But why couldn't the stomach the alternative? What was so very bad about Clinton, — Marchesk

She just seemed to represent the establishment. Was she selling the State Dept? Probably.. which is just bizarre if she knew she wanted to run for president. Her personality is off-putting. That didn't help.

For years now I've said that the first woman president of the US would have to be a Republican. Female Democrat is just too many vectors in the same direction. It did occur to me when it seemed that Clinton might win that all the people I said that to would remember and think.. oh, she was wrong!

But why couldn't the stomach the alternative? What was so very bad about Clinton, or Obama before her? — Marchesk

I think one of the very most pernicious memes in US culture is this idea that 'Government is evil' - that it's an intrusive Big Brother, who is teaming up with these shadowy forces to 'take our freedom away'.

Trump said at his Inauguration that now he is going to 'take the power back' from 'Washington' and 'give it back to the people' - via the likes of Steve Mnuchin, who forgot to declare $100 million of assets in his disclosure form.

The whole deception about this is that representative democracy is 'giving power to the people'. The people elect representatives, who go to Washington to represent 'the people'. Sure, there are many things about it that are dysfunctional, there's corruption and mal-administration; but saying that government itself is the problem, the very institute of democratic governance, is essentially a step towards either anarchy or dictatorship.

That's where the real conspirators are to be found; those sowing doubt and fear about Government, who will profit from de-regulation and public distrust of the law and the media. They paint themselves as the 'us' in 'us vs them', but they're the real villians. You know, the kinds that gamed the system before The Big Short. I bet nobody even knows their names.

(Friend of mine lived in Shanghai from 2000-2006, When he came back he was utterly convinced in the Twin Towers conspiracy. Had swallowed the whole story hook line and sinker. I wondered why he was so convinced, but I think it had something to do with having been living in China. It's in their interests to sow mistrust and doubt about the US government. China, Iran and Russia all have direct interests in weakening public perception of Western governance. There's your actual 'conspiracy'.)

We're all being played for suckers, but not by 'The Government'.

hat's where the real conspirators are to be found; those sowing doubt and fear about Government, who will profit from de-regulation and public distrust of the law and the media. They paint themselves as the 'us' in 'us vs them', but they're the real villians. You know, the kinds that gamed the system before The Big Short. I bet nobody even knows their names. — Wayfarer

You're right. Conservatives are real big on that. The goal is to defund Government so that business can take over. Because business interests are superior to government. That profit motive working for the common good.

From an OP in today's NY Times:

To say, as [Trump] did, that the elected representatives of American democracy are worthless and that the people are everything is to lay the foundations of totalitarianism. It is to say that democratic institutions are irrelevant and all that counts is the great leader and the masses he arouses. To speak of “American carnage” is to deploy the dangerous lexicon of blood, soil and nation. To boast of “a historic movement, the likes of the which the world has never seen before” is to demonstrate consuming megalomania. To declaim “America first” and again, “America first,” is to recall the darkest clarion calls of nationalist dictators. To exalt protectionism is to risk a return to a world of barriers and confrontation. To utter falsehood after falsehood, directly or through a spokesman, is to foster the disorientation that makes crowds susceptible to the delusions of strongmen.

Amazing the number of people who can't or won't recognise a demagogue when they're looking at one.

Amazing the number of people who can't or won't recognise a demagogue when one appears. — Wayfarer

That's exactly what a leader should be saying... What would you expect a leader to be saying? The job of a leader is to ensure their country is great, and the will of the people is followed. Fuck democracy. Why should we be addicted to democracy, unquestioningly? Seriously people speak of democracy as if it was a God-sent political system that we should never change... Why are all non-democratic systems deemed totalitarian? As if there was only one alternative - democracy, or totalitarianism :s Such a narrow world-view. Plato himself made it abundantly clear that democracy is quite possibly the worst political system, only tyranny was qualified as worse. But of course, you're just parroting liberal propaganda Wayfarer.

Plato wanted a benevolent dictatorship, run by philosopher-kings of supreme virtue who had no self-interest and altruistic motivation. If that matches your idea of Donald Trump, then send us a postcard from your planet some time, so we can avoid it. X-)

Plato wanted a benevolent dictatorship, run by philosopher-kings of supreme virtue who had no self-interest and altruistic motivation. If that matches your idea of Donald Trump, then send us a postcard from your planet some time, so we can avoid it. X-) — Wayfarer

>:O No it doesn't however Plato did provide a hirearchy of governments - you can find them summarised here since you like Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes

Trump sounds like he would fit Timocracy or Oligarchy, both superior forms to democracy.

