Sometimes I feel you vacillate between a kind of (weak?) idealism and indirect realism. — hypericin

And this 'idea' is incoherent because it implies either (A) a Matryoshka doll-like infinite regress of minds-which-exist within minds-which-exist within ... ad infinitum (i.e. 'it's turtles all the way down) or (B) that "some mind" which "whatever exists for" is not ultimately "whatever exists". — 180 Proof

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

It's been years of people trying to balance things and say that we need to listen to these followers of Trump, hear their perspective on life and understand their situation. But when you listen to them, when you listen to Trump speaking to them, it's clear that they are downright utterly stupid people who basically joined a massive cult. — Christoffer

No reason beating around the bush, it's stupid people who are bitter and angry against smarter people for getting more attention. Spoiled adults who behave like screaming children in stores when not getting more candy for their fat asses, and their God is Trump, a representative of themselves, just as stupid,

but able to storm the white castle of power.

Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to understand people's attitudes. — Wayfarer

And every time you say such things, a fence-sitter is closer to slipping off into Trump camp.
— baker
I don't think it matters, it seems that nothing matters. They won't listen to reason or criticism, they're captured by Trump's narcissistic "embrace" regardless. — Christoffer

‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? — Wayfarer

In the United States, a person may have their voting rights suspended or withdrawn due to the conviction of a criminal offense. The actual class of crimes that results in disenfranchisement vary between jurisdictions, but most commonly classed as felonies, or may be based on a certain period of incarceration or other penalty. In some jurisdictions disfranchisement is permanent, while in others suffrage is restored after a person has served a sentence, or completed parole or probation.[1] Felony disenfranchisement is one among the collateral consequences of criminal conviction and the loss of rights due to conviction for criminal offense.[2] In 2016, 6.1 million individuals were disenfranchised on account of a conviction, 2.47% of voting-age citizens. As of October 2020, it was estimated that 5.1 million voting-age US citizens were disenfranchised for the 2020 presidential election on account of a felony conviction, 1 in 44 citizens.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement_in_the_United_States

Admitting that you've lost is unamerican.
— baker

How so? What is particularly 'American' about never admitting you lost? — GRWelsh

Think about the absurdities it would lead to. No political candidate would ever concede an election. No professional athlete or sports team would ever concede they lost a game or match. No one would ever pay up on a bet, because they'd refuse to admit they lost the bet. Society couldn't function like this.

What you are describing is being a sore loser or being deluded.

When can we call these idiots actual morons? — Christoffer

clearly those people are not capable of educating themselves. — unenlightened

They swallowed every word — Wayfarer

But the justification for non-monks to procreate nonetheless, because they hadn’t reached that level yet…they’ll just reach it on a future cycle..isn’t that how the argument goes? Strictly speaking, all adherents would immediately stop aspiration for starting a family. — schopenhauer1

all adherents would immediately

Admitting that you've lost is unamerican.
— baker

How so? What is particularly 'American' about never admitting you lost? Think about the absurdities it would lead to. No political candidate would ever concede an election. No professional athlete or sports team would ever concede they lost a game or match. No one would ever pay up on a bet, because they'd refuse to admit they lost the bet. Society couldn't function like this. What you are describing is being a sore loser or being deluded. — GRWelsh

Here is a frame of good versus evil. Within this frame there is no possible answer. How can a fair player win against a cheater? They cannot, they will always lose to the aces up the sleeve. And the conclusion then is that the good guys have to cheat like the bad guys do. The old gold of "They go low, we go high" does not work, it is fool's gold. — unenlightened

How can a fair player win against a cheater?

Therefore the first step towards a solution must be to reject the comfortable fantasy that "we" are the good guys, and "they" are the problem. Because clearly, for a large minority of America, it is the other way about. Clearly, for these people the game is already rigged so they always lose and they don't want to play by "our" rules any more.

I've never noticed this. It makes perfect sense though. — Tom Storm

If his actions "undermined confidence in the system" then there wasn't any worthwhile confidence in the system before to begin with.
— baker
Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen? — Relativist

The problem is that you (plural) don't know whom you're up against and you don't even care to find out what it would take to win against them.
— baker

What would it take to win against them? — Fooloso4

This is a philosophy forum. Presumably, you have a systematic methodology for distinguishing between who a person is and who you think said person is.
— baker
I was actually speaking of people I actually do meet in person and spend time with.
The philosophy forum is probably very limited in providing insight to a person's true personality. — L'éléphant

No wonder. Ever notice how who you think the other person in your relationship is changes over time, and who they and you are changes through being affected by the reciprocal interaction of the growing relationship itself?
— Joshs
Thank you for formulating this so eloquently!
— baker

Interesting. I've never really felt anyone around me has changed much over time. Certainly not my partner or significant friends or long term colleagues. If anything people seem to be remarkably consistent. If by change we mean one is no longer being able to anticipate reactions and choices made by the person we think we know. As to how well we 'know' anyone, well that's a matter for a range of interpretations. — Tom Storm

Obviously, the outward appearance is "obvious". When I said closely, I meant you would need to ignore the superficial curtsies and social routine so you could see a couple of measures -- integrity, maturity, and respect, for example. — L'éléphant

And how do you distinguish between who a person is and who you think said person is?
— baker
By fucking them. Okay, seriously, by spending time with them.

politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US
— baker
I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. — Outlander

You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals?

Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?

What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.

At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world.

The mans no dummy that's for sure.

