Yes, I honestly didnt know that any significant number of people claimed it was some kind if medical term. Is the description I gave not what people generally mean by TDS? — DingoJones

It's only use on this forum, up until now, was rather frequently by someone called Nobeernolife. He was banned last month I believe. Check that thread for any reasons.

I agree. But despite our goodwill toward Trump on this matter, he reacts to the unfair reporting by lying, claiming he was being sarcastic.

No, he wasn't recommending people ingest bleach. He was making a naive extrapolation from what he had just heard about the effectiveness of various methods of killing the virus on surfaces. But he just can't bring himself to admitting that, so he has to lie. — Relativist

Yes, well, there was one time where he admitted he was wrong about something while in office; but he made such a big deal about it that you couldn't help but get the impression that it was a calculated admission, meant to mollify his detractors and portray himself in a gracious, sympathetic light.

In any case, notwithstanding any intense dislike we might have for an individual, I think it is important to render an accurate account of events. We can do this by not (a) misconstruing obvious things, (b) abiding by the principle of charity, and (c) avoiding gratuitous hyperbole.

A recommendation to inject bleach into your veins is something different than, as you say, "making a naive extrapolation." But as philosophers we should be able to grasp this nuance, and set aside any feelings we might have that have no bearing on what actually is the case. There's no reason to blur the lines. The search for truth is vexing enough as it is.

‘Trump derangement syndrome’ was coined early in Trump’s misrule, to characterise the many people shocked and appalled by his election as suffering from a form of derangement. This is typical of Trumpworld tactics - to attribute the very things that Trump constantly does to his opponents, and then blame them for it (like when he accuses the FBI or CIA or DNC as being ‘corrupt’ for investigating corruption on his part.) It’s close to another thing Trumpworld does well, which is ‘gaslighting’ (manipulating people into doubting their own sanity). It’s also another version of the ‘hater’s gonna hate’ smokescreen - that if you think there’s something wrong with Trump being President, then it’s because you’re a hater, meaning your judgement is skewed by emotion.

All of these tactics are of course pathetically transparent, but in Trumpworld, as we know, facts don’t matter.

Essentially, he suggested it "might" be a good idea not that it "is" a good idea. The movement to the positive from the speculative is hyperbole somewhat justified by the added humor element and the fact that both brain farts are almost equally egregious. Like, I don't know, as if someone said "It might be a good idea to set yourself on fire when you're cold". And then the defense was, "Hey, he was just speculating, man!" He deserves every ounce of ridicule though we should be honest enough to acknowledge what he actually did say, of course.

I can agree with that. Ridicule is appropriate as long as we are able to grasp the nuance I stated in the last post. Otherwise, using it as a form of argumentation is poor form, or even fallacious.

Agreed.

You lied by accusing me of lying, whether by malice or stupidity, but then you keep perpetuating it.

Yeah I have no qualms about you guys roasting me. I figure you need it. So carry on.

Yeah I have no qualms about you guys roasting me — NOS4A2

Hey if you feel too hot, you might try pouring some liquid nitrogen over yourself.

Just an innocent suggestion speculation.

Hey I only take medical advice from politicians.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

My question did apply to you, it was directed at you and Monitor. Doesnt matter now.

It's only use on this forum, up until now, was rather frequently by someone called Nobeernolife. He was banned last month I believe. Check that thread for any reasons. — Monitor

Ok. Ive seen the term used elsewhere to mean what I described. Ive heard it directed at the media and various personalities, in youtube videos etc.
I can understand how my use of it would seem worse if that usage (as a medical condition, ridiculous) was the only one youve been exposed to...I feel like that was a hasty assumption but Nobeernolife was a pretty big fool so I get it.
Anyway, i think there is a phenomenon around Trump, where he so divides and triggers people that they stop thinking clearly. It causes otherwise good people to lie and sling mud the way Trump does, never noticing the hypocrisy. It makes it difficult to have productive political discussions. I do not think it is a dismissive number of people doing this, I cant even think of a media outlet that hasnt bullshited or straight up lied about Trump. Its in fashion, and Trump is such a reviled person no one cares.
But its works both ways too. I have a friend who is a Trump guy. He’ll go on and on about deep state and Trumps great and yadda yadda. (Its been difficult lol). Now, Ill give any point of view a fair shot, but my instincts told me to test the waters first. I asked him if there was anything Trump did that was wrong, or a mistake. His answer was “no”. That is deranged, in the non-medical, non formal sense of the word.
So thats what I mean when I say TDS.

So thats what I mean when I say TDS. — DingoJones

You don't get to decide what words mean.

Wow, thanks for coming out. Thats not even what Im doing in the portion you quoted. Im explaining what I meant when I used it, as is evident by the rest of the post that you apparently skipped.
Yes, I know Im not the King of Words. Thanks.

Yes, it's not interesting to hear you think people are deranged. But hey, it isn't so bad, because you mean it in a non-medical way. Meanwhile, it's not clear at all what the substantive difference is between medical derangement and non-medical derangement. I suspect the only difference is that one is established by a medical professional but in the end the judgment is the same, but we can question yours more easily when you do it. Doesn't make the judgment a light hearted thing.

At the same time, what TDS means is quite clear from how it's used: a way to discredit any criticism by discrediting the person. It's an ad hom.

In any case, notwithstanding any intense dislike we might have for an individual, I think it is important to render an accurate account of events. We can do this by not (a) misconstruing obvious things, (b) abiding by the principle of charity, and (c) avoiding gratuitous hyperbole. — Wolfman

While we are on the subject of epistemology, what is the epistemic justification for the principle of charity?

