Here's what I was referring to:

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 in the causal chain is irrelevant.

I bring up agency to provide a locus for accountability/responsibility. and to highlight the difference between a causal chain and a chain of logic. The latter entails fatalism: the view there's nothing one can do to affect behavior (one's own, or anyone else's). We avoid fatalism by accepting that future behavior can be affected.

We have strong reasons to believe he would have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. — Relativist


It is that if his will was different than it actually was, he no longer being him, so to speak, the choices may have been different. — PoeticUniverse

Determinism does not entail incorrigibility. You become a different "you" when you learn something. A person can learn from his mistakes; he can learn that there are consequences. He can even learn to think more rationally, or coping skills for anger management.

I erred by saying "could have chosen differently". Do you agree with what I wrote if I change that section to:

Should they just excuse it because he had not choice (this seems to be the implication of your position)? No. We know have strong reasons to believe he could would have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things.

I agree with most of the rest of your comments (not your rejection of "agency", but I'll set that aside for now). What I infer is that there are cases in which the external causes (e.g. poverty, terrible childhood...) are mitigating factors. Those are important, but I don't think they imply we should abandon the notion of accountability I outlined. Here's a real-world example:

A few years ago, a 40 year-old woman in Houston was driving home late at night following a night of drinking at a bar. She got a bit lost, and wound up on an unfamiliar, dark street where she ran into a bicyclist who later died. The driver did not stop, but drove to her home. She was convicted of "failure to stop and render aid". In the punishment phase of her trial, her lawyer was pleading for leniency because she'd had a tough childhood: she came from a broken home, her single,twice-divorced mother was an alcoholic who never disciplined any of her kids, but she'd react at their bad behavior with verbal abuse. The mother kicked her out of the house when she was 14 because the girl was wild (promiscuous, using drugs, shoplifting). She and 2 of her 3 siblings dropped out of high school. Her brother is also in prison for repeated DUI (fortunately, he hasn't killed anyone). This was not an impoverished home - they were upper middle class.

There's a clear causal relationship between the girl's childhood and her recklessness at driving drunk, and failure to take responsibility for her actions. However, there are very good reasons to hold her accountable. Maybe, just maybe she will be more responsible when she's released from prison. Maybe the publicity this received will, in some small way, induce some people to take more care. Had she been given a slap on the wrist and sent home, it would have been only a matter of time before she was again driving drunk and risking lives. It is unfortunate that the girl had such a horrible childhood and suffered for it, but it's even more unfortunate that a completely innocent bicyclist was killed.

— rlclauer

It makes perfect sense to hold someone accountable for their actions: the action one takes are a consequence of one's beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice. If the consequences of that choice cause harm to someone else, how SHOULD others respond? Should they just excuse it because he had not choice (this seems to be the implication of your position)? No. We know he could have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. By doing so, that person becomes less likely to repeat the mistake - because he will have learned something. In effect, his programming will be changed because consequences provide a feedback loop that changes him. — Relativist

You are just arguing against a straw man. I never made such an argument. I never once said I am
I wasn't arguing against you, I was trying to get you to think in terms of accountability. Set aside all concepts of "free will". Do you agree with my model of accountability?

I was affirming that, yes, it’s all a partisan distortion — NOS4A2

You're going in circles. You also said:

"I haven’t disputed any of your links."
"Telling yourself little fantasies like that is the biggest hand wave. Not once have I challenged those mistruths and am giving them full benefit of the doubt. "

Maybe you should clarify what you mean by "card stacking", in light of your being willing to accept that these untruths are correctly characterized.

I haven’t disputed any of your links. — NOS4A2

You said it was false to suggest Trump tells many untruths. Here's what you said:

— NOS4A2

Are you claiming it's false to claim he tells so many untruths - that it's all partisan distortion? ! — Relativist

Yes, it’s called card-stacking.

==================================================

What I have repeatedly dismissed is your uncompromising, puritanical political correctness, energy which might be better served if it was focused on injustice and tyranny instead of tweets. — NOS4A2

So....telling the truth is just silly "political correctness", and valuing truth is "puritanical". LOL! Oh, the twists and turns Trump-devotees must make!

Here's an interesting thing that Trump tweeted today:

The New @FoxNews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore!