You're confusing two very different things. No one is disputing that it is an admirable quality to refuse to give up or remain steadfast in the face of adversity, even when you are losing. But that's different than refusing to admit that you lost, which is not an admirable quality. — GRWelsh

How many Americans actually believe that political elections are about what is good for the people?
It seems to me that people, Americans and others, generally view any level of government officials, including the president of a country, as simply yet another job, something one does for one's own sake. The rest is just rhetoric; it's about proving that one can talk the talk. It never was about walking it.
— baker

Sure, most politicians are doing what they do out of self-interest to some extent, but their job is to do what is good for the American people. Trump is just flat out saying that he wishes ill on the American people in order to have a good outcome for himself. There isn't any way to twist that around to be defensible, just by virtue of being cynical. "Oh, we love him because he hates us and is honest about it!" Yeah, right...

People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.

This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.

Do you not agree? — Outlander

That doesn't really answer my question. — GRWelsh

It's not about YOU, the ordinary American and what will be good for you and your family,

Trump hates America. Trump loves Trump, and that's it.

Why do any Trump supporters think Trump can win in 2024? — GRWelsh

Of course, it should be no surprise that Trump sees no contradictiction there, as he's incapable of entertaining two ideas at the same time. — Wayfarer

appearance is what we see when we meet people or see them in pictures.

Who they are is their core personality. — L'éléphant

But there are outward clues as to who they are if you look closely.

No wonder. Ever notice how who you think the other person in your relationship is changes over time, and who they and you are changes through being affected by the reciprocal interaction of the growing relationship itself? — Joshs

I have generally found that there is almost no correlation between a person's appearance and who they are. — Tom Storm

Why would one then need Buddhism as a religion when the praxis of meditation can be detached from it? My point is that there seem to exist an inability to look at many practices in isolation from many different religions. Key point being that the explorations in Buddhist practices do not require the whole religious package of Buddhism. — Christoffer

Just as a prayer in Christianity could be explored without the religious whole.

There's very little guidance and philosophies out there about this next step from nihilism toward a sense of meaning and that's what I'm interested in exploring and formulating.

I truly don't have any beliefs in gods or the supernatural. Yet I feel no nihilism in my bones. I don't act out such nihilism and I instead appreciate and love life. Am I not then a walking contradiction to your point?

As I've mentioned with LSD, when I've heard people describing their experience and the experience of life after it, that sounds like a profound religious experience, without the need for religious beliefs and fantasies claimed as facts. Why would such induced experience be considered less profound or meaningful to these people?

Because it's not within the framework of a religion? Or is it just that we've yet to actually looked into such experiences outside of the framework of religious beliefs?

I see the role of renunciate philosophies as being especially crucial in today's world, because consumption obviously has to be drastically curtailed.
— Wayfarer

I agree, but that doesn't require the baggage of religious beliefs. Why cannot such life-styles and experiences be lived accordingly without having to accept a deity, God, pantheon or made up concepts of existence?

e American traditions follow a simple idea of harmony with nature around them. Removing the spiritual and religious claims in their traditions still leaves a practice that embrace our bond to reality and nature for what it is. — Christoffer

What I see today is this basically appearing in two types. Either a life of religious belief filled with doubt, keeping it hidden from others in order to try and keep it from being exposed to criticism, hidden crosses, hidden shrines, never talking to others about personal faith. Or turning to fundamentalism, shutting out all influences from the surroundings, extremify the bubble, silence anyone or socially excluding anyone who risk installing any kind of doubt, and double down on dogmatic dedication, isolating themselves from the rest of society or join societies in which this fundamentalism is the standard.

How can that hard path not become impossible when the world is constantly infusing doubt on a scale and movement that has never been experienced among religious groups before? — Christoffer

If the illusions of religion are put aside, then what constitutes a real solution to the predicaments of human existence, other than comfort and standard of living? — Wayfarer

Sure, better education in psychology in general would be good. But the authority? No.

Psychology should be seen as a bunch of what people at times found to be the inferences to the best explanation. However given the broader scientific perspective, it needs to be understood that psychology needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's just the best we have for now. — wonderer1

It's not possible to defeat authoritarians with kumbayah.
— baker
I don't intend to. I intend to keep posting facts about the case. — Wayfarer

I am interested in a self-destructive individual, and how self-destructive tendencies can possibly be a source of spiritual pleasure that overcomes the pleasure of survival and subsistence. — kudos

Do you think a human falling apart in mind, spirit, and/or body can itself be a valid social goal, in the sense that it is a force of thought directed against the overwhelming wave of subsistence as a goal?

This assessment would be opposite of someone who has achieved control over the 'will to power' as regards their attributed circumstances. Don't you find such individuals tend to come from backgrounds of adversity and pain? Would you represent this kind of character as common of someone who has been catered to every whim and pleasure their entire life? — kudos

That is an authoritarian political philosophy. — Wayfarer

There are words so dehumanizing that we refer to them only by the first letter of the word, as to not cause offense to our fellow members of society.
/.../
Is there any potential current or future harm being done? — GTTRPNK

More than good or bad looks, I have the feeling, aided by personal experience, that you can determine someone's personality from their face alone. Obviously, it is not fail-proof and not fully accurate, but someone's physiognomy tells you more about someone than ten minutes of conversation —or so I think. — Lionino

The US populace badly needs education on the nature of narcissism. — wonderer1

Instead, he undermined confidence in the system, and fanned the flames of conspiracy theorists. — Relativist