You really do come across as a Putin troll, you do know that, don't you?

You really do come across as a Putin troll, you do know that, don't you? — Wayfarer

:-} Since you don't bother yourself to read anything that I give you, I might as well write it out for you:

A timocracy, in choosing its leaders, is "inclining rather to the more high-spirited and simple-minded type, who are better suited for war".[1] The governors of timocracy value power, which they seek to attain primarily by means of military conquest and the acquisition of honors, rather than intellectual means. Plato characterizes timocracy as a mixture of the elements of two different regime types — aristocracy and oligarchy. Just like the leaders of Platonic aristocracies, timocratic governors will apply great effort in gymnastics and the arts of war, as well as the virtue that pertains to them, that of courage. They will also be contemptuous towards manual activities and trade, and will lead a life in public communion. Just like oligarchs, however, they will yearn for material wealth and will not trust thinkers to be placed in positions of power. Timocrats will have a tendency to accumulate wealth in pernicious ways, and hide their possessions from public view. They will also be spendthrift and hedonistic.Because their voluptuous nature will not be, like that of philosopher-kings, pacified in a philosophical education, law can only be imposed onto them by means of force.

For Plato, timocracies were clearly superior to most regimes that prevailed in Greece in his time, which were mostly oligarchies or democracies. Crete and Sparta are two examples of timocracies given in Plato's Republic. In the Symposium, Sparta's founder, Lycurgus, is given high praise for his wisdom. And both Crete and Sparta continued to be held in admiration by Plato in one of his latest works, the Laws, for having constitutions which, unlike that of most other Greek cities, go beyond mere enumeration of laws, and focus instead on the cultivation of virtues (or at least one of them, that of courage). Plato, however, does present a criticism against those cities — that their constitutions neglected two other virtues essential to a perfectly just city such as his aristocracy, namely wisdom and moderation.

Of the man who represents a timocratic state, Socrates says that his nature is primarily good: He may see in his father (who himself would correspond to an aristocractic state) a man who doesn't bother his soul with power displays and civil disputes, but instead busies himself only with cultivating his own virtues. However, that same young man may find in other persons in his house a resentment of the father's indifference to status. Thus, by observing his father and listening to his reasoning, he's tempted to the flourishing of his own intellect and virtues; but influenced by others in his house or city, he may become power craving. He thus assents to the portion of his soul that is intermediate between reason and desire (see Plato's tripartite theory of soul), the one that is aggressive and courageous (thus the timocracy's military character).

As to the man whose character reflects that of an oligarchy, Plato explains his psychology with a similar scheme to the one used for the timocratic man. Just like Plato explains the timocratic character as the result of social corruption of a parent aristocratic principle, the oligarch is explained as deriving from a timocratic familial background. Thus, at first, the oligarchic son emulates his timocratic father, being ambitious and craving honor and fame. When, however, he witnesses the problems his father faces due to those timocratic tendencies — say, he wastes public goods in a military campaign, and then is brought before the court, losing his properties after trial —, the future oligarch becomes poor. He then turns against the ambitions he had in his soul, which he now sees as harmful, and puts in their place craving for money, instead of honor, and a parsimonious cautiousness. Such men, the oligarchs, live only to enrich themselves, and through their private means they seek to fulfill only their most urgent needs. However, when in charge of public goods, they become quite 'generous'.

Oligarchs do, however, value at least one virtue, that of temperance and moderation — not out of an ethical principle or spiritual concern, but because by dominating wasteful tendencies they succeed in accumulating money. Thus even though he has bad desires — which Plato compares to the anarchic tendencies of the poor people in oligarchies - by virtue of temperance the oligarch manages to establish a fragile order in his soul. Thus the oligarch may seem, at least in appearance, superior to the majority of men.

Really Wayfarer - stop peddling liberal shit without using your head. I gave you something to read. I didn't give it to you for nothing. Go back to reading it, and tell me where does Trump fit? And tell me also, why do your worship democracy?

(Friend of mine lived in Shanghai from 2000-2006, When he came back he was utterly convinced in the Twin Towers conspiracy. Had swallowed the whole story hook line and sinker. I wondered why he was so convinced, but I think it had something to do with having been living in China. It's in their interests to sow mistrust and doubt about the US government. China, Iran and Russia all have direct interests in weakening public perception of Western governance. There's your actual 'conspiracy'.) — Wayfarer

The thing is that many people simply don't believe that the official story presented by NIST and FEMA, which don't hold water when faced with reality. You can look up the third tower that fell on 9/11, World Trade Center 7, which most people don't even know about after having the images of the twin towers seared into their minds.

