1200
23,000.

Read those over, and over, and over until you have something less strawman to say :)

the demonising of a section of the populaton, — Wayfarer

It is fascistic, — Wayfarer

Fair that you're using hyperbole - But if the above lands it in 'fascist' territory I am at a complete loss as to what history books you're reading from i guess.

The demonizing of Republicans/Conservatives as ethical monsters in the last 20 years has much, much more to answer for imo.

Not far from krystallnacht — Wayfarer

uhhhh......
Krystallnacht was embodied in:

"Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were ransacked as attackers demolished buildings with sledgehammers.[6] Rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland.[7] Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed,[8][9] and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps."

All in the pursuit of Ethnonational intimidation.

I'm unsure how to parse your claim other than as either a hyperbole meant to illustrate the hilarity of such radical misinterpretations - or a position so politically partisan as to amount to a form of lying.

But given I do not fall into wild echo-chamber driven narratives perhaps this thread just isn't for me.

..and i don't think any amount of massaging the context can obfuscate this. It seems patent.

How come there's been no delineation here between Consciousness and Sentience?

It seems to me anything responding to outside stimuli is conscious, in some sense, but only beings with 'experience' can be considered sentient. Seems to clear up the mess for the most part...

A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand

I do think it's fair to say, though, that the capacity is peculiar to some specific type.

I carelessly quoted terms I don't especially like. — BC

Fair enough.

"Misogyny" and "anti-immigrant" aren't confusing you, I hope. — BC

None of them confuse me - It's their application that's the problem. But this seems clear to you also :)

Oh yes, definitely. — BC

Ok, cool. Not just me then LOL.

My question was more about people using Trump, rather than allying with him but i suppose you are esoterically covering that in giving little credence to his choice-making abilities LOL.

The problem with incompetence is that incompetent people often end up in charge of things - banks, businesses, corporations, governments. They don't always go under and collapse. Not right away. — Tom Storm

Hmm, that's true, and a blindspot of sorts for my thinking.

I would imagine that the risk with Trump is not his individual competence, but the doors he opens for others based on his impulse to subjugate his enemies and seek retribution. A small mind can unleash great forces, especially if they are the gatekeeper. — Tom Storm

Is this suggesting (i'm enquiring, not side-eyeing, to be clear) that we could expect other bad actors to be implicated? Trump being essentially a patsy?

And this is simply a differnce in how we read the events and personalities, I would say. — Tom Storm

Of course. Im just unconvinced of the reasonableness of reading it in a way that gets to worrying about impending totalitarianism/dictatorship/fascism.

However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship — Tom Storm

Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas...

I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined. — Tom Storm

No argument; but I can't see the relevance to the current situation. I'd still need to see something to indicate it might happen, rather htan is possible.

misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration . — BC

These seem to be hard-to-define, usually-incorrectly-attributed, subjective and naive things to consider... (minus the underlined).

Am I noticing a somewhat socially left-leaning element to this forum?

it seems most readily employ words like "transphobic" to label ideas without compunction - which, in my real-world experience is utterly preposterous and the source of the perceived conflict is actually this imprecise and partisan usage to smear the opponent. An ironic twist, i'd think.

I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. — Tom Storm

I do not think that either, but I do not think we are seeing anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. Back to the 'slow build' theory.. Which i also don't take tbh lol, but is more tenable to me.

I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric. — Tom Storm

I would highly doubt it. I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. I think it assumes a level of co-ordination and power that simply doesn't exist within US politics..

Guantanamo Bay? — Tom Storm

Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation.

@Tom Storm
@schopenhauer1

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/596313fa-4545-4735-8a75-299c5b91fe8a

"Thus, active-duty enlisted personnel who identify with a political party are about twice as likely to identify with the Republican Party as are civilians. However, active-duty enlisted personnel are nearly four times as likely as civilians to report being Independent, and are substantially less likely than civilians to identify with the Democratic Party. "

Not directly related to Trump, but the only data i can find on that specific connection is from 2020 and is about military leaders, rather than Enlisted personnel.

Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc. — Tom Storm

I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s?

seeks to consolidate a dictatorship — Tom Storm

I do not think this is in the realm of a reasonable expectation, though.

There are some really, really wild leaps being made between his toddler-like behaviour and some kind of Machiavellian genius consolidating power. I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular.

I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. — schopenhauer1

100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me.

Yes, the civil war aspect of this is another possibility. Or more home grown terrorism. — Tom Storm

I think it's also the more terrifying possibility, so my alert level is still quite high, in terms of geopolitical implications of this year/18 months going forward. Given that Republicans are likely to win that way, but a fairly overwhelming margin, I reserve judgement on any long-term outcome as i'm essentially a-political between lump labels like that.

