I already posted this in response to the first version of this comment in the Trump thread, but since there's a new thread I'll repeat it:

There is a long tradition of thought in philosophy that holds, essentially, that "evil is reducible to ignorance", i.e. nobody knowingly does bad things, everyone does what they think is the right thing to do, and is only incorrect about what the right thing to do actually is.

I'm pretty partial to that line of thinking myself. Everyone is the hero of their own story, the question is only whether they are unknowingly a villain in the bigger story of which theirs is only a part.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...?

Despite that, is it possible to distinguish between (a sufficiently advanced) cluelessness/incompetence and malice? If yes, how? — baker

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...? — Outlander

Yes, frequency would be an indicator I think. When someone makes what seems like a stupid decision, you might think it could be incompetence or ignorance... When they make what seem like stupid decisions all the time, you have to start wondering if they really had good intentions you assumed they had to begin with, and what other intentions they could have for deciding as they do. At some point incompetence and ignorance just stops being the most credible explanation.

This is a variation on Hanlon's Razor

Innocence can imply lesser experience in either a relative view to social peers, or by an absolute comparison to a more common normative scale. In contrast to ignorance, it is generally viewed as a positive term, connoting an optimistic view of the world, in particular one where the lack of knowledge stems from a lack of wrongdoing, whereas greater knowledge comes from doing wrong. This connotation may be connected with a popular false etymology explaining "innocent" as meaning "not knowing" (Latin noscere (To know, learn)). The actual etymology is from general negation prefix in- and the Latin nocere, "to harm". — Wikipedia

There's not a snowball's chance in hell we could be wrong about this...

Yes, frequency would be an indicator I think. When someone makes what seems like a stupid decision, you might think it could be incompetence or ignorance... When they make what seem like stupid decisions all the time, you have to start wondering if they really had good intentions you assumed they had to begin with, and what other intentions they could have for deciding as they do. At some point incompetence and ignorance just stops being the most credible explanation. — ChatteringMonkey

Exactly. I don't want to make this about Trump in particular, but it does apply to the situation with him.
A poster said here:

Trump thrives on attention and adoration. He lives for it. He's a moron and a narcissist, which 100% explains his actions. He lost an election to a corpse, so he has to rationalise that both for himself and his millions of cult followers. So naturally it was a fraudulent election.

The impeachment is floating a very different version of Trump, one who is blessed with understanding of others and the cunning to use this to deliberately guide his mob into violent insurrection without ever explicitly stating that this is what he wants: Trump as master manipulator, shadowy Bond villain, astute strategist and a man of subtle means. That isn't Trump. He has none of those qualities. And yet if we wish to convict him on the impeachment charges, in the absence of an overt call to arms, we have to pretend that is what Trump is. — Kenosha Kid

So ... I'm confused.

So ... I'm confused. — baker

There seems to be two schools of thought here. One is that if you're an agitator and your cult followers start an insurrection, you are culpable even if you had no plans for an insurrection. The other, mine, is that you're not.

Actually, there's a third. If you're NOS, you're morally culpable if your plan was to protest against lethal racist police brutality but you're not if your plan was to overturn an election.

My point of view is based on the larger picture: if we say that the inspiration behind an insurrection is morally culpable for it, we're implying that any agitator is responsible for unforeseen violence in its name, so a BLM protest organiser or rousing speaker becomes culpable for any riots that break out, for instance.

This leaves the above route wherein we have to rely on evidence that Trump actually did intend an insurrection or, in the absence of that evidence, pretend that there's sufficient evidence. Which is also bad, not now, but for future Presidents.

There seems to be two schools of thought here. One is that if you're an agitator and your cult followers start an insurrection, you are culpable even if you had no plans for an insurrection. The other, mine, is that you're not.

Actually, there's a third. If you're NOS, you're morally culpable if your plan was to protest against lethal racist police brutality but you're not if your plan was to overturn an election. — Kenosha Kid

But when such a case involves high politicians and other VIP's, this makes it a special case. Noblesse oblige.

Another example, if a high-ranking military officer were to do something similar, he could be courtmartialed and charged with conduct unbecoming an officer.

Why should a president not be assessed by such principles, and instead treated like an ordinary plebeian who just so, totally incidentally, happens to be president?

nobody knowingly does bad things — Pfhorrest

Really? That seems like an extraordinarily optimistic view of human behavior.

I've knowingly done bad things as an adult. I knew, as I contemplated the act, that it was definitely bad, and I did it anyway--sometimes more than once.

Evil is reducible to ignorance? Well, sure -- sometimes. For instance, a person might have engaged in so little self-examination that they are unaware (ignorant) of their motivations. We can't always project far enough into the future to assess consequences. But sometimes we are clueless.

