Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

[LSSBB]

<RING>
Me: Uh, hello?
Auto-Trump: This is an automated call from the Emergency Presidential Alert. A category 3 hurricane is heading your way.
Me: Oh, that's nice. A commun--
Auto-Trump: It's tremendously big and tremendously wet.
Me: ...what?
Auto-Trump: We're ready, even though no one understands it, we understand. It's going to be an A+ performance. Don't trust what you see and hear. They'll inflate the death toll to make me look bad. Fake news, sad. Don't die of old age until the end of the storm, just to be sure. Huge win over Hillary. No one thought we could do it. Biggest inauguration crowd ever. Big league. #MAGA.
Me: <Hangs up>

nommed

 

[Mumbles]

I'm sure those who defended them didn't think so.

So do I, but the way to fight unjust laws is to get them changed.

Hey, I know a few things about how these laws got "changed" For example, 55 years ago today, four teenaged girls were killed, and many more people injured, in a church bombing meant to express disapproval at the idea of anyone fighting that sort of "law".

BTW, it took decades before most of the people directly responsible to be "brought to justice". This was in large part because the police and legal system of the time (heh, "of the time") were eager to justify such laws. It often required intervention at the federal level to...correct such matters - and today's federal government is uninterested in such matters, instead preferring to cage children and applaud police violence based on skin color.

(Also, Birmingham presents something of an issue: white people at that segment of spacetime were mostly enraged about black people living among them, and demanded segregation. When black people left and built their own communities, the white people became enraged by that, and turned violent. That's because the actual view was "If black people don't reflect their natural inferiority, then it's a crime against God himself and they must be punished through violence." The justifications were fig leafs.)

Don't we usually call that vigilantism?

It's rare to hear MLK Jr. being referred to as a "vigilante" these days. I have no doubt that you wouldn't do so, so you should check your logic, because that's where it leads to.

 

[Steve]

I just came across a couple screen shot of quotes that quite amused me and have some relevance to the Trump Presidency.

"When the apocalypse starts, I would like it noted that I voted for the cool black guy and the chick who made Putin piss himself." - David Yankovich

"I'm no HR professional but it's prob a bad sign when an employee writes an anonymous letter calling you a brain-dead ******* and you can't even narrow it down to 100 people" - Jess Dweck @TheDweck

The Dweck one made me laugh.

 

[kellyb]

Thanks for the links, however I don't see how to infer from that what the perceptions about Democratic handing of the "Socialism" attacks are among independent or softly aligned voters, or whether such attack messaging from the Republicans is landing any blows.

Positive feelings about "socialism" have been increasing, even among republicans, in the midst of the word being used as a smear, heavily since 2008. At worst, the Republican smears are completely ineffective. At best, trying to smear single payer health care (rebranded "medicare for all") as "socialism" is good for people's perception of socialism and policies smeared as such.

See: over half of Republicans now favor medicare for all

 

[LSSBB]

Positive feelings about "socialism" have been increasing, even among republicans, in the midst of the word being used as a smear, heavily since 2008. At worst, the Republican smears are completely ineffective. At best, trying to smear single payer health care (rebranded "medicare for all") as "socialism" is good for people's perception of socialism and policies smeared as such.

See: over half of Republicans now favor medicare for all

Still seems you are making a leap. Just because an opinion poll showing increasing acceptance of the loose concept of "socialism" does not necessarily mean that attacks focusing on Socialism are not effective, or that Democratic defense against those attacks is effective. A more properly focused poll would look specifically at the perceptions voters have of the parties or specific candidates in the wake of attacks, based on such accusations. At best, the polls you linked would indicate it is getting more difficult to make such attacks effective in the long run.

 

[kellyb]

A more properly focused poll would look specifically at the perceptions voters have of the parties or specific candidates in the wake of attacks,

That's been looked at, too.

 

[Belz...]

Because some laws have been objectively unjust

Objectively unjust? That would mean that it has an intrinsic value outside of someone's judgment. Can you tell me how that works or show me the required formulae?

