Does Trump Want To Be President?

[Steve3007]

Yes, I find this desire for a great leader odd, but I understand that many will gravitate to a "strongman" leader in times of trouble....

Many will say it's nothing to do with Trump and that they simply like the policies (low taxation etc) and don't care much about the debate over truths and falsehoods. But that's the reason why people vote for a political party with a well known position on the political spectrum, not why they vote for a person. I think the interesting thing is separating those people from those who strongly support the leader as an individual, and looking at what they say, and how they say it, about him.

I've seen interviews with people who've broken down in tears when expressing their admiration for, and sense of perceived connection with, him. Strikingly similar to leader adulation in other places and times. Also similar to other instances of public-figure-worship, like the mass grief over the death of Princess Di.

It seems, with the homogenisation within information bubbles, that humans are becoming more formuliac, more mentally algorithmic, locked into formulae - ideals, creeds, cults and political doctrines. You know where I think all this is eventually heading

Yes! AI and the post-biological epoch of life on Earth!

[Steve3007]

...and beyond.

[chewybrian]

Ideally, the masses would wise up to these antics but, if so many people haven't learned by now (and the lies and stunts of King Don's reign were laughably transparent) it will be some time before they can parse sense from nonsense. Perhaps completely free speech could work with a radical transformation of the education system, such as has never been seen before. Otherwise, I think it better strategy in the long haul to keep a lid on things (while working to greatly improve the education system so it is more relevant to modernity).

I remember when I discovered the internet and specifically Wikipedia. I thought this would result in a wonderful transformation of society, as truth would be available for everyone to see, and the liars could easily be called out on their BS. But, a generation or so later, I see that things have changed, but in the wrong direction. We've lost the ability to debate and learn from the process. Debate has become like a legal battle, where the truth means nothing, and we will try any tactic to 'win' the argument. But, we can't win when we lose sight of the truth! Discovering the truth should be the measure of victory in a debate, meaning all sides have won. If we manage to force a lie on the other side, this is not victory for us but a loss for everyone.

I can only hope now that Trump was the summit, and that we might see now that we need to lose some of our conceit and tribalism and work together to build a working society based on truth. But, I don't see it going that way. If people will fall for Trump, what will happen when someone just as selfish and evil comes along who is wiser and sometimes has thoughts that he or she does not speak? This was our 'freebie', and if we don't learn from the last few years, we may not get the chance to undo the damage next time. Technology is evolving to allow the tyrants so much power that it may never be regained from them. Rather than being complacent, we should be on high alert. But, I don't think we have our eye on the ball.

[Steve3007]

If we manage to force a lie on the other side, this is not victory for us but a loss for everyone.

I doubt whether many people think of themselves as having forced a lie on the other side. I think most people, on all sides, for a variety of reasons, consider themselves to be telling the truth.

What are your thoughts on free speech absolutism (the idea that all speech, of all kinds, is morally neutral and should not be either morally condemned or legally sanctioned)? Can you see the merits of the arguments in its favour?

[chewybrian]

If we manage to force a lie on the other side, this is not victory for us but a loss for everyone.

I doubt whether many people think of themselves as having forced a lie on the other side. I think most people, on all sides, for a variety of reasons, consider themselves to be telling the truth.

What are your thoughts on free speech absolutism (the idea that all speech, of all kinds, is morally neutral and should not be either morally condemned or legally sanctioned)? Can you see the merits of the arguments in its favour?

In an ideal world, free speech should be protected at all costs. But the benefit of free speech is limited by the people. If they are not well educated and rational and reasonably effective at processing new information....well, you see what has been happening recently here in the states.

I want to believe that people are essentially good and fair and want to do the right thing, but they need a background of understanding and realistic structure to be able to think rationally and process information without filtering it through BS political stances.

Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine in the US? It required equal time for political candidates and viewpoints, and time allotted in newspapers and TV for educational programs and programs about community development. Reagan repealed this in the 80's, reasoning that with 100 channels of cable, people were able to find whatever viewpoint they wished, and so they were not denied access to the 'other side'. But, this reasoning missed the mark. Yes, the law was designed to keep powerful people from pushing one side of an issue on the public so they never saw the other side. But, the (perhaps unintended) benefit was that people had to hear the other side to some extent whether they wanted to hear it or not. There was always a chance they would learn something important in the process, or at least see that there were two sides to most issues. I don't think anyone realized the eagerness of most people to retreat into their own thought bubbles and ignore all the information that conflicted with their world view.

