Personally. I think the majority, if not all politicians are prob corrupt & nasty individuals. He’s just more open and unforgiving about his ‘negative’ traits imo, which is one reason why a lot of his supporters like him... and why his opponents hate him. He doesn’t play the game the usual way.Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I don't think Trump's approach to politics is the same as most politicians. Yes, I agree that most politicians are more self-interested, more interested in power, and more narcissistic than the average person, but because one rapist wears pants does not mean that all men wearing pants are rapists.
My personal belief is that Trump has tapped into something very fundamental in society by appealing to Authoritaians. As our society becomes more researched and better understood, advertising can target finer and finer divisions between people. Trump has done that like no other politician in recent memory, excluding H!tler.
Consider that Trump has been married and divorced, he pays and pays off prostitutes, he doesn't know anything about the Bible and doesn't attend church, but he's praised by Fundamentalists as being the next prophet. How can this be?
It's because Fundamentalists are also Authoritarians, and they recognize one of their own. A valuable thing to do would be to read up on the Authoritarian mindset, because they exist in every society and they are not comfortable living in a liberal democracy. They want a strong ruler to rule over them.
https://psmag.com/news/authoritarian...trump-triggers
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxx...1hVFFRUDg/view
https://www.karenstenner.com/
I'm not trying to give him a "pass." I agree he's despicable. I think it's also quite possible he'll be charged for criminal offenses and possibly removed from office before his term is up. I would not call any of that "giving him a pass."
I think some of these businesses need a new definition. Social media giants, for instance, have kind of become the public square in which people communicate. The world actually relies on them, and the tech giants in general, for communication and information. They have ascended into a new as yet defined category. That a new grouping hasn't been made for them is why they can seize power but behave as if they are just these private businesses exercising their rights. The banks also have massive power and control globally. The power all of these entities have is why they need a new (or several new) categories under the law. I see what they are doing as "cheating" and gradually weakening the powers of government, which is the only entity that actually can truly protect citizen rights.The law says that you can't discriminate by race, color, creed, etc. It says nothing about having to give your business to people charged with insurrection.
The law distinguishes between criminal and civil penalties.
How they treat powerful people matters because it's a clue to how they will also treat less powerful ("everyday" people) who can't afford to spend tons of money defending themselves in the courts, and what they can get away with doing.
Last edited by marooned; 01-13-2021 at 06:21 PM.
What is a Cancel Culture?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture
Yes, but what about all the violence in the BLM riots that the democrats encouraged? Why aren’t they being held accountable for that? Eh, I feel like this is a war on free speech.
I don't think there is any ill-intent on your part, but this is called whatabout-ism. It's something people resort to alot nowadays, when trying to discredit political opponents in debates. Like I said I don't think there is any ill-will here, and I've caught myself doing it too, it's such an easy thing to do since everyone is so defensive about politics, it can be hard to see oneself clearly in these cases.
"Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about ..." followed by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world.[7][8][9] According to Russian writer, chess grandmaster and political activist Garry Kasparov, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.[10] Whataboutism has been used by other politicians and countries as well."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
lol that’s very interesting. But I do think there is a lot of hypocrisy going down. How are you suppose to expose it in an ‘honest way’, without fallacy? But I do read the news daily. Several times daily. I stayed up very late last night watching the house vote for the 25th amendment. I’m not ignorant to what is going down. I’ve been trying to keep up with it as best as I can because this all seems like a pretty big deal to me.
Did you watch trumps speech?
the one before his supporters stormed capitol hill
Legality != morality. Yes they have a legal “right” to cancel these people. And people have a “right” to be concerned that big tech can just make opposing views and people they don’t like disappear from the Internet. If the forum moderators decided to ban you because they didn’t like you they’d have a “right” to do so; does that make it morally right?
“Resulting in violence” is an odd way to say that a protester was needlessly shot. Law enforcement let a mob into the capitol; it’s their fault, not Trump’s.I think “free speech” is fine but when it’s literally resulting in violence, an action has to be taken
Trump did not tell them to go there. He didn’t incite anything. And even if he did the fact that big tech collaborated to disappear the online presence of the President doesn’t concern you?plus this was an attack on the government itself, incited by the president, so it makes sense more urgent actions are taken for it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/617614/
im not trying to downplay and incitement’s of violence by anybody else in the congress but just that I don’t think Twitter or any other tech companies really did anything wrong by “cancelling” him.
