Historically, racist rhetoric has led to racist policy:
Racism is not a Distraction, It's Policy
We buck the trend by calling it out the rhetoric when it happens.

It’s not partisan because Trump has denounced racists and racism from the beginning. It’s actually you who is partisan because you refuse to see it. — NOS4A2

Trump has read denouncements from the teleprompter, and I don't ignore it, I applaud this. But I also call out the bad behavior, and this bad behavior (which is predominantly off the cuff, unfiltered, unquestionably a product of his OWN mind) is not negated by the good.

You, on the other hand, completely ignore the bad behavior. You hide behind a superior attitude: "I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice". Political incorrectness means inadvertantly saying something that some people find offensive. This is forgiven when one apologizes and recognizes the feelings of the offended. It goes beyond PC when he just defends his actions, and it's not negated by reciting a prepared speech (although I am glad he delivers those). In my personal opinion, I think he is simply incapable of ever admitting he's done anything wrong. But the effect is the same: racists love him, and it normalizes racist behavior.

The media is spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump himself. It is the media spinning the yarn that Trump is racist, not Trump. They are emboldened and normalized by the media, not Trump.

Judgments of Trump are a consequence of the words he unapologetically uses. Even if merely spoken out of political correctness, the fact is that there are predictable consequences to doing so, and there are appropriate responses he COULD make: acknowledging those who are offended, and apologizing for inadvertantly offending. Voters who embraced his political incorrectness should have anticipated that this would cause a backlash. Instead you condemn them for not being like an idealized version of you who merely disdains political correctness.

BTW, if it's wrong to call people racist, how do you rationalize Trump's calling people racist?

Trump isn’t a racist, nor does he fan those flames. That’s the sport of anti-Trumpists who utilize that canard for the sake of power seeking.

I never said nor implied I was above judging people. I would suggest trying to put words in another’s mouth is bad form — NOS4A2

I don't believe it appropriate to judge people, including Trump, because we can't see what's in their heart. However, judging behavior is appropriate - and Trump's behavior (in terms of both words and actions) CLEARLY appeals to racists, and he avoids distancing himself from them. This normalizes their behavior - which indeed fans the flames.

You are free to disagree, but please don't claim your judgment is anything other than partisan. The only negative judgments you've made are against those who disagree with and dislike Trump, and you repeat the same old partisan tropes.

Anti-Trumpism is the opposition to trump as an ideology. Most people want their leaders to succeed and their country to prosper. Anti-Trumpists want their leader to fail and are willing to ruin the country to do it. — NOS4A2

That's political hyperbole that both sides use. Everyone always wants the opposition party to fail to enact the policies they don't like -policies they consider bad for the country, and the attacked party responds as you're doing, conflating failure to enact perceived bad policy with failure to do good things.

I just can’t get on board with the word-policingtru and snobbery. I must admit it would be easier to wag my finger and hop on the bandwagon, but it’s reaching levels of persecution.

Instead, you wag your finger at the people who are concerned about the things Trump says. That's hypocrisy: you pretend to be above judging people, and then proceed to judge.

Is it OK with you if Trump fans the flames of racism, or is it just that you think Trump is being judged unfairly? If the former, you should certainly understand why people who don't like racism would react as they do. If the latter, you should recognize that it's a judgment call - just because YOU don't think he's encouraging racism (even if inadvertantly), you should recognize that others assess him differently. It is snobbery to act as if you are in the superior position to judge.

I am not making an issue of people’s comments. I’m making an issue of anti-Trumpism and the behavior of those who adhere to it. — NOS4A2

What does "anti-Trumpism" consist of? How does it differ from "anti-Obamaism"? Politics always produces reactions. What is different with Trump is that he says and does so much that many find repulsive -so much more than past Presidents. It's always action/reaction, and that's why it's hypocritical to ignore the Trump actions to which people react.

Does nature create art? No. Nature produces things that have an aesthetic appeal to humans, but nature itself has no aesthetic sense. Artificial intelligence, as understood today, also lacks aeathetic sensibility. Like nature, it could produce things that we find aesthetically appealing, but that is not creating art.

We could, perhaps, create an artificial mind with an aesthetic sense. This mind would need to interact with the world and feel emotions. It would need desires, longing, and a sense of awe. Is this really possible? Maybe.