Energy company executives (like Exxon) buried early evidence of the consequences of unlimited petroleum production. I doubt that they were clueless about either the environmental or moral consequences of that act.

Trump thrives on attention and adoration. He lives for it. He's a moron and a narcissist, which 100% explains his actions. He lost an election to a corpse, so he has to rationalise that both for himself and his millions of cult followers. So naturally it was a fraudulent election.

The impeachment is floating a very different version of Trump, one who is blessed with understanding of others and the cunning to use this to deliberately guide his mob into violent insurrection without ever explicitly stating that this is what he wants: Trump as master manipulator, shadowy Bond villain, astute strategist and a man of subtle means. That isn't Trump. He has none of those qualities. And yet if we wish to convict him on the impeachment charges, in the absence of an overt call to arms, we have to pretend that is what Trump is.
— Kenosha Kid
So ... I'm confused. — baker

My take on Trump is that he is kind of an exception to the rule in that he is both incompetent and malicious... which makes it hard to determine what exactly determines what actions of his.

I think he definitely knew that he was inciting them before and even during the riot (his twitter video), probably knew and wanted for things to get out of control, and saw himself as some kind of strong man taking matters into his own hands (look at the imagery with his black gloves and flags waving in the background, it doesn't get any more fascist qua imagery.)... That would be the malicious part.

But then he probably was also to blinded by his own image and narcissism to fully appreciate the gravity of the situation and the consequences. It was a half-assed attempt at insurrection and ultimately to laughably amateurish to really take seriously as an attempt at insurrection... he was living out a narcissist power fantasy.

So incompetent or malicious? Probably a bit of both.

But when such a case involves high politicians and other VIP's, this makes it a special case. Noblesse oblige. — baker

I think that is the emotive aspect: Trump is a special case, so deserves special measures. But that's not the way law works. If you set a precedent for blaming agitators with unforeseen violence, it will not help to say that was just a "special case" when Republican lawmakers go after protestors. They can simply reply, "So is this."

Another example, if a high-ranking military officer were to do something similar, he could be courtmartialed and charged with conduct unbecoming an officer. — baker

That's true, but the military has extremely strict rules. The President has more leeway than anyone in the country, which is how he gets away with e.g. threatening state officials if they don't manufacturer votes or pressuring his VP to overturn an election.

Why should a president not be assessed by such principles, and instead treated like an ordinary plebeian who just so, totally incidentally, happens to be president? — baker

It's precisely that he be treated as anyone else, including a BLM protest organiser, that I would argue for.

It's precisely that he be treated as anyone else, including a BLM protest organiser, that I would argue for. — Kenosha Kid

And how is that compatible with him being the president??

So incompetent or malicious? Probably a bit of both. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, humans are complex.

And how is that compatible with him being the president?? — baker

I don't understand the question.

To whom much is given, much will be required.

A president, given his high position, should live up to high standards, and he should be judged by those high standards.

A president, given his high position, should live up to high standards, and he should be judged by those high standards. — baker

Yes, I agree, and were Congress a noble place Trump would have been convicted of things he definitely did that were criminal and against the interests and constitution of his country.

We can definitely say that Trump's campaign to overturn the election were low for the office he holds and criminal in some cases. But the impeachment article describes a specific crime: not spreading distrust and contempt for democracy but inciting a specific event. That needs specific evidence.

But yeah I agree... the leader of any democratic country should always be held the most firmly to it's laws. Weird how that never seems to be the case, eh? :vomit:

I've knowingly done bad things as an adult. I knew, as I contemplated the act, that it was definitely bad, and I did it anyway--sometimes more than once. — Bitter Crank

Why?

I expect these cases will involve a quotational sense of “wrong”: something you know others would call wrong, but you think is excusable anyway. Otherwise why would you do it if you personally thought you shouldn’t? (Besides weakness of will; you intended not to but you couldn’t make yourself not).

Of course I could have avoided doing wrong. I wasn't under some sort of strange compulsion. I understand that many people commit acts that some (or many) other people consider wrong. Gay sex, for example. Smoking weed. Speeding (really fast on a freeway). Buying stolen goods. Etc. What I did I knew and felt to be wrong, but the opportunity was there so I took it. Were the same situation to arise, I'd probably do it again.

My bad acts have been very small potatoes, but people also commit major crimes like espionage--just for the money, art fraud, grand theft, assault, and so forth that they know others and themselves think are wrong. People even commit at least 'lukewarm to cool-blooded' murders, something different than a hot passionate murder or cold-blooded murder for hire.