I think the 'third tower collapse conspiracy' has been thoroughly and irrefutably debunked.

I think the 'third tower collapse conspiracy' has been thoroughly and irrefutably debunked. — Wayfarer

As in it never happened or as in office fires brought a steel framed building down?

As I watched the towers fall, I recalled the final scene in Fight Club, in which the twin towers fall. Perhaps a movie we should watch again, now.

What a cheat... when I prove him wrong by showing him how Trump doesn't qualify as a tyrant, but instead would qualify as a superior form of government, he goes on with the liberal memes :-}

Alternative tyrants.

Alternative tyrants — Punshhh

:s No, I actually said timocracy as Plato discussed it. Did you actually read my post where I quoted the Wikipedia article on Plato's political philosophy?

Amazing the number of people who can't or won't recognise a demagogue when one appears.
— Wayfarer
That's exactly what a leader should be saying... What would you expect a leader to be saying? The job of a leader is to ensure their country is great, and the will of the people is followed. Fuck democracy. Why should we be addicted to democracy, unquestioningly? Seriously people speak of democracy as if it was a God-sent political system that we should never change... Why are all non-democratic systems deemed totalitarian? As if there was only one alternative - democracy, or totalitarianism :s Such a narrow world-view. Plato himself made it abundantly clear that democracy is quite possibly the worst political system, only tyranny was qualified as worse. But of course, you're just parroting liberal propaganda Wayfarer. — Agustino

We shouldn't, of course, not question Democracy. In fact, in a Democracy, one is both given the tools and the rights with which to question not just the state, but whether the state should even be Democratic.

But this is not a question of Democracy. "Fuck democracy -- why democracy?" is shifting the burden of demonstration from yourself to someone else. It isn't much of a criticism as much as it is a statement of conviction, as well as a belief that Democracy needs to prove itself.

One reason why you might desire a Democratic nation, though, is that you can criticism said nation without retaliation from the nation -- even if your criticisms are merely restatements of conviction. In fact you could criticize other forms of government too, but what is different here is the ability to disagree with the nation you are a part of. Insofar that public expression is valuable then Democracy is valuable to that end. Further, Democracy can change with the times -- as people change so do Democracies. For most of us that means more power, since most of us are not in charge -- so it's also just a basic self-interest for the majority to be in favor of Democracy when we do, in fact, have people in charge.

I am, of course, speaking about Democracy in the abstract in the above, and not particular instances of Democracy, and speaking about Democracy in terms of a contemporary Democratic state.


I felt inclined to highlight this sentiment of yours here because I take it that it is not just your sentiment, but is shared more widely, and it clearly expresses the anti-Democracy which the populism you support seems bent towards.

One reason why you might desire a Democratic nation, though, is that you can criticism said nation without retaliation from the nation -- even if your criticisms are merely restatements of conviction. — Moliere

And who said a constitutional monarchy would involve retaliation from the nation? Who said Aristocracy would entail retaliation from the nation? Really this is nothing but the democratic meme that all non-democratic regimes are totalitarian >:O

Insofar that public expression is valuable then Democracy is valuable to that end. — Moliere

Public expression of what is wrong and immoral is not valuable at all, and must be limited, not given free reign as in democracy. This is exactly Plato's criticism. Democracy gives free reign to what is worse in man - and since the majority of men are low and weak, democracy ends up being a downward force, like a big weight hanging on someone's neck while they're trying to swim and save their lives.

For most of us that means more power, since most of us are not in charge -- so it's also just a basic self-interest for the majority to be in favor of Democracy when we do, in fact, have people in charge. — Moliere

Yes more power to engage in vice and destruction.

Further, Democracy can change with the times — Moliere

Yes it becomes worse. The average level is always pulled down by the more and more influential plebs - and I'm not speaking of plebs in terms of their financial status, but in terms of their lack of culture and morality, and their weakness.

Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority — Wikipedia on Plato

And who said a constitutional monarchy would involve retaliation from the nation? Who said Aristocracy would entail retaliation from the nation? Really this is nothing but the democratic meme that all non-democratic regimes are totalitarian — Agustino

You said "Why Democracy?" -- I gave a reason for why Democracy. What I did not give a reason for was "Why is Democracy better than Constitutional Monarchy", much less "Why is Democracy better than Agustino's vision of Constitutional Monarchy" -- What I had to work with was ,after all, "Fuck Democracy -- why democracy?"