I did not make an issue of anyone’s comments, is what I meant. The principle was employed consistently. — NOS4A2

You used the term, "mass hysteria." Still seems a negative characterization. — Relativist

Yes, it is. But I think there is justification for it. I’d also argue there is evidence of aggression-based schadenfreude.

Reactionary responses to Trump are reaching absurd and dangerous levels. — NOS4A2

You ARE making an issue of people's comments, then. This is hypocrisy.

Sorry, you're right. You used the term, "mass hysteria." Still seems a negative characterization.

OK, thanks. (You should have said, "you would be right"). But you earlier referred to "Trump Derangement Syndrome." Why a negative characterization of reaction to Trump, but not a negative reaction to what Trump says? To maintain consistent principles, it would seem one has to contort oneself to thread a series of needles.

How is this not hypocrisy? One avoids hypocrisy by identifying a principle and applying it consistently.

I’d rather not. I think wagging my finger at someone for not conforming to political correctness is intellectual cowardice. — NOS4A2

I trust you weren't one of those Trump zealots who made an issue of Hillary's comment about "deplorables", nor at Omar's comment, "It's all about the Benjamins", with regard to the Israel lobby.

If you think it's unfair to attack Trump, then do you also think it unfair when Trump attacks? e.g. calling "the squad" racist? What about his false assertion that AOC called Americans "garbage?"

It's hypocrisy to object to attacks on Trump while either accepting or defending Trump's attacks on others.

It’s not so much rationalizing what he said as it is opposition to the word-policing, snobbery, fear and gossip mongering.

As an example, once he called some countries “sh-thole” countries in a private meeting. One little tattle-tale ran to the press and ratted him out. The comments—but actually the fevered reporting on the topic—resulted in a so-called “global outcry”, exceeding the collective outrage over any war, atrocity or injustice occurring around around that same time. — NOS4A2

Trump supporters embraced Trump's disdain of political correctness. They should have expected reactions like this - it's not treating Trump differently; it's treating political incorrectness consistently (whether or not you agree with it). I've been called out for making politically incorret statements before, and when I do - I own up to it and apologize. That's something Trump never does - instead he doubles down.

In this case, Trump's comment demonstrates callousness toward the unfortunate people who live in these countries. The proper response would have been to apologize and acknowledge their conditions. But Trump is incapable of admitting he ever does anything wrong. THAT is the real problem with his political incorrectness.

You say, "it's not so much rationalizing"... OK then, please identify some comment or tweets of Trump's that you consider inappropriate. I can easily find some anti-Trump rhetoric I consider inappropriate.

I'm just not sure that I can agree that it follows from the fact that my factors were predetermined, that there is an "alternative" to the choices that I have and am making. — ho ching leung

Are alternatives even logically possible if there is libertarian free will? Reflect on some important decision you made. There are reasons you came to that decision, reasons that you identified during your deliberation. Does it make sense to think that you could have deliberated to that set of reasons, and then made a different decision? Of course not. Those reasons determined your decision. The same process applies to the deliberation that led you to develop each of those individual reasons. A different decision could only have occurred if you had some different thoughts or beliefs. This is true irrespective of whether our wills are libertarian.

Yes, his opposition is inflamed by tweets and out of context quotes, so much so that we’ve reached levels of mass hysteria. The era of public relations politics is over. — NOS4A2

There are certainly some inappropriate reactions to Trump, and I don't rationalize or excuse them. However there's a lot of appropriate, negative reactions. The "mass hysteria" charge, and the term "Trump derangement syndrome" are used to conflate, and therefore dismiss, all negative reactions to Trump. I'd love to see Trump supporters who could be as discerning of his comments, rather than the knee-jerk rationalization of everything he says or tweets.

Two cents: if energy is the foundation of causality, motion, and force, wouldn't it first have to have been in a state of perfect stillness? How could it get, from itself, from that state into the complex universe we experience? — Gregory

Here's a hypothetical possibility: there exists a quantum system whose quantum state is zero energy. A quantum state consists of a superposition of multiple eigenstates; this translates to zero energy actually existing as every possible level of energy, that essentially add to zero. This comprises the "perfect stillness" you reference. A universe is an antecedent of a single eigenstate - one whose energy is high. This eigenstate evolves (call it a big bang).

