If a pope and a lawyer stand for high ethics and intelligence/competence, respectively, you're suggesting that a lack of these qualities leads to increased productivity. Even if that were true, the results of that productivity are likely to be of poor quality and largely self-serving.

Yes, I too miss the good old days when the media was completely objective and honest. :love:

I don’t want a pope or a lawyer running things. — NOS4A2

Why not?

Whitehouse propaganda is tame by any measure. — NOS4A2

Getting back to the example of Trump attacking the 'squad', in an interview Trump said, "The first lady thinks that it's horrible what they've said about Israel and horrible what they've said about our country, these congresswomen. They can't call our country and our people 'garbage.' They can't be anti-Semitic. They can't talk about evil Jews, which is what they say. 'Evil Jews,' ".

In both cases, he was twisting a quote to bolster his allegation that "they hate our country."

You call that tame? I don't think even Breitbart puts that much of a twist on what liberals say.

one is ethically tasked with keeping the public informed, the other is not. — NOS4A2

We were talking about propaganda techniques, that includes deception to some degree. It's unclear how you justify the President doing this but not the press.

But the outrage machine, who follow the propaganda model to a “t”, is using techniques that need to be condemned, — NOS4A2

So, for example, the way Trump attacks the ‘squad’ should be condemned. Agreed.

I find the idea of rebirth utterly irrelevant, unless you were to place your faith in an Atman which persists and aspires to become one with Brahmin (from which it was never separate in the first place). In that sense I think the Vedanta is actually more coherent philosophically than Buddhism. — Janus

From what I understand, Buddhism claims that all is empty and all sentient beings are Buddhas (enlightened), and it is only our ignorance (of our true empty nature) that prevents us from realizing this. There seems to be two ways to know emptiness: intellectually and experientially. Personally, I think impermanence is the key to understanding it intellectually. If everything is in a constant state of change then there cannot be static or independent things. If something was completely fixed and independent, well, it certainly wouldn't be alive.

As for knowing emptiness experientially, that can happen deliberately as with some form of contemplative practice, or it can be experienced unintentionally by something (such a stroke, see Jill Bolte Taylor) causing a particular brain state, or perhaps with the use of psychedelics. In any case, it is still just a transient experience. It may have benefits, such as relieving existential anxiety and whatever else, but these benefits may need to be maintained by regular practice.

From this perspective "enlightenment" doesn't live up to the hype, but it does explain why we don't see any enlightened people walking around, being all all-knowing, all-loving, all-compassionate, all-unsuffering, and all-whatever-the-hell-else-some-priest-can-dream-up.

Somehow it seems appropriate in a topic about Trump.

I think it’s refreshing to know what the most powerful person in the world is thinking, even If I don’t agree with it, as opposed to the public/private views and public relations style politics of before. I think that kind of transparency is important for democracy. — NOS4A2

Over 12k lies since taking office is being transparent? Granted his lies are transparent and they appear to come as naturally to him as breathing. What you may not appreciate is that they are tactical, and in that sense he's being a politician. Indeed, he's branded himself as a 'non-politician' who 'speaks his mind' or whatever. That's PR, just not the sort we're used to, because it's amid at a deplorable forgotten flyover demographic. A demographic where solidarity with the herd is more important than the truth.

I have a dislike of yellow journalism, mainly. — NOS4A2

Weren't you saying the other day that hyperbole is common speech, and repeating accusations of Orwellian thought policing that you got from Fox News?

Good point, I must admit.

If Danish media came out and framed the argument before it was even made, and based on this, Trump publicly called the idea absurd, I would understand why the Danish PM would want to refrain from visiting. — NOS4A2

You've handled the 'nastiness' directed at you and your unpopular views in this topic admirably, so it seems disingenuous to claim an understanding of Trump's thin-skin, which he's demonstrated time and time again.

Next weeks attention seeking headline: “Trump wants to sell Florida to Denmark”

I'm not sure that manufacturing jobs are better than consulting or "toiling in restaurants." In any case, you should be presenting an argument that Trump could bring an economy out of a deep recession without a stimulus bill or the like. Would tax cuts for the rich and deregulation work?

At least Trump didn’t require an $800 billion tax-payer funded stimulus bill to get it all going. — NOS4A2

This doesn't make any real sense because Trump inherited an economy that was already going, as Baden just pointed out.

Just looking at the unemployment rate (from the Washington Post article link to above):

This just in:

Trump says he is considering payroll tax cut amid economic concerns

Looks like they are worried.

Is the economy doing good or not? — NOS4A2

Compared with the Obama administration

Well you are criticizing his promise and not the economy, which is doing great. — NOS4A2

I knew it :razz: The trade deficit is a significant part of the economy, my painfully predictable friend.

I thought you were going to say that his campaign promise to reduce the trade deficit was just words, and that all the self-aggrandizement about his business and deal-making prowess was just words. On that we could agree, although I would be more inclined to describe it as a con job.

