This shows that there is more to words than just scratches and sounds. Your thinking that this is what words are is a damning indication of just how empty and meaningless your inept but endless defense of Trump and his use of "the best words" is.

Then you should be able to show me this “more to words”, or point to any word in your lexicon of thoughts. But you won’t. It goes to show how you rely on your imagination too much.

Please explain how you think about concepts such as freedom, democracy, and autocracy without words.

I think about things, like words or concepts, but that does not entail that I think in things like words and concepts.

At least they won’t be lonely.

It sounds like you’re in a higher state of evolution. Or lower, depending on how you look at it.

So you hear your own voice. Interesting. Perhaps my malady is the reason I can refuse to overestimate the power of words. It explains a lot, really.

Metaphor is an overrated crutch. Used too often it comes to replace the truth.

No need to apologize.

Is there a little narration going on up there? What does it sound like?

This is writing, not talking. I’m writing to you. Such a simple mistake that it’s no wonder your grasp on this and other topics is lacking.

Does the voice in your head tell you what to write?

There are no voices in my head, no. Do you?

Words are independent of thought. It’s the reason we can’t understand a language simply by reading it or hearing someone speak it. Scratches on paper, text on screen, and articulated guttural sounds are arbitrary, merely conventional. It is not possible to deduce the underlying meaning from its word form.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

I’d love for you to show me where these words are.

Fee speech is a virtuous policy and censorship is a vice. But irresponsible, hateful speech that predictably leads to threats of violence is a vice, even if it is Constitutionally protected. You've ignored this. Either call Trump out for this irresponsible behavior, or defend it.

It usually leads to threats against the speaker. History shows that the censor is immoral and irresponsible in moving to censor speech he doesn’t like. It’s the same story over and over again. His speech will lead to some species of public disorder, like the corruption of the youth, the loss of faith in the one true god, witchcraft, hatred, threats, violence, racism—I promise. Therefor commit violence and persecution against the speaker.



And that’s on them, not Trump. Took you long enough to get there.

I don’t think in words. The metaphor is absurd to me. Do you think in words? Well, where are they?



You’re right. But there are people willing to act on all of the above, to abide by someone else’s dictates, up until and including throwing someone in jail because he made certain sounds with his mouth. That’s how censorship works.

No, it reveals that you like sales. What you don’t mention is all the sales and all the ads that do not influence you. But that you pick and choose maybe one or two out of the excessive din of the advertising world, and do not run for a products after every billboard you see, reveals that it isn’t as influential as you make it out to be. It’s the same reason you pick and choose articles and quotes, post them at your whim and fancy, while dismissing countless others. And through these countless efforts you cannot point to one person you’ve influenced.



I speak and write in words.

Yes conmen believe in the power of words. Are you a conman, or so easily conned, that you’ll believe the same? When you hear their words are you compelled into some sort of action favoring their expectations? If others are forced to move at the sight and sound of words, what’s your excuse?

I suppose that reveals more about you than the power of the words.

Are you the type that buys a product when you see an ad for it?

Of course they do, and you know it. Why do you continue defending Trump if words do not have power? Why do you object to the gag order if words do not have power? Why insist on his right to say whatever he wants if his words do not have power?

The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of.

Words have power because I like defending Trump. Words have power because I object. Words have power because I insist. There is a gap of hot air between the premise and the conclusions. I don’t believe in sorcery so I don’t believe I’m changing the world with my words. The fact of the matter is I use words because I like using words and I like sharing my opinions. I like reading the opinions of others and I like responding to them. Unlike you, I’m not trying to change anything. Again, I don’t believe in sorcery.

Are my words affecting you now? Am I tickling your brain at a distance? I just put the words there. That’s the end of my influence. That’s the extent of my sorcery, the extent to which I’ve changed the world with words. But it’s your eyes running over the text. It’s your faculties making sense of the symbols and providing them with meaning. You are using my words. They are not doing anything to you; you’re doing things to them, and you’re influencing yourself in the process. That’s the way it has always worked, with Trump’s words, the judge’s words, your words, whomever’s words. Not a single one of them has caused or influenced a goddamn thing.