I don’t know about Trump supporters, but it’s the routine snobbery I oppose. You don’t like the way Trump talks and I respect that, but not liking the way the president talks is not sufficient enough to justify obstructing the office or the president from doing his job. It doesn’t justify the marches, some being the biggest in history, when not a single injustice was involved — NOS4A2

Trump's words both anger and scare people. They inflame emotions on both sides.Trump supporters applaud Trump "fighting back", no matter how low he goes. Marches and demonstrations are the public fighting back.

"Obstructing" the office? What actions have been inappropriately obstructed? Energy is certainly spent on political fighting, but has Trump done ANYTHING to rise above politics? Both his rhetoric and his policies have been extremely partisan and inflammatory, and thus polarizing. Push back is the consequence.

People thought the purchase of Alaska was stupid. The Danes sold the Virgin Islands to the US for $25 million. These aren’t stupid ideas and the outrage about it was misinformed. — NOS4A2

I'm sorry, but your rationalization of Trump's behavior on the subject is misinformed. It's absolutely understandable why the Danes would consider the idea absurd, and Trump attacking the PM for stating this is a new low (if that is possible). Understand, I'm fine with thinking outside the box. Doing so can result in both the brilliant and the idiotic. You discover which by floating the idea and getting feedback. The appropriate thing to do is to accept the feedback, not to take it as an insult and fight back.

What the implications be for our species if an individual (coming from out of nowhere) had managed to complete the Grand Unified Theory in mathematics? — Steven Twentyman

Zip. Nada. Zilch. It would be a big deal to a handful of people, but it would change no one's life.

One set of people that would be influenced would be Christian apologists: they would develop a new version of Cosmological Argument to "prove" God's existence.

He’s hearing countless arguments from countless advisors and opponents, supporters and antitrumpissts alike. Perhaps he is taking account of both sides. I don’t see the contradiction in entertaining opposing arguments. — NOS4A2

If you listen to everything he says carefully, you can perhaps see his opinion evolving. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, but he does tend to make declarations that he will do X, and later change his mind and declare he's going to do Y. How do you know when he'll really do what he says he'll do, since he changes his mind so much? This also suggests that his initial declaration were not the product of sound deliberation. Where's that $2B of infrastructure money? Where's that fantastic health care plan?

Not everyone listens to him that carefully. They may not notice his shifting positions, but when they hear what they want to hear - they remember this. When he doesn't say what they want to hear, they either ignore it or assume that since he's so brilliant, he'll eventually come around to do what they think is right.

Couple this with his rhetorical hypocrisy: he's simultaneously on both sides of a moral principle. Pleading the 5th implies there's something to hide when it's a political enemy, but when he's called upon to provide information, he's unwilling or secretive. He casts direct insults on political opponents and even on foreign allies, but he can't take even a negative reaction to some ridiculous idea he had (buying Greenland). Trump's diehard fans forgive all this - they don't judge actions and words on principle, they judge on whether you're with him or against him.

If we then define free will as the ability to consciously influence the outcome of reality, determinism necessarily precludes it. — ho ching leung

I strongly disagree, and I think this erroneous conclusion is a consequence of conflating logic with causation.

Contrast chains of logic with causal chains. Where Pi are propositions, and Ci are causes:

P1 =>P2=>P3=>....=>Pn (P1 implies P2, P2 implies P3...)
C1 ->C2->C3->...>Cn (C1 directly causes C2, C2 directly causes C3....)

Logic is transitive, so the above logic chain entails: P1=>Pn for all n. The intermediate Pi are irrelevant.

On the other hand, causation is NOT transitive. C1 does not directly cause Cn for all n. No Ci is irrelevant.

This matters because you are one of the Ci: you were caused, but you nevertheless are a causal agent - and a complex one at that. What are you? You are the sum total of your initial physical state (the DNA that comprised the zygote from which you emerged), and the various changes to yourself as a result of living. Collectively, these result in you having feelings, conditioned responses, desires, urges, knowledge, ways of thinking...etc. These are the things that went into making you who, and what, you are today, and your unique combination of these things are what "determine" the choices you will make. But since they are YOU, it is still YOU that is making the choice. A different YOU would make a different choice, so you are a critically important part of the causal chain. You become a different YOU when you learn from past mistakes, or introspectively decide to behave differently - perhaps more or less selflessly. Without you being who and what you are, the future causal chain (your output) would be different.