Where are you getting your news?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2...-capitol-riot/
Isn't this an example of me-too-ism?
"I did nothing wrong."
"And if I did, you can't prove it because I deny it."
"And even if I did it, it wasn't wrong."
"There are other things you should worry about so much more."
I'm thinking "Ted Bundy" here.
People are exposed for being human and then universally ostracized.
Wasn't the mob shouting "Hang Mike Pence" before they stormed in? Death threats aren't tolerated by the principle of free speech, either morally or (as far as I know) legally.
The implicit social contract (at least ours) cuts both ways. If social media has a moral duty, irrespective of its legal duty, to allow the president to speak, then the president has a moral duty to diffuse the violent tendencies of his supporters.
Freedoms come with obligations, especially for anyone in a position of authority. This implicit social contract, which largely consists of 'gentlemen's agreements', is a necessary component of a free society; this relates to the impossibility of crafting a perfect set of legal checks and balances. A ruler who acts to diminish his own obligations thereby diminishes the freedoms of his subjects. The ruler who abrogates all sense of moral responsibility is known as the 'tyrant'.
Last edited by xerx; 01-14-2021 at 02:12 AM.
Trump told his supporters "we will stop the steal". The rally at the very least delayed the execution of a law of the United States, which qualifies as seditious conspiracy.
After the coup attempt, Trump told those responsible he loved them. It was only then he told them to go home.
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
He doesn't incite violence. He does the opposite
(18:16)I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Read the actual original source:
Transcript
This literally isn't rocket science.
He has a week left in office. Just leave him the fuck alone.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-13-2021 at 11:53 PM.
Ppl on the right: Oh fug! Holy shit I'm being censored! Wtf..why isn't Trump doing anything to stop thi..
Lefties: Oh crap the tech monopolies! Shit this looks like Cyberpunk..
Third positionists: We told you so e_e nobody listened.. idiots. This happened to us 4 years ago. Fuck this shit, we are out..
Liberals on all sides:m-muh Trump!
Normies:dafuq is going on, whole worlds gone mad! I-I lost my job.. wtf. Coof coof.. where is that damn vaccine!?
Me: ..quietly building my Pleroma and PeerTube server..I should maybe buy chickens yeah good idea.. free eggs.
Last edited by SGF; 01-13-2021 at 11:54 PM.
Making Twitter unban Trump is like making a baker bake a gay cake. Both are forms of compelled political expression.
For the record, I don't think that he should have been banned. That is, however, a pertinent analogy.
Last edited by xerx; 01-14-2021 at 01:05 AM.
Would you make a baker bake a cake for a black couple?
I absolutely would. It's wrong for a baker to refuse service to someone just because they're black (or gay). If a black (or gay) couple wants to buy a generic cake, there shouldn't be any barriers.
But there's an added layer to this question that usually gets overlooked. Refusing to sell a cake is different from refusing to write specific text on a cake; if a business doesn't want to offer that product, it shouldn't have to. By extension, a different baker can refuse to bake a "conservative Christian" cake.
Last edited by xerx; 01-14-2021 at 02:38 AM.
Personally, I would not. I don't have anything against black people, but I also don't think that people in business should have to work for people they don't like.
However, I'm fortunately not making the laws. Above my petty feelings of hatred towards asshole customers is the law in this country which says that, in return for the government protections that businesses enjoy, they must treat everyone equally under the law. They may not discriminate against a person for something that that person can't change. Like being Black. Or Jewish. Or left-handed.
They don't have to serve a person who is naked, or who is shooting people, or is calling for the overthrow of the US government, because a person presumably has some control over those things and could change them if they wanted to. But everyone else, they have to treat without discrimination.