You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.

The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship.

As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?

There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats.

Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism.

Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist.

they believe him. Do you think these "patriots" will act on his words or not?

No and for the same reason you wouldn't act on his words. Words don't have the power you pretend they do.

If they do act it is because they perceive an injustice, not words.

Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent. He neither speaks of violence nor advocates for it, something that his critics would never mention because it undermines their whole case.



And sexist, apparently.

Words are dangerous, the censor’s bird call and the tyrant’s bird brain.

That’s what these gags are about. As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. His Truth posts must be so powerful they trigger successive interactions in the human nervous system, leading to danger. In the deranged Trump supporter, Trump’s criticism leads them to commit threats.

But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances. The proof is that they have the tools to protect their staff and prosecute those who commit threats but they punish Trump instead. He can’t criticize the law clerk chumming around with Chuck Shumer. Can’t criticize the judge and his weird, shirtless social media posts. But they can let a racist DA with TDS abuse the justice system to hurt Trump financially and politically.

If you were perceiving the world while you were asleep, then you wouldn't need the alarm clock to be awakened by it. The fact that you set the alarm clock to be awakened by it proves that you don't perceive the world while asleep.

I’m not sure how that proves you’re not perceiving the world. If you weren’t perceiving the world you wouldn’t hear the alarm clock.

Even so, if you’re not perceiving the world, what are you perceiving? Are you perceiving nothing? Are you not perceiving? Or are perceiving something other than the world?

While I look away, I wouldn't know if the cup exist, and I wouldn't know what the person would be doing either. The person could have looked away too, fell asleep, or walked out the room. Anyway, how can I believe in the existence of the cup when I am not seeing it, and base my belief in the existence of the invisible cup relying on the other person's perception, which is totally inaccessible to me?

You would know because the person would tell you that it did not disappear when you looked away. If you did not trust him, he could film the cup while you looked away, and you could review the video after and see that it had not moved. There are a number of experiments one can do find out the answer. Now you have evidence proving to you that it had not disappeared, and zero evidence that it did. Given this, is it reasonable to doubt the existence of the cup when you were not looking at it?

But do you keep perceiving the world while you are asleep? Are what you perceive always what you think you perceive? Was there any room for doubts, illusions or mistakes in the contents of your perception?

If we weren’t perceiving in our sleep we wouldn’t wake up when our alarm went off. Our senses have evolved to wake us even in the deepest sleep. At any rate, I see no coherent reason why any of it should be doubted.

Think of the cup in your OP, the one you cannot be sure exists when you are not perceiving it. If you and someone else were sitting around the cup, and you look away, but the other person sees the cup has not moved or vanished or blinked out of existence, are you right to doubt the existence of the cup?

The point is not that we stop perceiving or not perceiving anything at all. But rather, how can we be sure about what we perceive is real or truth?

Or when we are not perceiving the objects we have been perceiving, due to not being present in front of the objects, what are the grounds for us keep believing the unperceived existence?

I mentioned a few reasons why we’d keep believing in the existence of the world. For one, we never stop perceiving it. But also, there is no reason to do otherwise.

It’s why I ask the question. If you never stop perceiving the world, what are the grounds for doubting the existence of the world?

The idea that we can stop perceiving the world is a troubling one, but remains at the core of anti-realism. It suggests that at some point a person can perceive nothing, can perceive the extraterrestrial, or is not perceiving at all. A question arises: what are the grounds for believing any of the above?

The question is tricky to answer. At least some grounds remain for the realist. For instance, when we close our eyes we are not perceiving a void, we are not perceiving the otherworldly, or are not not perceiving, but are staring directly at the back of our eyelids. The eyelids, as amazing as they are, cannot block all light (which is of the world) so it cannot be the case that the world vanishes upon closing one’s eyes. Even when we sleep our senses are dutiful sentinels, and only in extraordinary instances and interventions can they be numbed (anaesthesia, for example). That his senses point outward is indicative of the relationship between a perceiver and the objects of perception. Plus, other observers or recordings can confirm that our coffee cups remain when we are not viewing them. So there is plenty grounds.