In general I think the focus on an "accurate account of events" is somewhat misplaced here. If you go by headlines alone, you'd hardly gain an accurate account of anything. This is not specific to Trump. Nor is Trump specifically vulnerable to distortions. Quite the opposite, actually.

So if we want to talk about accurate reporting, we'd have to talk about the substance beyond the headlines and hot takes.

Trump's modus operandi is the political equivalent of the psychological disorder known as Munchausens syndrome by proxy. TDS is an extension of this adopted by his supporters.

The way I describe it is as if someone comes up to you and knees you in the leg, then immediately limps away claiming to any onlooker that you kneed them in the leg. You feel as if you've been mugged and if you then turn to the onlooker to explain what actually happened you look like the guilty party because you look unsettled and a bit tongue tied. Whereas the real attacker rehearses a well practiced routine of the genuine victim which at first sight is more convincing to the onlooker than the behaviour of the real victim.

Likewise the Trump supporter rehearses a well practiced position as an innocent victim of an irrational attack from a hater of Trump. In an environment in which the accusation of TDS is used at every opportunity along with accusations of fake news, alternative facts, labelling everyone who is not approved by Trump as a poor loser.

Trump then adopts the posture of a kind benevolent (successful) leader, kindly breaking it to everyone that these people with TDS are mistaken (weak) and resentful. This simultaneously implies that his views on the world and affairs is inviolable truth and everything else is devious conspiratorial attacks on this truth by Flawed individuals. The sleight of hand here is that he is fostering a political atmosphere in which everyone is morally corrupt, everyone is a liar, everyone is divisive in their actions. Then Trump and his supporters behave/pretend as though he is good, truthful, benevolent and a great leader. The classic behaviour of a confidence trickster while muggging someone.

So Trump cancelled his daily conference because he's a whiny little bitch that can't handle critical questions. "nothing but hostile questions" indeed. Maybe stop lying and gettinf a clue will get him less hostile questions.

The principle of charity recommends that we interpret another's utterances in such a way as to maximise agreement. SO if some idiot says - not that this would ever happen, of course - that we should inject disinfectant in order to rid ourselves of a virus, the principle of charity insists that, when this person says "inject" they mean an injection and that when they say "disinfectant" they don't mean saline. The conclusion, that someone who suggested such a thing is an idiot, follows fairly naturally.

What the principle of charity does not suggest is that if some one suggests injecting disinfectant, they couldn't possibly actually mean to suggest injecting disinfectant. That's a job for his lackeys.

So it does not really help @Wolfman's case.

Actually, that's right. In any case, here I'm not concerned with what someone "couldn't possibly actually mean," rather what someone actually said, and how those words are used to form a non sequitur conclusion. As mentioned previously in my discussion with Relativist, a recommendation to inject bleach into your veins is something different than "making a naive extrapolation," and equating the two or drawing a conclusion of the former from the latter is non sequitur. Pointing out this distinction isn't necessarily a job for a lackey, rather it can be forwarded in the spirit of keeping discussion honest.

When asked about it he claimed to have been being sarcastic to see how reporters would react and so it would seem that he was suggesting (even if sarcastically) that we should look into injecting disinfectant, rather than just making a naive extrapolation.

Seems far too charitable. If he were just some fool on Twitter, you might have had a case...

...oh, wait....

no, I'll stand by my other comment. There is a point where the absurdity of what is said is such that ridicule is appropriate. Perhaps even obligatory.

My take was that he was (a) suggesting looking into an injectable treatment that had the same kind of quick-working cleansing effect that disinfectants have on tables and chairs and things like that. It didn't look to me like he was (b) recommending that people inject bleach into their bodies. I think Trump thought people were negatively reacting to (a) because all of his medical staff told him it was unrealistic and lacked feasibility, so he lied rather obviously to distance himself from that remark. But you could be right that Trump is lying to distance himself from (b), if he is actually THAT stupid.

You know, much as I appreciate trying to keep the debate as honest and rational as possible, it strikes me just how absurd this entire conversation is.

If the president of France had said the same thing, what would likely have happened? He'd have done serious damage to his reputation, possibly ended his political career, regardless of the exact wording and intent. Yet here we are, discussing whether the media had maybe been slightly unfair to Trump.

This is an excellent example of how Trumpists, with the help of trolls and the people who unwittingly engage with them, shape the debate to their advantage.

Indeed. It's reached a point where excusing him is culpable.

Well, this point of mine started as somewhat of an aside, where the conclusion of that post was critical of Trump. In so many words I said, "Well, to be fair he didn't exactly tell people to go out and inject bleach into their bodies, but the fact that he said anything that could remotely be construed that way is highly imprudent and irresponsible." Had not some people latched onto that initial point and descended upon it with such fervor, the level of absurdity in the conversation may not have reached such heights. The point being made was fairly innocuous in my estimation; but where Trump is concerned, I suppose even conceding these kinds of trivial points becomes a major point of contention for some.

Nobody else in the history of this site has spent even close to the proportion of time, energy, and number of posts to support their political personality of choice. — Baden

We had Agustino here for a while, relentlessly defending Trump (Not seen for a while, may have evolved). But Agustino was a pale shadow of NOS4A2 in that capacity.

Here's a question about the disinfectant-gate.

Even if he doesn't directly tell people to drink bleach, by some reports people have followed his reasoning and hurt themselves or died because of it. Would it legally be possible to charge Trump with manslaughter or constructive involuntary manslaughter or criminally negligent manslaughter?

I find no one asking that question as if it couldn't be applied to him? In all logical reasoning, it should?

Agustino wasn't blind to Trump's faults but accepted them as a necessary evil to shake up the system so it would finally change (in something I wouldn't want to see if his vision came true).