You said "Why Democracy?" -- I gave a reason for why Democracy. What I did not give a reason for was "Why is Democracy better than Constitutional Monarchy", much less "Why is Democracy better than Agustino's vision of Constitutional Monarchy" -- What I had to work with was ,after all, "Fuck Democracy -- why democracy?" — Moliere

OK :)

But this is not a question of Democracy. "Fuck democracy -- why democracy?" is shifting the burden of demonstration from yourself to someone else. It isn't much of a criticism as much as it is a statement of conviction, as well as a belief that Democracy needs to prove itself. — Moliere

The comments that I made, were not about democracy at all, but about Trump's well-documented and abundantly obvious disregard for facts. I mentioned the storm over the 'alternative facts' remark made by one of Trump's handlers, in response to the ridiculous argument over the size of Trump's dick, er, sorry, inauguration crowd. Then I got criticized for 'spreading liberal memes' and 'worshipping democracy' - which is plainly obfuscation, and, I think, trolling.

In any case, as Churchill remarked, democracy is the 'least worst' form of government, all things considered, because it is the only one in which you and I can actually be given a choice to change things. And I really do think Trump is going to be a threat to democracy, because of his disregard for facts, among other things, but also because he's a narcissistic, un-informed egotist. All perfectly apt in a thread on 'post-truth', we're looking at the guy for whom it was named.

He sits in the White House at night, watching television or reading social media, and through Twitter issues instant judgments on what he sees. He channels fringe ideas and gives them as much weight as carefully researched reports. He denigrates the conclusions of intelligence professionals and then later denies having done so. He thrives on conflict and chaos. 1

The comments that I made, were not about democracy at all, but about Trump's well-documented and abundantly obvious disregard for facts. I mentioned the storm over the 'alternative facts' remark made by one of Trump's handlers, in response to the ridiculous argument over the size of Trump's dick, er, sorry, inauguration crowd. Then I got criticized for 'spreading liberal memes' and 'worshipping democracy' - which is plainly obfuscation, and, I think, trolling. — Wayfarer

Yes, true. And perhaps I have behaved poorly in choosing to engage. The statement you made and the response just seemed to represent something to me, but clearly it was off topic.

In any case, as Churchill remarked, democracy is the 'least worst' form of government, all things considered, because it is the only one in which you and I can actually be given a choice to change things. And I really do think Trump is going to be a threat to democracy, because of his disregard for facts, among other things, but also because he's a narcissistic, un-informed egotist. All perfectly apt in a thread on 'post-truth', we're looking at the guy for whom it was named.

Yup-ish. I don't even think Democracy is "the best evar" -- but I'll take it over several alternatives. Perhaps better for another thread though.


I must note that I think the accusations against pomo and relativism aren't exactly on target either :). I find it hard to imagine anyone in the current administration pondering Lyotard and deriving their current political moves from said exercise.

In addition, those who seek power don't particularly care about truth, though they probably care to know it. Bullshit, as Banno noted, is closer to home -- but the seeker of power is no bullshitter. The seeker of power will bullshit if it brings power, and will construct rational arguments if it brings power. If power be the goal, unchecked by any other value, then truth or post-truth it will seek power.

That being said, the line about "alternative facts" definitely gave support to the notion both to post-truth, as well as the belief that Trump's administration at least has the desire to attack democratic mechanisms.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/trump-administration-purges-all-information-about-climate-change-from-the-epa-website/

Not quite post-truth in the sense of stating false things and proclaiming them true, but removal of information to facts one disagrees with.

it is Orwellian.

Today's installment is: Trump is insisting that 'voter fraud' is the reason that he lost the popular vote to Clinton, despite there being no evidence of it. He has now announced an enquiry into voter fraud, despite the fact - that's fact, f-a-c-t - that several previous exhaustive enquiries have found no evidence of voter fraud. He also railed about people registered to vote in more than one state, but since then it's come out that both his daughter and Steve Bannon are registered in more than one state.

This is the same man who had the nerve to deny clear evidence of Russian involvement in the vote which was presented by the CIA and the FBI and accepted by politicians on both sides of the aisle.

It is, again, total and blatant disregard for fact. I think this really will bring him undone, though - he's no longer CEO of Trump Inc.

How does he keep such a straight face?

The Open Society, as it was called by Popper, just before it began to close.

This thread began as an epistemological analysis of the term 'post truth'. The article I linked elsewhere about narcissistic personality disorder goes further to explain the reasons behind Trump's unusual relationship with truth. I think it provides us with more insight, predicting the purging that is likely to happen next when Trump's desires are frustrated.

↪Agustino How does he keep such a straight face? — Banno

Because he has balls of steel 8-)