So, short story long...No, speech of all kinds is rarely morally neutral. But, who am I or who are you to say which is morally correct or wrong? So, I think we should allow just about every kind of speech. But, we also need to force fair consideration of other views onto people if we can. The fairness doctrine was an attempt to do this, and we need some new efforts along those lines or we are in trouble.

[Steve3007]

Are you familiar with the Fairness Doctrine in the US?

Yes, vaguely. There are similar rules still applied to some UK media governing the amount of airtime that is given to rival political parties' political broadcasts during election campaigns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_pol ... arliament.

An immediate problem that always comes up with any rule seeking to regulate speech, like this, is one of definition. In this case, any rule governing "political advertising" has to define what constitutes political advertising, what constitutes a political party, and so on.

But, who am I or who are you to say which is morally correct or wrong?

Yes, that's the question that pops up if we adopt any position short of absolute free speech. We immediately have to make decisions as to what was meant by the speech and what effect it had on other people's actions.

[Steve3007]

It required equal time for political candidates and viewpoints, and time allotted in newspapers and TV for educational programs and programs about community development. Reagan repealed this in the 80's, reasoning that with 100 channels of cable, people were able to find whatever viewpoint they wished, and so they were not denied access to the 'other side'. But, this reasoning missed the mark. Yes, the law was designed to keep powerful people from pushing one side of an issue on the public so they never saw the other side. But, the (perhaps unintended) benefit was that people had to hear the other side to some extent whether they wanted to hear it or not. There was always a chance they would learn something important in the process, or at least see that there were two sides to most issues. I don't think anyone realized the eagerness of most people to retreat into their own thought bubbles and ignore all the information that conflicted with their world view.

Yes, this is a dilemma that's existed since long before mass communications but has gradually got worse, first with the advent of cable TV and then internet sources of information. In the UK the majority of people were still only watching 3 or 4 channels up until the 90's so for that reason, and because of the existence of a public service broadcaster (the BBC) which was originally very much an arm of the state ("Auntie Beeb") things have evolved slightly differently.

[Terrapin Station]

History suggests the opposite.

If no speech is illegal, what would they suppose disallows things from being said?

Back then, illegality was less an issue than natural consequences, ie. tell the wrong person what they don't want to hear and pain will follow.

This sounds like maybe we're mixing up offense and rumours/slander & libel. Slander and libel are about whether what one says can be backed up at all as being true. Are you saying that if slander and libel were legal, people would think that no one is saying something slanderous or libelous because social repercussions would effectively disallow it? That would suggest that no one in general believes that anyone ever says something slanderous, libelous, that's just a rumor, etc., regardless of the legality of the same.

[Sy Borg]

Ideally, the masses would wise up to these antics but, if so many people haven't learned by now (and the lies and stunts of King Don's reign were laughably transparent) it will be some time before they can parse sense from nonsense. Perhaps completely free speech could work with a radical transformation of the education system, such as has never been seen before. Otherwise, I think it better strategy in the long haul to keep a lid on things (while working to greatly improve the education system so it is more relevant to modernity).

I remember when I discovered the internet and specifically Wikipedia. I thought this would result in a wonderful transformation of society, as truth would be available for everyone to see, and the liars could easily be called out on their BS. But, a generation or so later, I see that things have changed, but in the wrong direction. We've lost the ability to debate and learn from the process. Debate has become like a legal battle, where the truth means nothing, and we will try any tactic to 'win' the argument. But, we can't win when we lose sight of the truth! Discovering the truth should be the measure of victory in a debate, meaning all sides have won. If we manage to force a lie on the other side, this is not victory for us but a loss for everyone.

I can only hope now that Trump was the summit, and that we might see now that we need to lose some of our conceit and tribalism and work together to build a working society based on truth. But, I don't see it going that way. If people will fall for Trump, what will happen when someone just as selfish and evil comes along who is wiser and sometimes has thoughts that he or she does not speak? This was our 'freebie', and if we don't learn from the last few years, we may not get the chance to undo the damage next time. Technology is evolving to allow the tyrants so much power that it may never be regained from them. Rather than being complacent, we should be on high alert. But, I don't think we have our eye on the ball.

Yes, I generally agree with all of that.