Here's the thing about that law. It gives everyone equal access to society's resources. Some smart people decided that that is a good thing and encoded it into law, and I grudgingly agree with them, after spending time in South Africa and seeing for myself what happens to a society that is ostensibly "separate but equal", but in reality is some very stupid immigrants running the place and keeping most of the other citizens out of the club.
If you don't have a shot at the top slot, you have no reason to support the system that keeps you down. I get that. I've seen that. I think the rioters believe that, too, even though most of them are not thinking globally about just what they are doing. They want to "take the country back". Back from whom? And for whose benefit?
They don't ever explain that part. For good reason.
These laws aren't there to keep Italians in power or to put communists in every school district governing board. They are there to prevent revolution. Because if you get enough people who feel like they are not getting a fair deal, you are building an army to overthrow the government.
My personal wish is that the powers that be in this country take this as a wake up call, and start doing more for the economically disadvantaged. The rich have been screwing the middle class for a long time, while supporting the poorest classes. Granted, support for the poorest people is minimal, but percentage-wise, incomes for the poor and incomes for the rich have been rising, and incomes for the middle class have been flat.
Anyone who tells you that this is free markets at work is lying to you because they think you are stupid. Call your representatives, vote with your wallet, and change the trend.
You make several good points, but you and I both know that ain't gonna happen. Our elites are totally disconnected from the lowly "proles" they presume to rule over in almost every conceivable way. Hell, they cannot even into how effective rules are made and, more importantly, enforced. Though I wouldn't say they supported the poor classes. Indeed, they hate them too and fucked them over just as hard, but in more abstract ways that most fail to perceive or realize.
This is a whole essay in the making on this topic but suffice it to say our current ruling elite is unfit, unable, and unworthy to effectively rule in the long term from here. Like I said, the Mandate of Heaven is now forfeit. The successful revolt that will overthrow and replace this current system is already underway. My wish is that those who succeed in that endeavor will look back upon the mistakes of the last few centuries and actually, for what amounts to the first time in history, actually learn from it in a way that actually benefits our entire species for once instead of insisting upon repeating for the billionth time the four most expensive words (in whatever/however way you wish to see it) in the English Language:
"This Time, It's Different"
No. It's NOT!
Sadly, I think the Buddhists have a saying. "The lesson will be repeated until it is learned." Can't say I'm seeing much to dissuade me from the truth of that statement. We, as a species, never seem to learn the lesson and thus it just keeps getting repeated...
Snapchat just terminated Trump's account.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/th...f-a-president/
Trump's advisors in the White House say he is clueless about what his actions surrounding the Capitol siege or his impeachment means for his Presidency, but he's worried that it will hurt his business. No word from him on the people who died in the riot. Four of the people who died were, according to their close relatives, his most ardent supporters. You'd think he'd say something.
Maybe he'll get around to thinking about them after his next golf outing. Or maybe not.
For the record I don't think Twitter should unban anyone including Trump, I think we should ban Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google because they are illegal corporate monopolies with too much power.
The bake the cake argument is mute when when we are dealing with corporations such as google who has half the planet by the balls through sheer dependency.
In general, the fact that tech. giants are monopolies spoils the analogy—I agree with that. In this instance, the president has access to other channels, which saves the analogy; he can call a press conference or go on Fox News virtually anytime that he wants.
Unless that baker is part of a global baking monopoly that actively colludes with other food industry monopolies to shut down all competition so there's nowhere else to go, they're not the same. You can go to another baker. But when people tried to go to alternative social media (Gab, Parler) that's when Google, Apple, Amazon and even Visa/Mastercard colluded to shut those avenues down.
Also, Twitter wants to have the protected rights of a public forum, while preventing large groups from entering that forum. Either they are a public forum, or they're not. You can't have it both ways.
Edit: Just saw your postTrump can, the vast numbers of other people getting kicked off cannot. That's why I keep stressing that it isn't just him, and it's been happening for quite awhile and is most likely going to keep happening and get worse. People only notice because it's him. They don't notice when it's some random nobody, or even thousands of nobodies, but they should.
Last edited by squark; 01-16-2021 at 02:48 PM.
Right.
