisdom and declares himself to be one of the wisest men who has ever lived being hopelessly divorced from even the most trivial aspects of reality regarding Trump.jupiviv wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9MdW8RISCIDavid Quinn wrote:I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.
Seriously though, this is and was the real and *only* issue here. Kevin flatly disagreed with you about Trump/alt-right, which probably opened a psychological can of worms and lead to the issue of Trump/alt-right becoming the thing on which wisdom itself suddenly hinged. A sad spectacle indeed to watch an astute mind dilapidate.
A tiny bit of flexibility in language and perspective is suddenly too much now, David? Who is throwing what out of windows?David Quinn wrote:I remember when we used to laugh at the idiotic women and flaky new age charlatans who came on here spouting similar kinds of views. Where have those days gone, I wonder? Where is the determination to strictly associate genius with intelligence, wisdom, coherent thought, ethical awareness, etc? It has all been dumped out of the window.
What is interesting is that you seem to have trouble making any coherent argument the moment this particular topic arrives. You prefer perhaps some more radical "you're with my view or against it" kind of attitude? While for example me or Kevin, Jupiviv or Russell do not try to somehow make it mean that much apart as some occasional reaction to any attempt to make this topic into something absolute or extreme.There doesn’t seem to be any point in Kevin fighting those SJWs and feminists anymore. Clearly, they have already taken over his brain. The game is over. He has lost. That's the problem with becoming radicalized. You become the thing you hate.
That's an opinion which is not very accurate if at all as it leaves simply out the great many who are not "3rd rate" by that standard. It also implies Kevin and I must be third-rate and stupid. Must be! Which would create many contradictions when you'd start to think about it, would allow yourself to think about it more. Also the greatest ignorance, as explained by your own philosophy, has little to do with rating individuals just on intelligence, education, locality or private beliefs on worldly affairs. Truth goes way beyond all that.This is what gets me. It's clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals - e.g. 4chan trolls, Christian fundamentalists, conspiracy theorists, anti-science exponents, white supremacists, crude rednecks, and so on. In other words, the lowest of the low.
Ah yes, the "New York Times readership" or morally equivalent again as modern qualifier of being informed, knowledgeable and reasonable! It's perhaps the way things go, people go, sages go and how the forum ultimately has to go. Nothing goes beyond its own shadow after all.people who are actually informed, who value knowledge, and can think rationally.
But that's a matter of speculation or opinion, right? Right? You evaluate possible outcomes and estimate the things which might happen or might not happen, which outcomes jell with your preferences and which not. Mixed with the unpredictability of life and the world at large the question "who would be worse" is academic. It's opinion. Some calculated guess.Dan Rowden wrote:I do, however, regard the idea that Clinton would have been worse than Trump to be literally batshit. "Worse than Trump' isn't even a concept that makes any sense for me.
This thread is full of scathing criticism and analysis on Trump and you jump on this one warped comment. Really?Trump is 'some kind of' genius because he does his own thing?
He's causing ripples alright. Since the ones most upset often are "establishment types", no matter the logic, one could argue Trump is doing exactly what people had expected and what he announced. Many of his supporters simply see, in a henid kind of way, the system as corrupt, Washington DC as corrupt and your cherished "checks and balances" as rigged. It's not just Trump saying that now, he actually ran on it! That said, he forms also a giant contradiction in relation to all of this, that's right.Trump is not in any way shape or form causing ripples on the pond of the bad stuff about 'the establishment'.
But nobody here or any other relevant place is saying that, right? And really, when you examine each and every case in detail, nothing really happened yet in terms of actually stepping out of bounds and constitutional limitations. Perhaps the jury is out on some ongoing inquiries but you do sound a bit premature here.His complete and utter ignorance as to the fundamentals of governance, the limits of the power of the executive and of the independence of both the Congress and the judicial branch are, you know, OK because he's not really a politician, so his ignorance is understandable and therefore, somehow, magically not such a problem.