The issue with former King Don is he has a huge profile and millions somehow find him to be hugely charismatic. So he has opened the door. The next tyrant will not need the same profile or "charisma" to do the damage. So he might seem like a "freebie", but I suspect he is a catalyst.

Ironically, it's only the power of giant companies that can keep future tyrants in check. To that end, Xi's takeover of Ali Baba was ominous. Imagine if Trump had taken control of Twitter and other social media platforms, and imprisoning the company owners. He would be demanding algorithms that hugely boosted his follower numbers to treat his output as #1 priority.

So I am somewhat nervous about attempts by governments to control or break up major companies, and by the collusion of DT with favoured companies to spread unaccountable disinformation and pollution.

[Sy Borg]

History suggests the opposite.

If no speech is illegal, what would they suppose disallows things from being said?

Back then, illegality was less an issue than natural consequences, ie. tell the wrong person what they don't want to hear and pain will follow.

This sounds like maybe we're mixing up offense and rumours/slander & libel. Slander and libel are about whether what one says can be backed up at all as being true. Are you saying that if slander and libel were legal, people would think that no one is saying something slanderous or libelous because social repercussions would effectively disallow it? That would suggest that no one in general believes that anyone ever says something slanderous, libelous, that's just a rumor, etc., regardless of the legality of the same.

I do not understand your point.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, I find this desire for a great leader odd, but I understand that many will gravitate to a "strongman" leader in times of trouble....

I've seen interviews with people who've broken down in tears when expressing their admiration for, and sense of perceived connection with, him. Strikingly similar to leader adulation in other places and times. Also similar to other instances of public-figure-worship, like the mass grief over the death of Princess Di.

Yes. It's generally people who have given great pleasure. Also actors and musicians. Heck, anyone famous these days. It seems less important what you are famed for than the fact of fame. Fame is essentially a lottery win. Its importance has increased because once-ostensibly egalitarian societies now have strict limits on upward mobility. If you have watched Black Mirror, the episode Fifteen Million Credits illustrates the dynamic.

It seems, with the homogenisation within information bubbles, that humans are becoming more formuliac, more mentally algorithmic, locked into formulae - ideals, creeds, cults and political doctrines. You know where I think all this is eventually heading :)

Yes! AI and the post-biological epoch of life on Earth! :-)

Bring it on! Biology is nasty business. Life does have its positive qualities, many of which will hopefully be preserved as we (well, a tiny minority of us) work to overcome the negatives.

[Sculptor1]

Trump's attack dog lawyer says all her election fraud claims are lies..

[youtube]https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866[/youtube]

https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866

[Sy Borg]

Trump's attack dog lawyer says all her election fraud claims are lies..

[youtube]https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866[/youtube]

https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866

The result of sociopathy being admired rather than reviled.

[Sculptor1]

Trump's attack dog lawyer says all her election fraud claims are lies..

[youtube]https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866[/youtube]

https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866

The result of sociopathy being admired rather than reviled.

Except that people following and supporting Trump and his cronies do not think it is sociopathy.

I think this has more to do with America's valoration of FAITH. In the US believing is more important than knowledge, reason and learning. It is only important to a Trumper that they have something they want to believe.

Having parity betweeen evolutionary studies and creationism is another example of this insanity.

[Sy Borg]

Trump's attack dog lawyer says all her election fraud claims are lies..

[youtube]https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866[/youtube]

https://www.facebook.com/davidpakmansho ... 3190802866

The result of sociopathy being admired rather than reviled.

Except that people following and supporting Trump and his cronies do not think it is sociopathy.

I think this has more to do with America's valoration of FAITH. In the US believing is more important than knowledge, reason and learning. It is only important to a Trumper that they have something they want to believe.

Having parity between evolutionary studies and creationism is another example of this insanity.

Yes, I think your post is closer to the nub of the problem than mine. I have had similar thoughts, that US Americians' tendency to embrace beliefs rather than test them opens the way for scam ideas to take hold. A 2009 survey found that about 70% of Americans believed in ghosts while only around 40% believed in evolution.

Christianity's stitch-up is the claim that questioning unfounded beliefs is a sign of weakness, a failure of faith, rather than rational behaviour. An equivalent political scam is currently being played out, where acceptance of evidence contrary to fantastical claims are seen as weakness, naively falling for the lies of "elites" and mainstream media.

It's basically the same game, where the "dealer" can never lose. I expect there is a name for this manipulative dynamic, but I don't know it.