Wow! Even Trump believes Fox worked for him, and thinks that's the way it should be!
Kudos to Fox for showing signs of independence.

Telling yourself little fantasies like that is the biggest hand wave — NOS4A2

I provided a link to a fact-checking site, and this provides a rational justification for my beliefs about Trump. What's your rational justification for dismissing all the analyzed untruths it reports?

If you have two AI's interacting with information and with each other, and those interactions alter their code, given certain deterministic programming and overseeing supervisory programs, are you gonna say that if the code is altered the AI is now a conscious agent. — rlclauer

The two AIs DO have a causal role, just not a conscious one - since they aren't conscious. The critical issue is that there's no basis for holding them accountable. (more on this later).

Why do you need to invoke agency in order to have compassion? — rlclauer

You don't need agency to HAVE compassion. You need agency to act on this compassion.

As far as acting on your senses in a natural and non-deductive analysis, your point dissolves as information is obtained. If the first reaction to an optical illusion is to naturally believe it, then information which discloses the nature of the illusion is disclosed, now deduction will be applied to the viewing of phenomena similar to the optical illusion. This simply means that once deduction is introduced, naturally relying on sensory information no longer totally explains how that information is interpreted by the brain. Therefore, invoking natural responses dissolves as information is gained, and thereby, invoking it as a bit of evidence for free will, also dissolves. — rlclauer

You're analyzing an instance of an optical illusion - which are notable only because they are exceptional. I'm talking about sensory input IN GENERAL. You don't skeptically analyze all the objects you encounter in the course of your everyday life simply because of the possibility you are misperceiving them.

A brief comment on compatibilism. Compatibilism simply redefines free will, and is only a viable argument given a lack of information about the system. Therefore, libertarianism and compatibilism are equally incoherent, as compatibilism acknolwedges causal determinants, but kicks the can into unexplained territory, and then claims, see free will must exist in this space! — rlclauer

My position is that "free will" is a concept associated with responsibility and accountability.

It makes perfect sense to hold someone accountable for their actions: the action one takes are a consequence of one's beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice. If the consequences of that choice cause harm to someone else, how SHOULD others respond? Should they just excuse it because he had not choice (this seems to be the implication of your position)? No. We know he could have chosen differently had he been less reckless, or considered others, or any number of things. By doing so, that person becomes less likely to repeat the mistake - because he will have learned something. In effect, his programming will be changed because consequences provide a feedback loop that changes him.

Suppose the AIs in your example could experience pain, pleasure, regret, empathy, love, hate, and if it had desires that it worked to fulfill for the positive feelings it would experience, and aversions that it avoided because the negative feelings it would experience. Also suppose it could relate its choices to the consequences including the emotions it invoked, and that it could reprogram itself so that future choices would produce more positive and less negative outcomes.That would be closer akin to the "free willed" choices of humans. Whether or not we call it "free will" is irrelevant - my point is that accountability and responsibility comprise a feedback loop that we should acknowledge exists, and be glad of it. You weaken or break the loop when you deny accountability.

You're making a hand-waving dismissal, since you've falsified none of the claims made by fact checkers. Trump has hypnotized you into believing everything he says. Facts are what Trump tells you they are. Scary.

To be clear, I think we have "free will" in the compatibilist sense, consistent with determinism. If you deny free will, you also deny responsibility and accountability for yourself and others. IMO the best evidence of free will is the fact that we can learn from our mistakes: we make many decisions out of ignorance, learn something from the experience, and then make better decisions in future similar situations. Do you deny that learnings can help us make better decisions? How can THIS possibly be an illusion?

This perspective doesn't diminish the compassion framework you have in mind. It's STILL true that our conditions and experiences determine the choices we make. This is not inconsistent with personal responsibility, because despite those conditions and experiences, we can still learn.

Where we disagree is you think given the evidence, we should just err on the side of our perception being correct. — rlclauer

No. I'm pointing out the fact that we DO believe our senses - and this belief is not a product of deduction; it's natural. Optical illusions prove that we can be mistaken, but they don't imply our natural trust is misplaced. It doesn't imply we should immediately start questioning every bit of sensory input we receive. The implicit trust is reasonable. Trusting that we are free to make choices based entirely on factors internal to ourselves is similar - we naturally trust that we're controlling it, and just like with vision, we shouldn't question this control except in those instances where we have reason to believe otherwise. Surely you DO actually have this implicit trust in your own ability to make choices, just like you also trust there is an external world despite the possibility that your mind is all that exists.