It looks actually pretty bad as the press might simply be used here by some powers in the background (eg parts of the National Security state) as some leak mechanism to destabilize the White House by the constant dripping of a mixture of fact and fiction, overblown procedural errors and speculations.but I don't find it as bad as you guys do and generally speaking I don't find the coverage of Trump to be especially bad at all.
Thanks for the link. It's spelled Zembla by the way (not a Dutch term even, Nova Zembla is Russian estate, interestingly). It seems you might have been playing Nintendo games a bit too much :) But indeed I find video to be rather speculative and slanted, like so much these days. Here's some initial reactions:Btw, have you seen the ZELDA documentary on Trump's dodgy business links? It may be too 'speculative' and slanted for your tastes, but they're Dutch so you know you can trust them :)
No, sadly, it's you. You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.Kevin Solway wrote:You definitely don't know everything Trump stands for, or is, so you are making a fool of yourself.Dan Rowden wrote:I oppose everything, literally everything the guy stands for and is
True enough. When criminals don't provide their side of the story there's no real story. Go run Interpol on that basis.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: These stories never contains the "facts" of life, never provides you with all the sides and perspectives. They just don't!
You forget: in a court case, there's a defense mounted which is free to challenge any narrative. The basics of a nation based on law. And that's exactly my point! There are no results yet known coming from cool headed investigation beyond political infused hysteria. And the ones going on have not turned up anything really interesting so far but that might come (although it's known these inquiries can become a "drag net", which rarely help to find the truth). Some of the myths actually have been dispelled already but that gets little press. So I'm very skeptical if anything but spin and innuendo comes up, like Clinton's politicized email scandal: careless, stupid, dangerous perhaps but it turned out to be within the law.Dan Rowden wrote:True enough. When criminals don't provide their side of the story there's no real story. Go run Interpol on that basis.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: These stories never contains the "facts" of life, never provides you with all the sides and perspectives. They just don't!
That statement would be only meaningful if one can list US presidents bringing "values and mentality" one has profountly agreed with in significant amounts. It would be interesting to see if anyone can submit one or two names.Dan Rowden wrote:You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.
That's not what Weininger is arguing. Weininger argues that all people have some degree of genius. That's not the same as saying that "All people are geniuses". Your logic is faulty.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”.
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.The key difference is that Dan’s vision is not causing him to abandon his lifelong values.
In saying "Why do it?" Dan is expressing that he has ignorance with regard to why people are doing it - if indeed they are doing it at all, and it's not a figment of Dan's imagination.It really is the strangest thing, isn't it?Dan Rowden wrote:What would even motivate someone to build a narrative like that about him? Why do it?
Exactly the same thing can be said about the Left. You are not making any rational point.the whole movement behind Trump is almost exclusively populated by third-rate individuals
Name one of them. Again, you are not making any kind of rational argument. You are bluster and no substance.Dan Rowden wrote:Kevin's vacuous statements regarding Trump and politics
I think I know some of them, but I don't pretend to know everything about him, as you do.Dan Rowden wrote:You know precisely what values and mentality Trump brings to the position of POTUS . . .
. . . and you have always opposed every fucking one of them.
It is indeed about Kevin taking an opposing stance on a trivial political issue. Both David and you think that the larger political viewpoint which supposedly informs one's stance on that issue is somehow an indicator of wisdom.Dan Rowden wrote:Please. It's not about a trivial disagreement about Trump, or any ideological difference, it's about a person who values and exhorts wisdom and declares himself to be one of the wisest men who has ever lived being hopelessly divorced from even the most trivial aspects of reality regarding Trump.
Utter crap. I asked Kevin to clarify his position in my *first* post after Kevin started commenting. Look it up for yourself because I can't be bothered. And the fact that I didn't find much fault with his position is supposed to make me biased? What are you smoking, or more likely, drinking?That you have not seen fit to challenge a single one of Kevin's vacuous statements regarding Trump and politics is deeply instructive regarding your ability and willingness to judge this 'dispute' objectively and honestly.