I didn't take you for a moral relativist.

You thought I believe in magic and deities? Haven't you ever seen my posts?

And that's the problem I'm discussing. We can't shake the magical-thinking that leads us to believe in objective morality, which is why when we see something as, for example, unjust, we can't see why someone could ever possibly disagree because we over-estimate our subjective judgment. That's precisely what I'm saying.

It's rare to hear MLK Jr. being referred to as a "vigilante" these days. I have no doubt that you wouldn't do so, so you should check your logic, because that's where it leads to.

That is such a strange way of thinking. Because you calculate that a definition I'm discussing would lead one to conclude that MLK was a vigilante, we must ignore the definition or the logic behind the discussion. Why? Because the conclusion is unpalatable? And what does that have to do with my point anyway?

 

[kellyb]

Objectively unjust? That would mean that it has an intrinsic value outside of someone's judgment. Can you tell me how that works or show me the required formulae?



You thought I believe in magic and deities? Haven't you ever seen my posts?

And that's the problem I'm discussing. We can't shake the magical-thinking that leads us to believe in objective morality, which is why when we see something as, for example, unjust, we can't see why someone could ever possibly disagree because we over-estimate our subjective judgment. That's precisely what I'm saying.

All law is predicated upon the notion that there is a non-subjective morality which exists. In the US, the constitution was written based on the Declaration of Independence, and the principle that it was "self-evident" that all humans are equal.

My personal view is that while most morality is merely subjective, there's an objective basis for morality in aspects of human cognition, such as the nearly universal altruistic instincts, compassion, people's sense of fairness, etc and so on. They transcend culture.

 

[LSSBB]

That's been looked at, too.

No, because 54% of the population having a positive view of Sanders does not translate to them having a negative view of Democrats in general, or specific candidates, due to specific accusations of Socialism. You can have a positive view of Sanders the person without endorsing the positions he supports, for one. And the 46% not supporting Sanders could include a large chunk of those who would be vulnerable to having their opinion changed by accusations of Socialism, yet otherwise could be influenced to Democratic.

 

[kellyb]

No, because 54% of the population having a positive view of Sanders does not translate to them having a negative view of Democrats in general, or specific candidates, due to specific accusations of Socialism. You can have a positive view of Sanders the person without endorsing the positions he supports, for one. And the 46% not supporting Sanders could include a large chunk of those who would be vulnerable to having their opinion changed by accusations of Socialism, yet otherwise could be influenced to Democratic.

It looks like the sort of evidence it would take to persuade you is an impossible standard to meet, which is fine. Either way, now you know of the multiple, independent lines of converging evidence upon which I base my opinion that "I think Dems are handling the socialism thing just fine. The GOP shot itself in the foot with the "OMG socialism!" fearmongering during the Obama years. Such charges are somewhere between "powerless" and "kind of helpful" now at this point."

 

[LSSBB]

It looks like the sort of evidence it would take to persuade you is an impossible standard to meet, which is fine. Either way, now you know of the multiple, independent lines of converging evidence upon which I base my opinion that "I think Dems are handling the socialism thing just fine. The GOP shot itself in the foot with the "OMG socialism!" fearmongering during the Obama years. Such charges are somewhere between "powerless" and "kind of helpful" now at this point."

No, because "converging" is unproven also. What I see is you think they are handling it fine, and there is no clear evidence that either they are handling it correctly, or not handling it correctly.

 

[kellyb]

No, because "converging" is unproven also.

I think they all absolutely do converge to back my position that "The GOP shot itself in the foot with the "OMG socialism!" fearmongering during the Obama years". The whole reason I think that is because of those lines of evidence all painting the same picture.

 

[tyr_13]

Objectively unjust? That would mean that it has an intrinsic value outside of someone's judgment. Can you tell me how that works or show me the required formulae?

I can give you examples. You do know that empiricism does not require you have the formulae to describe an observation for that observation to exist.