Bear in mind that although your factors were the product of determination, this does not imply you were designed to make the choices you make. It doesn't imply there's a puppetmaster pulling your strings, forcing a choice. You are the causal agent.

The best responses to theism are materialist (physicalist) metaphysics and cosmology. Every argument I've seen for God are based on arguments from ignorance or based on unstated metaphysical assumptions.

I don't think anyone has considered the basis of morality, which I argue is empathy. If we lacked empathy, there would be no morality. Morality is the intellectualization of empathy, turning it into a calculus.

It is no coincidence that a variety of cultures independently developed the "golden rule".

To add to the confusion, consider what (if any) difference there is between ontology and metaphysics. Both pertain to what exists.

This is a feature, not a bug. It enables Trump supporters to hear whatever they want to hear. You want gun background checks? You don't want background checks? No problem: there's Trump comments supporting both sides of this. It's a buffet of words: pick our what you like, and ignore the rest.


Imagine a president bending to the will of the people he governs. The thought is almost unthinkable. — NOS4A2

You're idealizing a non-existent scenario. The people do not have a single will. The phenomenon I identified is of individuals inferring from his words that the president is bending to THEIR will, while those with the opposite opinion feeling he is bending to their will. Why don't contradictions matter to you guys?

His earlier remarks are so absurd that he can't help but slip back into contradiction — S

This is a feature, not a bug. It enables Trump supporters to hear whatever they want to hear. You want gun background checks? You don't want background checks? No problem: there's Trump comments supporting both sides of this. It's a buffet of words: pick our what you like, and ignore the rest.

Free speech in the U.S. does not mean you can say anything, in any context, and suffer no consequences. There are laws against slander and libel. You can be fired for making negative comments about your employer. an absence of restriction is untenable. Hate speech is similar to slander.

I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.

Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect. — NOS4A2

TV commercials do not cause every viewer to immediately go and and purchase the advertised product. Nevertheless they are effective at inducing some demand for the product.

There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech. — NOS4A2

I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.

I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it?
— Relativist

Yes. Didn't I explicitly say that? I thought I had. — Terrapin Station

My point was that we judge whether or not to restrict free speech based on the anticipated consequences, since we agree "objective moral values" don't exist.

The positive consequence is letting people do what they want a la consensual actions, rather than controlling others. — Terrapin Station

"Letting people do what they want" is not a consequence, it's just a generalization of "let people say what they want". I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it? If so, why do you regard this as bad?

As I've been explaining over and over in this thread, I don't accept that we can at all demonstrate that there are negative consequences (especially of the sort that I'd legislate against, as I've been describing just today, in posts just above) — Terrapin Station

Free speech is not some objective moral value. You value it because of what you perceive to be the positive consquences. The negatives have not been demonstrated to your satisfaction, but neither have you demonstrated the positive consequences to my (and perhaps others') satisfaction.

But why? You subjectively value free speech so highly that you are willing to accept the negative consequences.

Note that you treat unrestricted free speech as the ultimate good.

If you don’t believe in free speech for views you despise, you don’t believe in free speech. — NOS4A2

When you refer to it as views I despise, that puts a subjective spin on it. I despise some right wing ideology, but I absolutely believe they should be able to voice their views. It boils down to whether or not there are standards that are more objective that can be applied. For example, do you think we should allow a public call-to-arms to start killing blacks? IMO, it's appropriate to silence that sort of speech.

While it is appropriate to hold everyone personally accountable for his own actions, let's bear in mind that our individual world-views are a product of our environment. Whether or not it fits some legal definition of "hate speech", when people talk in degrading ways about minorities or ethnic groups, it contributes to the spread of bigotry toward those groups. Speech can do even worse than spreading bigotry: it can normalize mistreatment. After the 2018 Pittsburgh Synagogue killings, I found some white nationalists saying "what's the big deal? Killing is a crime, but at least there's a few less Jews around". That may or may not constitute criminal hate speech; it doesn't tell people to kill Jews, but it expresses and spreads a horrible attitude - a world view that killing Jews isn't all that bad. It would be a good thing to draw a line somewhere that limits the extent to which people can make such public comments. I don't know where the line is best drawn, but I support having the line.

Rather than having the abstract discussion that seems to taking place so far, I recommend that everyone peruse what bigots are saying on the White Nationalist Stormfront forum. It can get pretty chilling.