I agree that social media shouldn't ban political opinions, and that doing so sets a dangerous precedent. It’s also the case that people need to hear clashing opinions from others in order to better understand their own. ‘Freedom’ is just as much a personal attitude (one of openness to inquiry and self-examination) as it is a set of external circumstances. Moreover, I don’t believe that bans will address the fake news crisis, which can only be mitigated (it’ll never be solved) by better education, more transparency, and higher living standards. This is why I believe that it was wrong to ban Donald Trump.
That said, there is a deeper issue here which routinely goes unacknowledged:
For a private institution, the requirement to safeguard freedom of speech isn’t a legal duty; it is a moral one that flows from a gentleman’s agreement to be an open-minded, inquisitive, and reasonable participant in a democratic society.
Yet the person being censored fails to live up to his own end of that agreement. He rarely dissuades the violent or conspiratorial tendencies of his supporters; instead, he energizes them with rhetoric about the necessity of ‘strength’ and the cowardice of compromise in the face of a merciless enemy. That is neither open-minded nor reasonable. He leads his supporters on and refuses to take responsibility for their actions.
Let’s reverse the situation. Let’s suppose that Trump was banned by some random Twitter employee. Could Jack Dorsey get away with saying “It’s not my problem; I didn’t do it and don't have to reverse the decision”? You and I know both that he’d be slandered for not running a tight ship. Yet Donald Trump is consistently allowed to circumvent the same expectations.
It is deeply dishonest to demand that one side act in accordance with principle while eliding the social responsibilities of the other side.
>> As an aside, it’s worth noting that the monopoly of tech. firms is somewhat overstated because of the presence of other social media platforms, as well as the existence of bitcoin. It doesn't make their actions any less wrong, of course, but the Internet, as a whole, is still very much decentralized and free.
Last edited by xerx; 01-18-2021 at 04:31 AM. Reason: +added
Last edited by Computer Loser; 01-14-2021 at 02:40 AM.
Oh god heterosexuals are still talking about the gay cake thing?
lol umm well I mean, I personally feel like I can probably learn how to bake a cake just as good or even better if I do it myself and I wouldn't really be beholden to another person's narcissism anyway ((I could really make the cake something *I* wanted not just what the Te business did- even tho you can tell them what to do, they aren't you)) so I would probably just move on and bake the cake myself. It's just a stupid cake. But me being me, I *would* also throw it in their face and make an edgy/provocative vid shoving my cake in my mouth and telling the entire multi-verse how it tastes so much better than their shitty bigotry and hate lol.
I mean feeling all victimized cuz somebody doesn't wanna bake a cake for you... you're kinda privileged and sheltered if that's what you're worried about. I grew up feeling genuinely physically unsafe for being gay almost every day of my life growing up in high school- a fucking cake is so petty to me in comparison that I can't even... I think a lot of businesses are hokey and cowboy-ish and white trash heterosexual like anyway. Especially in 'Murica. Like those places on the side of the road that sell bugs and peaches. But even the slightly more "fancier" ones are like that, like Chick Fit A. I'm not sure I'd take it personally as it's too common. Business people are often Te-valuing heterosexual moralists with sticks up their butts.
And another thing about Chick Fil A. I know this opinion is pretty unpopular but I honestly don't think it's that good. Lots of people like saying "I know I shouldn't like it cuz they discriminated against gays before but it just tastes so good!" Um, no. They discriminated against gays and it tastes pretty bad. Heterosexuals stereotypically have bad taste/bad standards and don't know truly good shit haha. They say it tastes good but I don't see it. It's rather mediocre and lifeless. Just another crappy fast food joint really.
So yeah. I'd just bake a cake myself, or go to another gay friendly facility that accepts me for me.... I usually prefer talking to other like-minded gay males and straight females anyway. Why do so many people insist on trying to get people that will never like them to like them. The gay community worries about being liked too much, I have agreed with that criticism of the gay community. Often times gay guys are overly nice and polite cuz we are so worried to not be liked. But it's dumb. It's more honest & healthy to realize who hates you and just embrace it. As you are not going to change hearts and minds with a witty quip and a hot body. I think it's probably wiser to let other gay guys appreciate that stuff instead of attempting to mind control breeders.