I'll grant you, though, that many 'wrong acts' are what you call "quotational sense of 'wrong'". Sexual acts certainly fall into this category when people are swept off their feet by someone else and end up in bed with them, even though they are married or in a committed relationship. That's happened to me, and I didn't count that as deliberate wrong doing. My dick was making the decision, so to speak--a hard cock has no morals.

What I did I knew and felt to be wrong, but the opportunity was there so I took it. Were the same situation to arise, I'd probably do it again. — Bitter Crank

The question at hand though is do you wish you hadn't and wish you wouldn't again? That's what it is for you personally to think something is wrong, in contrast to merely knowing that others think it's wrong, or feeling a socio-emotional pressure away from it (like preemptive shame), which is what I mean by "a quotational sense". Just because others say it's wrong or because you feel ashamed of it when you imagine telling someone you did it doesn't mean that you yourself really think it's wrong.

I'll grant you, though, that many 'wrong acts' are what you call "quotational sense of 'wrong'". Sexual acts certainly fall into this category when people are swept off their feet by someone else and end up in bed with them, even though they are married or in a committed relationship. That's happened to me, and I didn't count that as deliberate wrong doing. My dick was making the decision, so to speak--a hard cock has no morals. — Bitter Crank

That's not what I meant by "quotational sense". That's "weakness of will", presuming you did actually think it wrong yourself, not just other people, and despite thinking that still found yourself doing it anyway.

Consider for example several different kinds of alcohol drinker:

- One of them is of a religion that says drinking any alcohol ever is wrong, but thinks that that rule is too strict, and sometimes drinking a little alcohol isn't really genuinely bad, so long as you don't lose control. So they sometimes drink, even though they "know that it's wrong" in that they'd get in trouble with their family/community/etc for it, and feel ashamed of it. That's someone who intentionally does something that's called "wrong" but they honestly disagree with that evaluation of it: they don't really think that it's wrong to drink just a little bit sometimes. That's the "quotational sense" I was talking about.

- Another drinker has a history of alcoholism, and if they drink just a little bit they're going to want to drink a lot more, but they don't think it's actually a bad thing for people to drink a little bit. They're aware that some religions etc, maybe the people in AA and so on, think that drinking at all, or at least people like him drinking at all, is wrong, but this person thinks that's bullshit and one drink is perfectly okay. So they try to drink just a little bit, and not too much, just the amount that they think is okay, but because of their alcoholism they end up drinking way more than they intended to, and regretting it later. They did something they genuinely thought was wrong, through a weakness of will.

- A third person isn't an alcoholic and doesn't believe in any of those religions that say drinking at all is wrong. Thy have an occasional drink, and successfully stop before it gets to be what they think is too much, and find no problem with it. But as it so happens, those religions that say drinking at all is wrong, are correct about that, so even though to him it seems he's doing everything right, he's actually doing something wrong, through ignorance.

Is this about David Cameron? If so, it was certainly malice! He could not have believed he could reduce immigration to the tens of thousands while a member of the EU, but that promise did open the door for UKIP to point that out to him. His renegotiation could not have been renegotiated without treaty change - but it did publish a long list of complaints about the EU in every newspaper. He did not have to make the referendum a manifesto commitment Parliament were forced to approve, less yet, set the bar at a simple majority. Cameron set up a coalition of Eurosceptics (ECR) in the EU Parliament, failed to reduce immigration, failed to renegotiate the UK's relationship with the EU - and then declared himself chief spokesman for Remain, and lost, on purpose! It was malicious! Cameron was a Brexiteer who denied Remain an honest advocate by pretending to be a Remainer. He queered the Remain pitch, and then hauled all that baggage with him into a referendum that he provided for! And the weirdest thing is - I'm apparently the only one who sees his malice! Everyone else thinks he's an idiot!

So incompetent or malicious? Probably a bit of both. — ChatteringMonkey

There's another thing here when it comes to people in high positions of power who were voted into those positions: both their malice and their incompetence are, in some part, somehow related to those who voted for them. Which can ameliorate the judgment we might otherwise have of the person in that high position of power.

It is reasonable to assume that the people who select a candidate and vote him into office, know this candidate. And if they know him to be incompetent or malicious, but they neverthelss vote for him, then this is a possible indication that they themselves are incompetent or malicious. I say merely a possible indication, because candidate selection and the motivations for voting can be complex and sometimes have nothing directly to do with the candidate himself. And all this can be privileged information so we as outsiders can't work with it.

Similarly as there is a diffusion of responsibility, so there is a diffusion of incompetence and a diffusion of malice.

In the light of this, it seems unfair to impeach Trump, or to take any action against him alone, when he is, basically, only the end-product of the democratic process. The real culprits are those who selected him as a candidate and voted for him.

I don't quite see it like that.