The Fugitive Slave Act was objectively unjust by the standards of those who enacted them. Being able to deprive citizens of other states of life, liberty, and property without due process of law not only violates the basic legal principles of the society that created them, it violates it's own internal justification of enforcing a state's right to internal governance.

That I don't know where the line is exactly just doesn't matter when we're miles from anywhere it could be.

You thought I believe in magic and deities? Haven't you ever seen my posts?

And that's the problem I'm discussing. We can't shake the magical-thinking that leads us to believe in objective morality, which is why when we see something as, for example, unjust, we can't see why someone could ever possibly disagree because we over-estimate our subjective judgment. That's precisely what I'm saying.

It doesn't take magical thinking to view some tenants of justice as universal, basically constituting the very idea of 'justice'.

Do you understand my screen name?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Paul McCartney slams Trump in new song

McCartney told the BBC that he made the track ("Despite Repeated Warnings") to “basically say, occasionally, we’ve got a mad captain sailing this boat."

When pressed during an interview about who it was he had in mind McCartney answered, “Well I mean, obviously it’s Trump."

The track includes verses like “despite repeated warnings of dangers up ahead, the captain won’t be listening to what’s been said” and “those who shout the loudest, may not always be the smartest.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-kno...lammed-trump-in-a-song-weve-got-a-mad-captain (Sept 15, 2018)

Hey Paul, "I'm looking through you, where did you go? I thought I knew you, what did I know? You don't look different, but you have changed. I'm looking through you, you're not the same."

 

[Cabbage]

Hey Paul, "I'm looking through you, where did you go? I thought I knew you, what did I know? You don't look different, but you have changed. I'm looking through you, you're not the same."

Nah, I'm pretty sure Paul's always been against narcissistic demagogues. You're only noticing this now?

 

[The Norseman]

Dammit... I can't explain my joke without spoiling yours.
[emoji14]

Oh, sorry didn't mean to steal your thunder. But still, I think everyone pretty much understood your meaning; I was just riffing off of it.

You thought I believe in magic and deities? Haven't you ever seen my posts?

And that's the problem I'm discussing. We can't shake the magical-thinking that leads us to believe in objective morality, which is why when we see something as, for example, unjust, we can't see why someone could ever possibly disagree because we over-estimate our subjective judgment. That's precisely what I'm saying.

You've been gone a while. There have been several threads talking about this very issue and I am one who believes that there can be axioms of human behavior similar to the regular, scientific concept of 'axiom.' Has nothing at all to do with deities or magical thinking; just observation and extrapolation like everything else in science.

 

[SezMe]

It seems to me like with term limits, institutional knowledge is exclusively limited to the corporations.

Not quite, but damn close. According to my Rep (new termed out) who really gets power is the lobbyists which can be generally - but not exclusively -be linked to corporations. It is also true that non-corporate lobbyists don't have the big bucks to lavish on politicians so it is also true that corporate lobbyists have more power than others.

 

[SezMe]

Admittedly, I can see how, over time, a tactic of continual lying and reflexive attacking of “enemies” can become internalized. To historians it may prove to be an interesting case of a tactic morphing into a pathology.

Damn! I read an article yesterday about how Dump displayed his pathological reaction to criticism as early as grade school. I thought about posting it to this thread but figured, "Another post about Dump's pathology? Who cares anymore?" and moved on. Now I wish I had not done that.

Anyway, bottom line is that Dump's attacks in response to criticism is not a learned behavior but rather has been part of his basic self from very, very early on.

 

[SezMe]

I disagree: only Conservative Elites can fix the democracy deficits of the GOP.

Wow! Conservative elites, in my view, probably have little vested interest in democracy as a political concept. I'd like to hear more from you about how they can fix our broken system. No, seriously, what is your evidence for that statement.

 

[SezMe]

Why is it a crazy idea to think globally?

That's not the point. He is a national level politician and a Muslim so he must know that wearing such a stupid T-shirt would garner notice and be used against him and his party. And would be twisted by his opponents to make him look like an idiot. Politically, it was as dumb a move as is possible....so maybe he was an idiot.