As for trump- I don't agree with banning him. I don't agree with what he says or support what he does but I think it is wrong to shut anybody up as that indirectly puts him in martyr and victimhood status and fuels the fire of ppl with deranged conspiracy theories. But I mean, yes they'd do that kind of thing anyway but it just makes it 10 times worse. But it would make sense that it would 'make it worse' because making it worse for everybody is what the true bad guys are all about, right?
I genuinely feel sorry for all the ppl who think that he's some holy grenade to the establishment. I just can't see it- it's the same establishment that is propping him up by reporting everything he says or does (and tries to) think 24/7. They aren't really afraid of him and his make-believe threat to them - they are more like playing everybody like a fiddle while making sure the true power structures in the world remain intact. Getting us to argue about it online is one of the ways they do it, of course. It is like this genuine naive-ness of being fucked over by establishment snobs your entire life. They are playing you/us from a such a high level while laughing at you.
I was accused before for having faux-compassion for them but I don't, it's real. Sorry ur too cynical and bitter to see that. I don't hold grudges for being bullied by them as I'm able to see the bigger picture. They were in many ways the true victims, bullied way worse than I ever was. I will defend myself tho from too much abuse but I mean, it's like a 'Oh honey' moment to me.
How I feel talking to Trump supporters: I am the black demon guy and they are Becky Rosen.
I don't have a good solution to this either, other than simply being the bigger bad-ass and blowing them up first - and well... I don't see that cuz the humble mountain folk or whatever are clearly outgunned and outnumbered and life isn't some inspiring movie where the lovable underdogs win because they're lovable underdogs. The "Illuminati Reptile Demons" are usually the ones that have all the real military force and real Te social structures behind them so good luck with that lol. I think Joss Whedon was right when he said that people who have had power will literally do anything to keep it. You can never be naive or too surprised at the lengths they will go to keep their power. And it's true for the lower level demons too (like your average creepy Starr worker). Like when you troll or piss off the Satan illumiiati they have an entire line of command that is sent to deal with you and your inappropriate behavior. To do any real good you'd have to cut off the snake in its head. Why bother with the minions as there is too many of them.
But realistically, I don't think anybody here or in the 'real world' would ever get to the final head boss. They instead would die a moron. Maybe they feel like dying for their own ideals is better than living in a world that is enslaving them- but if you don't really change anything in the end, how can that be true? I'm not cowardly enough to say for certain I'd never throw myself in front of an Illuminati Bullet for anybody- but you gotta make me see how the sacrifice will be worth it.
oh this is making me think of my video game where we adventurers fight the Eye of Providence (the all-seeing eye on top of the pyramid) in the Illuminati Pyramid level and it's a really long and hard boss fight but so rewarding in the end. I really need to work on my game more peace out. <3
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 01-14-2021 at 05:31 AM.
exactly! take that, straight people!
<3
Excellent
Everything is going according to plan.
Execute order 66
Last edited by Joe Biden; 01-14-2021 at 11:36 AM.
Order 66
Get em boss!!!
Last edited by Kamala Harris; 01-14-2021 at 09:17 AM.
RELEVANT TODAY FOR THE USA and every western nation
TLTR: The USA will balkanize and break up over the next decades into separate states on ethnic, religious and political lines. It will cease to be a global superpower.
Last edited by SGF; 01-14-2021 at 09:27 AM.
Trump definitely incited violence but without intention of doing so. He's a bit of fool.
ἀταραξία
Politics makes you stupid.
I don’t mean it actually lowers your IQ or anything. I mean that when you permanently install the lens of politics over your eyes, and view everything you see through your political lens, it makes you say and do stupid things.
As president, I will have a yearly “political post” limit on social media and will issue a fine for people who goes over that limit. The limit will be 12, average out to 1 political post per month, Every post from the 13th on and you get fined. Go past 20 and you get doxxed.
Ah yes I've been in the game for about 40 years now. And lemme tell ya,
I'm not getting old, I'm just becoming a classic
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
The most interesting Potus in the world
This is the comment you are looking for
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