It's high time to take the hook out of your mouth.

I was looking at some economic charts published in the Washington Post yesterday that show how the trade deficit is higher now than it was under the Obama administration, despite our glorious leaders stable geniusness and deal-making prowess. Another bungle and promise unmet, it appears.

Does this count as a legitimate criticism, being about economic facts and not his words, @NOS4A2?

I like Warren best, but I don’t know if she has the best chance of beating Trump.

the thing with religious or spiritual practice is that you have to believe something or there is no incentive or direction to your practice. — Janus

I believe in the Buddhist concept of emptiness and that directs and motivates my practice to some degree. Orthodox Buddhists would say such a stark view is folly and leads only to nihilism.

I often reflect that the aim of secular culture is to provide a safe space for us to do what we like. — Wayfarer

The aim of secularity is to provide a safe space from irrationality, to put it bluntly. Not to claim that secular culture is entirely, or even majorly, rational. However, it’s generally not subject to the whims of the religious authority (absolute) and the intense passions generated in religiosity.

I don’t believe there is any evidence, by the way, that secular culture is any less moral than religious, if that’s the suggestion.

there must be an illusion of uncommon knowledge. — Janus

If you google how many religions there are, the first result listed, from Wikipedia, says there are 4,200. We know of course that there are several standouts, Buddhism being one of them, but even so, that’s a hell of a lot of uncommon knowledge variants. Such knowledge must be illusory.

Culturally, we live with all sorts of shares fictions. I don’t think that we can characterize any of them as being generally noble or ignoble. They all serve a purpose of some sort, with the common feature of allowing cooperation within large groups of individuals. A very successful survival strategy, it is theorized.

The thought I’ve recently arrived at and found disturbing is that spiritual tradition may have an implicit, and explicit in some cases, disposition to obfuscate. Unfortunately, the true spiritual teacher is almost vanishingly rare.

Here’s one from Fox News:



Earlier you wrote:

The word-policing remark actually harkens back to Orwell’s “thought policing” — NOS4A2

Like Trump, you appear to take your cues from Fox News.

I’ve never expressed any such sentiment. — NOS4A2

How-z-bout your Orwellian thought policing? That has a similar stench to it, yes?

What narrative have I regurgitated? Perhaps you can share an example. — NOS4A2

This should be sufficiently hyperbolic for you to appreciate:



That’s all the libtards got, right?

The vast majority of the monuments were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.

The word-policing remark actually harkens back to Orwell’s “thought policing”, — NOS4A2

It’s never a good sign when someone tries substantiate a remark with a work of fiction.

I think it describes your finger-wagging quite aptly.

You suspect that I’m part of the forum secret police and that I’m silencing your subversive thoughts against the forum status quo?

It appears to me that you’re entirely free to regurgitate any piece of political narrative that’s been fed to you. Something more original would be nice though, if you’re capable of generating you own criticisms.

“word policing” “word policing” “word policing,” you incessantly cry like a petulant three year old who missed his afternoon nap. It’s not even original but part of a passé far-right narrative, which you apparently bought hook, line, and sinker.

Okay, but no whining next time. It’s undignified and you degrade the fine art of trolling.

No seriously, I’m just trolling you.

You don’t have a problem with that I assume. It’s just words.

I think what you’re trying to say is essentially that I’m trolling you. That’s not projection because I’m fully aware that that is my intention.

You really are an idiot.

You’re trying to argue that I’m “word policing,” and failing. Actually, you’re not making an argument, you just keep mindlessly repeating the claim.

It should be obvious to anyone, who is actually concerned about such things, that the use of hyperbole in philosophical discussions should be discouraged. It should also be obvious why critical thinking may be valued.

Are you whining about word policing or thought policing?

Critical thinking and exaggeration are independent of both. Without thinking about it, I assume pretty much any idea (thought or concept) can be exaggerated or poorly conceived. The quality of language used to express poor critical thinking and hyperbole can vary greatly.

Are you unable to separate these concepts (language, thoughts, critical thought, and hyperbole)?

There are countless uses of hyperbole in this very thread — NOS4A2

You might try to back up one of your hyperbolic claims for once and point some of these alleged uses.

all you have is word-policing.

I haven’t criticized your language, numbnuts. I’ve criticized your used of hyperbole and your poor critical thinking.

Because you’re playing badly. Poor critical thinking and the use of hyperbole in philosophical discussions isn’t good. People will take you more seriously if you step-up your game.

Why is hyperbole a common figure of speech? — NOS4A2

Why is it a common feature of your speech, was the question.

It’s less common on a philosophy forum such as this. I think you may know why that is.

Hyperbole is a common figure of speech. — NOS4A2

It is a common feature of your speech. Why is that? You’re clearly not trying to persuade, so you must be attempting to provoke. For entertainment?

You would be more entertaining if you offered challenging provocations. Regurgitating the typical dimwited talking points we’ve been hearing for the last few years from the far-right is... unimaginative.