Although our internal factors were CAUSED, these factors collectively are who/what we are. Most of us also want to do better, and we can indeed take actions to help us do better. It doesn't matter that the "wanting to do better") has been caused (by DNA, conditioned responses, etc) - it's still a motivator, and a part of ourselves.

It's self-defeating to deny that you have the free will to address the factors that elicit your compassion (like poverty, child abuse, etc). To take action consistent with your compassion, you must feel that you actually have to power to alleviate these problems.

You've gone from just saying you don't think we should word police, to acquitting him of ever being wrong.

Please show that the charges of falsehood documented here are actually partisan distortion. No rush, take your time. The exercise will do you good.

You're evading the issue. Of course he says some true things, but how is that relevant?

Trump talks a lot, but you limit yourself to the few bite-sized, quote-mined, out of context selections of the anti-Trump press — NOS4A2

Are you claiming it's false to claim he tells so many untruths - that it's all partisan distortion? !

He also has told worried subordinates that he will pardon them of any potential wrongdoing should they have to break laws to get the barriers built quickly, those officials said

If true, that's contrary to faithfully executing the laws. Yet another valid article of impeachment.

So we’re you lying that they were lies? Shouldn’t you now apologize? — NOS4A2

There is zero doubt that Trump lies. I just acknowledge that some of his untruths are a product of ignorance, compounded with arrogance.

Yes, Trump isn’t some technocrat or academic or lawyer. He doesn’t speak eloquently like Obama, or apologize when he gets something wrong. But that’s the problem: all you guys want are slick talkers, people who will enforce the bounds of political correctness and sing you lullabies when the going gets tough. But what has a slick talker or ivy-league lawyer ever really done? What have they created?

I haven't been debating your views on Trump. I've been explaining why it is wrong to label reactions to him as "mass hysteria". Whether you embrace it or not, his level of untruthfulness is unprecedented for a President, so it should be no surprise that this results in unprecedented reactions.

I am astounded that you attack the very notion that people, particularly leaders, should be truthful and held accountable when they're not. This takes partisan rationalization to an unprecedented level. Trump is truly leading his followers to the dark side.

— rlclauer

IMO, if we seem to deliberating, then we ARE deliberating. Similarly with the act of making choices.

Please explain how the SEEMING can be an illusion.

Optical illusions are a great example. Also, our brain filling in missing information is another good example.

Vision produces beliefs about the world; some of the beliefs may be false: illusions.

Why think the perception of deliberative control is an illusion? This seems like arguing for solipsism. Like with solipsism, it can't be proven false. But also like solipsism: nobody actually believes it. We actually innately believe there is an external world with other minds, and we innately believe we actually perform deliberations. Determinism doesn't falsify that. So you need some justification to consider it illusory- something more than logically possible.

also happen to have a potentially good idea for how to go about hacking the brain the way you would hack a program to figure out how consciousness works:
Look at the specific parts of the brain that experience consiousness and make consious decisions and see if you can spot a difference from the parts of the brain that don't. — Frink

There's been quite a lot of neurological research like this. Puzzles remain.

One thing is clear: memories are in the brain. They disappear from injury and disease. So if you're right that consciousness survives death of the body, it has no memories. Since it has no sensory organs, it can't see or hear either. Sounds scary.

I say "That's not a rhetorical question" sometimes because I realize that it might be taken to be a rhetorical question, but it's something I'm actually looking for a response/an answer to. — Terrapin Station

Your post seems like a rhetorical declarative sentence: you asked no question, but you're expecting an answer.

Sorry to disappoint you with that observation, but no answer.