There is certainly discontent among a certain percentage of the population with their lives and how the political system doesn't seem to do anything about that. Without that Trump would be impossible, that is true. But this discontent is to some extend politically formless without someone organizing it in a certain direction. It's not that Trump merely captures what lives among people, he actively forged it into a populist movement for his own gain. And that is I think Trumps responsibility. A non-malicious and somewhat competent politician would presumably stop short of that and have the decency to not use racist, anti-media etc etc rethorics and the foresight to know that this would cause all kinds of trouble.... He could have gone in other directions with this.

So he already paved the way for the riots before the riots, but the riots themselves are probably even more blatantly his fault because here he actively misled his followers by creating and spreading the lie of election fraud. The rioters think they were doing the right thing... because he misled them. Maybe you can say that they should have been more skeptical of Trumps claims, or maybe they just used Trump as an excuse to unleash their frustrations.... and so also bear some responsibility there. And I would agree with that, but still, ultimately I think this is Trumps doing predominately and he should be held accountable for that.

It's not that Trump merely captures what lives among people, he actively forged it into a populist movement for his own gain. — ChatteringMonkey

But how can this be proven?

It's not that Trump merely captures what lives among people, he actively forged it into a populist movement for his own gain.
— ChatteringMonkey
But how can this be proven? — baker

I'd think pointing at his speeches and his rethorics would be enough as proof for forging a populist movement... but that is not illegal I don't think.

What is illegal is sedition, or staging an insurrection. And I don't know US law enough to know what would count as proof in court. I'd think his speech just before the riots where he literally said that 1) the elections were fraudulent and 2) that they should walk to the capitol, would enough to start a case, but if that would be enough to legally convict him, I don't know.

It probably wouldn't be. You would have to show that he knew of the plans for violence and took steps to enable it.

The January 5 date was all over extremist site like /pol/, 8kun, The_Donald, etc. weeks before the event. You had catalogs full of discussions of people talking about strategies. List of which Democratic Congress people who, if executed, would be replaced by Republican governors. Copius threads of people posting their load outs, armor and weapons they would be bringing.

The FBI and DHS certainly knew about these. The sites have shown up in numerous court filings, so they definitely monitor them. Dylan Roof posted on an extremist sub-Reddit. The El Paso shooter posted his manifesto to 8chan. The Christchurch shooter used the same sites.

They also had prior incidences of violence, as previous Stop the Steal protests in DC just weeks prior ended in stabbings and vandalism.

The question is, was this shared with the President. I'd argue it's implausible it wasn't since the campaign also keeps close tabs on these sites. Trump himself did a Q&A on the_Donald, although this is before it was banned from Reddit and was bear as radical.

I find it impossible to believe that political advisors didn't earn him of potential violence and blowback. It is possible, given his terrible relationship with intelligence and the FBI that he either wasn't briefed on the threat, or simply dismissed it.

The National Guard and other back up being restricted from sharing intelligence, or even being issued gear is troubling. Multiple calls for reinforcements were delayed, and the Guard sat ready to deploy for two hours, only being mobilized after it was clear no lawmakers were captured. The claim that this was done to avoid bad optics is clearly full bullshit. You could supply the Guard and place them out of sight in Federal buildings close to the Capitol instead of keeping them across the Ptolemaic and unarmed.

You'd have a much stronger case for sedition if the President was involved in delaying law enforcement. He purged his national security staff after the election though, and I doubt any of the remaining loyalists would say anything if that was the case.

We do have some evidence of what he was doing during the riot. He accidentally called Mike Lee, looking for loyalist Tommy Tuberville during the siege. As protestors were seeking out lawmakers he lobbied to use the event to delay the certification of his loss. He also didn't call for peace until news outlets reported that all lawmakers were safe, waiting hours.

Still, it isn't a strong legal case without people going on record to say he expected the violence and interfered with the response. Impeachment doesn't require the same legal standards and is political though. Obviously the optics are bad enough for Republicans to vote to remove him. I doubt they get 17 Republicans to vote to impeach though. The only way that happens is if Mitch leads them. Mitch is 78, and will be 84 to start his next term, so he might take that step, but given his generally craven attitude towards Trump, I highly doubt it. He'll likely try to run for a term to be Senator at 84-90 years old. Fienstien is running again at 91. Congress, particularly the leadership are incredibly old, and almost all very wealthy, which is why they seem so disconnected for reality.

An ignorant person who is not malicious will be open to hearing they have done wrong, try to learn, and does not attempt to do the wrong thing on purpose.

Ignorance with maliciousness will not be open to hearing they have done wrong, will not try to learn, and does not attempt to do the right thing in their actions, only things for themselves.

You can be ignorant, and not be malicious. It is one's approach to actions which determines if they are malicious, ignorant or not.