I have a glint of optimism. Perhaps there are enough reasonably clever folk who actually see what is going on. — Banno
In 1989, a white investment banker called Trisha Meili was horribly beaten and raped in New York’s Central Park. She had lost three-quarters of her blood and gone into a coma by the time the police found her. The authorities arrested five juveniles, four black and one Hispanic. In one of his first moves from business into politics, Trump said death was the only punishment they deserved. He took out adverts in the New York press declaring: “Mayor Koch has stated that hate and rancour should be removed from our hearts. I do not think so. I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!”
Trump dealt with the accusations of racist scaremongering by rehearsing a self-pitying line that would serve him well in the future. Whites were the true underprivileged in American society, he told NBC television. “A well-educated black enjoys tremendous advantages over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. If I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black.”
You may oppose the death penalty. You may find Trump’s language reeked of the Munich beer hall. Cynical New Yorkers noted at the time that Trump was feuding with city bosses over tax abatements for his developments and was using the rape to attack a mayor who had damned him as “greedy”. For all that, you could think that this was still a legitimate response to a foul crime.
But mark the sequel. In 2002, a career criminal admitted to the rape and DNA evidence proved he was telling the truth. The police, it turned out, had forced confessions from their teenage suspects. The boys, now men, were released. But Trump refused to concede an inch of ground. He would not accept new evidence had put him in the wrong and the five were innocent. Even in 2014, when New York finally reached a compensation settlement with the victims of police abuse, Trump was still insisting that “settling doesn’t mean innocence” and the taxpayers of New York had been fleeced.
I don't think it's against the US, but the catastrophe of Trump having been elected. The President of the US has the power to literally destroy the world and that power is in the hands of a demonstrably unsuitable person.
I think in all seriousness that it's a consequence of too much television, and the inability to distinguish reality and fantasy. And it's really dangerous. — Wayfarer
Although truly I do think Trump will meet his match in the US system; here's hoping that he goes a step too far and falls into the abyss (by being impeached or removed from office for blatant abuse of power.) — Wayfarer
Exposing the noble lie that we're morally superior to others — Erik
Trump's comment is the remark of someone who sees America as just one country among many, all equally unprincipled. Countries deal with each other without any sense of right and wrong but solely on a transactional basis of who can extract what from whom. It's about power and advantage.
This helps explain a president who doesn't seem to see any difference between democracies and dictatorships, between allies and enemies. Last week he told Mexico's president he might order the invasion of his country, though his staff explained this as humour. At the same time he refused to criticise Moscow's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine.
Communist regimes claimed to be looking out for the welfare of the working classes against predatory capitalists. — Erik
There have been assassinations in this country of political leaders and political or cultural dissidents who represented a legitimate threat to the status quo. — Erik
Many people--and not confined to crackpot conspiracy theorists--even believe 9/11 was an inside job. — Erik
So my cynicism is part and parcel of my romanticism — Erik
Trump clearly doesn't represent a departure from the commercialized civilization we're immersed in, but rather an intensification of its guiding principles. — Erik
Not sure what the salutary warning refers to, so maybe you can extrapolate a bit. — Erik
without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs. In a certain sense, even the American founders were 'romantics'--at least in theory--who longed for a world in which the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence became a reality. — Erik
I mean, from a practical perspective (irrespective of moral considerations), what exactly is the problem with Trump? — Erik
Perfectly agree! America was founded on the principles of the European enlightenment, freedom of religion, and so on. As it happens, the founding values were mainly embodied in the Christian religion. I actually believe that there are institutional shortcomings with Christian orthodoxy itself, but that is well out of scope of this thread. But in any case, the US system is one of several - another being the Westminster system of the UK and Australia - which does embody humanistic principles and retains some elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition in which the concept of 'human rights' originated (which are conspicuosly absent from Chinese communism.) — Wayfarer
Have you been following his campaign and his election? Do you read the news? Do you understand what he's attempting, and why it could have disastrous consequences? Remember the Great Depression? World War II? The world is on a knife-edge at this point in history, the scientists - they're not politicians - who run the Doomsday Clock moved their hands nearer to midnight last week, in response to the election of Donald Trump. Why do you think they would do that? Trump is a threat to world peace, a threat to the political and economic order of the entire planet. You need to wake up to this fact. — Wayfarer
Take it easy, Wayfarer, I'm on your side here! — Erik
while the US may be less overtly barbaric than Russia or China, it is in desperate need of radical regeneration. — Erik
Donald Trump lies when he should tell the truth. He doesn't seem to care about the environment when he should care about it. He doesn't value a free and independent press when he should uphold it as a necessary feature of our liberal democracy. So there's a bit of romanticism going on whenever we criticize, and cynicism too. — Erik
As I see it, without the belief in something better (even if it simply means finally adhering to professed principles) there's really no ground on which to criticize any existing state of affairs.