The fuss is about the consistency of the will, which, although appreciated as nature's useful means toward one's survival and keeping one to basically remain as true to one's self, leaves the person to necessarily be an automated process, which is not well received emotionally, since, well, then it seems one is not in control, whatever 'control' means, really, and who knows what benefit it could confer over the quick and deep process of two hundred trillion neuron connections figuring things out quite well. — PoeticUniverse

The "automated process" consists of mental processes; they are performed by a mind. The output of this process would not come to be were this specific mind (which includes its beliefs, dispositions, desires, habits of thought...) not doing the processing.

My point is that determinism does not negate the fact that our minds are causal agents, agents whose beliefs (among other things) are factors that lead to the choice that is made. Yes, the beliefs were determined by prior experiences (as well as the DNA it started with), but they are still beliefs, and they are part of the processing.

epistemologically, it is not possible to know if we are actually deliberating or if it just appears that we are, for all intents and purposes, it seems to us as if we are making choices. Therefore, it might be safe to say that we have a "will." — rlclauer

IMO, if we seem to deliberating, then we ARE deliberating. Similarly with the act of making choices.

Please explain how the SEEMING can be an illusion.

A lie is a falsity with an intention to deceive. — NOS4A2

I was generously treating Trump's many untruths the same as the right treated Obama. Obama was not intending to deceive, but the reaction from the right treated it that way. Obama later acknowledged he was wrong, and apologized for his bad prediction. Trump owes us quite a few apologies.

No backlashes are warranted when one says something wrong. The outrage is premised on the fundamental attribution error, assuming malicious motives, and further assuming you’ve assumed correctly. When will the burning in effigy turn to burning at the stake?

Wrong. It is in the general interest to set the record straight when any sort of untruth is put forward. That is more than adequate warrant. Certainly Trump is not always trying to deceive - he probably actually believes the global warming scare is a Chinese conspiracy, that vaccines cause autism and that Muslims in the U.S. were celebrating 9/11. He probably really doesn't believe the Russians interfered in the 2016 election. I'm sure he really believed there were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 election.

Despite these not being technically lies, they should be every bit as concerning and certainly warrant being called out. We should all hope that policies are based on facts, not misconceptions. The cause for concern transcends individual untruths; it's concerning that he seems to have little regard for facts, unless they happen to coincide with what he already believes. Not believing the Intelligence Agencies he leads? That's bizarre.

It's not "unprecendented" to react to lies. Obama's "lie" that you could keep your health insurance after the ACA resulted in quite a lot of backlash. Now multiply the number of lies by 10,800.

As this article states:

"Donald Trump has made many false or misleading statements, including thousands during his presidency. Commentators and fact-checkers have described the rate of his falsehoods as unprecedented in politics"

It seems to me that the quantity of backlash per lie is actually much lower with Trump than with Obama, or any prior President.

You aren't engaging with what I said. I'm explaining to you why the response to Trump is unprecedented. You seem unable to think beyond your own partisan views.

Really, the backlash against Trump’s words has eclipsed any backlash in modern history. — NOS4A2

Trump's behavior is unprecedented. Review this list of lies (which is but a small subset). He personally contributes to the spread of fake news including the spreading conspiracy theories (e.g. implying Clinton had Epstein killed), while concurrently labellling anything he doesn't like as "fake news". It's hilarious listening to his staff try to force fit his nonsense into something truthy. The silence of most Congressional Republicans on his antics adds to the frustration. No prior President has hurled insults with such frequency.

If you don't understand why this unprecedented behavior would arouse people, you're in denial. All I can surmise is that you like the policies he has implemented, you don't care what he says, and you believe anyone who doesn't share your opinion on this is crazy.

What racist rhetoric? — NOS4A2

The stuff you pay no attention to, because you don't care what people say (except when aggregated into what you label a "mass hysteria" backlash against Trump).

I'll point out that his racist comments are but one aspect of Trump, and not even the most significant quality that invokes the backlash against him that you label "mass hysteria." The biggest issue is his disdain of truth. It's hilarious watching his staff rationalize the nonsense that comes out of his mouth. I expect this is just one more thing YOU don't care about, but most of the rest of the world values truth - and this understandably creates a well-deserved backlash.

Seriously, no matter how much you like what Trump does, nor how insignficant YOU consider his words, I cannot fathom how you could be so clueless as to why his words and actions create such strong negative feelings toward him. You don't have to jump on the anti-Trump bandwagon, but goodness - can you be that blind?

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.