But motion would be at least logically prior to time. Maybe we aren't evolved enough to understand these questions, but motion being prior to time is the topic I would like to discuss, if anyone's interested. — Gregory

Motion prior to time seems logically impossible. Motion entails change of position over time. In the absence of time, it logically impossible for there to be motion.

Aristotelian-Thomist arguments make a bit of sense in terms of classical (non quantum) physics: all motion in the universe is a product of thermodynamics. However when you bring Quantum Mechanics into the discussion, the argument runs into trouble. There are cosmological hypotheses that offer explanations for the high energy/low entropy state of the early universe without the need for a "prime mover" to make it go.

Certainly all are speculative, since they make assumptions that go beyond established physics - but they at least serve to falsify the argument from ignorance entailed by the Aristotelian-Thomist paradigm.

I hear a lot of Trump supporters praising Trump for "firing back" with insults and degrading statements, while complaining only about the low behavior when it's directed at Trump. Here's how you avoid being hypocritical: call out inappropriate behavior regardless of who's engaging in it.

I think firing back is completely appropriate, and wholly deserved. — NOS4A2

Indeed! Any firing back on that moronic guy in the oval office is richly deserved! Thanks for giving us carte blanche to say what we think of the pussy-grabbing jerk. I'm an agnostic, but I sincerely hope there's a hell he can rot in when he dies.

...
Man that felt good to express my feelings so openly! But I hope it's obvious how unproductive it is to engage in trash talk. It just inflames the side you're trashing, likely resulting in more of the same. Trump appeals to his base (like you) this way, but it is inflamatory -causing fighting back, and escalating the bad feelings on all sides.

Trump has been ridiculed since the beginning, caricatured in popular culture, burned in effigy, murdered in music videos and photo shoots; his looks, his body, his voice, his hair, his hands, his mannerisms have all been mocked and ridiculed incessantly; his family, his career, his legacy, put to the violent grindstone of popular opinion.

But he is still there firing back. — NOS4A2

I hear a lot of Trump supporters praising Trump for "firing back" with insults and degrading statements, while complaining only about the low behavior when it's directed at Trump. Here's how you avoid being hypocritical: call out inappropriate behavior regardless of who's engaging in it.

Denmark's PM called the proposal to by Greenland absurd. Trump's response:

"I thought that the prime minister’s statement, that it was 'absurd,' that it was 'an absurd idea,' it was nasty, I thought it was an inappropriate statement," Trump told reporters before departing the White House for a speech to a veterans group in Kentucky. "

Even if you (somehow) disagree about it being absurd, it should be no surprise that the PM would consider it so. Calling her "nasty" is yet another low in the Trump presidency.

A necessary condition for doing any science is choosing/determining which evidence to believe and how much weight to give it. How do you do that without free will? Because without free will, you're simply compelled to believe that a particular piece of evidence supports a hypothesis. It might, it might not. — RogueAI

I assume you mean "how do you do science without libertarian free will". The answer: with compatibilist free will. Compatibilists account for free will in a manner consistent with determinism. Some people feel that's not free enough because they don't like the idea that what they did was, in principle, determined.

1. The ability to make choices is a necessary condition for the evaluation of evidence.
2. Evaluating evidence is a necessary condition for science.
3. Without free will there is no ability to make choices.
4. Without the ability to make choices, evaluation of evidence is impossible.
5. If evaluation of evidence is impossible, science is impossible.
6. There is no free will.
7. Therefore, science is impossible. — RogueAI

Don't you believe you actually make choices? It seems absurd to deny this. The act of making choices and evaluating evidence could be described algorithmically, so it's consistent with determinism.

Reflect on a choice you made at some point in the past. Why did you make THAT choice instead of an alternative one? Clearly you had reasons for making the choice that you did. Is it possible that you could have landed on all those reasons and made a different choice? You arrived at those reasons after deliberating on your options, anticipating what would happen with each. The strength of various desires entered in. Maybe you overlooked some things, or failed to anticipate something. But given the series of thoughts and feelings that led to constructing the reasons for your decision, how could you have made a different one? With hindsight, you may have come to wish you'd made a different choice, but this hindsight constitutes knowledge you didn't have at the time, or an amount of self-control that you lacked at the time. If indeed no other option could have been selected after that exact deliberation, then your decision was determined by that deliberation.

.