So the question ought to be inverted. What are the grounds for believing that we are perceiving nothing, perceiving the extraterrestrial, or perceiving nothing at all?

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it.

You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.

You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real.

When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck.

Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.

It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. But it is not appropriate to inflict violence on the non-violent. Are you unable to discriminate between those who are violent and those who are not? If you see a woman waiving a flag in protest, or filming the crowd on her phone, do you suggest throwing a concussion grenade at her just in case?

Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.

Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point.

So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.

The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda.

BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf

The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise.

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding.This justifies the indiscriminate throwing of concussion grenades into the crowd, who are all criminals, according to Relativist. That's all I needed to know.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed.

I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house, which spread beyond the temporary barriers into the streets where private property was destroyed and (of course) looted. I'm just wondering where all the investigative committees and finger-wagging about "our democracy" is. This apparent hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

A "show trial" isn't an actual trial either.

Again, my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries, or at least I missed it. But you did see this footage in the hearings? There were 10 hearings in total (C-Span). Do you recall which hearing it was? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.

who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet?

The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

Yes, they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

We never stop perceiving the world. Gravity is a constant reminder. Biology never turns off. These worldly constants are always in our perceptual space and can never be not perceived.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people indiscriminately and without warning. They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

The protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Don’t forget, there was also the one that was too stupid to run away from the real bullet.

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence.

Another anti-democratic legal theory tossed in the dust bin. But then the judge falters on basic 1st amendment jurisprudence, giving anti-democratic forces some form of solace as they continue their schemes.

I was not speaking about judges.

Biden fired them all. He went after Trump appointees and filled the positions with his loyalists.

New York judge lifts the gag order that barred Trump from maligning court staff in fraud trial

Judge David Friedman, of the state’s intermediate appeals court, issued what’s known a stay — suspending the gag order and allowing Trump to freely comment about court staff while a longer appeals process plays out. Friedman’s ruling also applies to Trump’s lawyers and others involved in the case.

The trial judge, Arthur Engoron, imposed the gag order on Trump after the former president made a disparaging social media post about Engoron’s court clerk on trial’s second day, Oct. 2. Engoron later fined Trump $15,000 for violations and expanded the order to include his lawyers after they questioned the clerk’s prominent role in the courtroom.

Friedman questioned Engoron’s authority to police Trump’s speech outside the courtroom — such as his frequent gripes about the case on social media and in comments to TV cameras in the courthouse hallway. He acknowledged that judges often issue gag orders, but said they’re mostly used in criminal cases where there’s a fear that comments about the case could influence the jury.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-letitia-james-fraud-trial-gag-order-c25e51a094dbcdeffbf67589b1c07f37

I’m surprised there are still some adults in the system, to be honest.

“They do sound like the sort of thing Trump would say. Therefore, racism is fine, I guess.” We’ll have to name this fallacy Badenism!

I was trying to illustrate how fallacious such comparisons are. You’re comparing rhetoric; it’s like saying they’re all fascists because they swear. It’s dumb.

A fascist dictator campaigning on rooting out fascists? Pretty wild.

Politicians use inflammatory metaphors and dysphemism. Trump’s rhetoric is closer to that of Winston Churchill, for example, who described Bolsheviks as “swarms of typhus-bearing vermin” and said they were “like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims”. His threat to root out both “communists” and “fascists” suggests a closer parallel to Churchill (who opposed both in war) than to any fascist dictator. At any rate, making such parallels is clearly a poor exercise in guilt by association. Trump is a business man, nothing like the Austrian artist, the Italian journalist, or the British writer, who have higher social, ideological, linguistic, and spiritual affinities to Trump’s critics than to a man of Trump’s standing.

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras/the-creeds-of-the-devil-churchill-between-the-two-totalitarianisms-1917-1945-1-of-3/

You’re literally thinking like Hitler now.

Hitler claimed the jews were using the big lie to deceive Germans. Praxis claims Trump is using the Big Lie to deceive Americans.