...
And that was my point: it's hard to criticize anyone or anything without some idealized notion of how it could or should be. — Erik
I do not agree with this point. We can quite readily criticize, and point out what is bad, without offering an alternative, what is better. There is no need to propose a better system in order to point to the defects of the existing system. In fact, that seemed to be Trump's mo, how he got elected, by pointing to deficiencies, claiming they would be fixed, without proposing any real solutions. However, the issue is that there is a big difference between pointing to deficiencies, and actually moving to resolve the problems pointed to. The latter does require the idealized "how it should be", the "something better". Now trump may be in a position where he can actually start to dismantle systems which are seen to have deficiencies. Without the "something better", this may be a real problem. Dismantling destroys the good along with the bad. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that. — Wayfarer
But what standard is being used to guide the criticism? And what's the purpose of criticizing in the first place if not to point to an alternative? People who are indifferent to politics don't engage in that sort of activity. Also, it would appear as though the very notion of defectiveness implies its opposite, just as diagnosing sickness implies an understanding of health, and criticizing what is bad does so by virtue of an understanding of what is good. To use a culinary analogy, if I say a dish you prepared is too salty, then I don't need to come out and tell you to put less salt in it next time. It's implied, and clearly so. The same goes for suggesting that (e.g.) a certain trade deal hurts American workers. The implication is that we should opt out of that arrangement. — Erik
Now, if you feel that Trump is worse than Obama (and not just different), then please tell me how you arrived at this position without employing language laden with moral--or political or economic or cultural--value judgments or preferences. Truthfulness is a value which we admire, as are things like selflessness and compassion. But if they're not 'better' than their opposites, then what's your issue with Trump? In fact, why is destroying or dismantling systems wrong? Even the use of this sort of language harbors implicit moral judgments within this context. You really don't feel as though basic moral assumptions and guiding ethical principles are at work in your negative assessment of this man, or the agenda that he's proposing? — Erik
To me this is such an obvious point that I feel I must be misunderstanding your position. I mean this sincerely--I'm not primarily concerned with winning an argument here but really want to understand how one engaging in criticism need not do so from any (implied or explicit) notion of better or worse. I'll gladly concede if you can help me gain a better understanding of my own views, especially if they're flawed. I see this as an entirely separate issue (having to do with guiding assumptions being a necessary component of human existence) than the ascendancy of Trump to political power. Maybe the two are being conflated a bit. — Erik
Finally, Trump did propose some solutions to what he perceives to be the nation's problems, even if we disagree with those. Pulling the US out of unfair trade agreements, controlling immigration, reigning in the ability of moneyed interests to lobby politicians, etc. — Erik
So Trump has created a situation where if you speak out against him, you are, by default, speaking for the establishment. There's long standing suspicion and disappointment in the establishment. It hasn't been that long since we were talking about California being a failed state, democracy had failed there, how long would it be before the same was true of the US in general, etc. — Mongrel
I know he's a narcissist and a pathological liar, — Erik
The point is, lies are lies. There are no 'alternative facts' - there's facts, and then there's falsehoods. And most powerful guy in the world doesn't acknowledge that.
— Wayfarer
Missed this earlier. This is an interesting issue which seems to have a long philosophical history going back to Plato's Sophist. Let's not forget Nietzsche's dictum that there are no facts, only interpretations. — Erik
Now by zeroing in on certain facts over others, a false impression can be given of Trump's lack of popularity. — Erik
I do think it's indisputable that the American mainstream media (I hate using that term since it reminds me of the pejorative way in which Rush Limbaugh and other conservative blowhards used it) does not like Donald Trump. Point blank. They'll do whatever they can to make him look foolish and to discredit him in any way possible. They pick out a certain set of facts--invariably the ones which cast him in the worst possible light--and ignore or gloss over others. — Erik
You seem to want to privilege one side of this battle as being morally superior or more righteous (if not perfect) than the other, whereas I see the process involving the constant use of misdirection and deceit by everyone who participates. — Erik
If that makes me 'post-truth' then so be it; better to be humble and aware of my own limited perspective than assume that I have some privileged perspective on Truth and moral goodness. — Erik
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.