I would expect to see them actually meet criteria to be considered fascist - ethnic supremacy, a rejection of democracy (see Belarus currently for an example that you'd be a complete fool to compare Trump to (and Nth Korea)) military governance (again, examples can be given here that would be entirely wrong to liken Trump to), totalitarian ambition (while i recognise Trump is likely megalomaniacal he is ineffectual in this respect - his own party rejects his more wild actions) and finally, for a country which purports to the be the worlds greatest, most powerful nation I would expect, with no sense of flexibility, that there were an imperial ambition.

I don't think we see any of these. Some other overlapping elements like economic conservatism or (possibly - though, this is definitely a live debate to my mind) social/cultural illiberalism exist in the MAGA/Trump crowd for sure, so i see it would be very easy, on a shallow reading, to lump all this stuff together as just go "Duhhhhh fascism!". Japan appears to be closer to Fascism than does the USA.

Time dilation shows that the passage of time is relative to motion, so in a way time is linked to change. — jgill

Ah. Fu... LOL

In physics, isn't time just clock-time? Kind of a practical use, rather than a discussion of what it is?

If you want to make an argument go ahead, but BS ad hom posts like are trolling and provoking. — schopenhauer1

It wasn't one, so i'm just going to ignore you in this thread now.

You've quadrupled your post. But the three extensions are of the first.

No. It isn't. You are free to think whatever you want about me. I simply don't care. That's up to you to think, not me to defend or encourage(would a smiley emoji have changed it's valence? No my circus). Nor is it my issue that expressing my interpretation, as an appearance to me of shallow thinking, hurt your feelings. Just walk on if you disagree.

Ok. So those like me who think it is more likely under Trump if he gets in are on equal footing? It’s more of a read of the situation, interpreted differently? — Tom Storm

I don't think it's likely under Trump either, though. We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism.

Jan 6 was a complete failure and resulted in no effect on the electoral or judicial system because it was utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country. And apparently still does

Edit WAY after the fact: This was wrong. The electoral system seems to be very, very marginally changing in a way that helps to defeat Trump, giving more support to my position above.

I'm not seeing any reason to think it would be different - In fact, i think its WAY more likely a civil war ensues given that the 'other side' is now aware to the fact that Trump supporters are able to become actively, and dangerously unhinged at large.

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection.

Your quickness to impugn when someone disagrees with you is quite clear to me. I've not done this for you. I've said it looks like you're not thinking.

Your assertion that most people who own guns are Trump supporters is an extremely low frequency take.

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

I can't see a single aspect of the USA that could lead to fascism. Im not really making an argument - I remained unconvinced it's a live issue.

Though, Schops 'slow build' idea could be a problem i;m ignorant to. But i've watch the USA develop across thirty years with interest and its just toddlers swatting at each other in a paddling pool.

Feel free to thnk what you think my friend :)

Yes, I was thinking what Schop said. I don't think ownership of guns is a vaccination against fascism. — Tom Storm

Willingness to use them against the government may be, though. I'm not saying this wont lead to disaster - I just cannot see how its possible fascism rears its head, unless seriously re-defined from its European origin. I don't think Rorty's conception is great, but even using that, I can't see it happening.

That doesn't mean anything. Most of the people who have the huge stockpiles are probably Trump supporters. — schopenhauer1

This certainly appears to me like you're not thinking very hard.

Remember, this theory strips out normativity from the good and bad; and groups the good and bad based off of similarities between actions, just like how we determine other naturalistic conceptions—so this only needs empirical inquiry. — Bob Ross

I cannot see how this is sensible. Good and Bad can only be deduced from empirical data. But the concepts themselves have ipso facto moral valence. They necessarily lead to moral implications, although, i agree, there's no moral command as a result of acknowledging good and bad. but as soon as you start having 'the moral conversation' reliance on the Good and Bad is unavoidable. I think its a bit of a slick move to claim there's no normative implications for an (what appears to attempt at..) objective categorisation of acts into the same. It sounds more like a statistical analysis that would result in a really, really clear idea of where your morals lie. It's extremely hard to see how the move is open to you to act other than in accordance with the categories and not make an immoral move.

Same with the good and bad: the good includes being kind, as well as other altuistic acts and what not, and the bad includes depravity, disrespect, meanness, etc. The serial killer can likewise acknowledge that what they are doing is bad, while maintaining they should keep doing it. — Bob Ross

I don't think this is correct, per se. The psychopath can acknowledge that the act would fit this category, for someone else thus defeating the applicability of the categories beyond those who assent to them. And, in fairness, this is a very sound way to arrive at a social good but i don't think it's right to say that it would be acknowledge as-is rather than with that qualifier.

While i suffered DiD, I underwent several prolonged periods of sociopathy. I can tell you, in that state, I would have just told you you are wrong. There is no moral valence to my strangling a cat (i never did that, btw lol). It is not good or bad. It simply doesn't matter. I would only have been able to recognise your categories - not that I was violating a category

The only way to synthesize the moral facts, being non-normative, with normative judgments is to subjectively affirm a normative moral judgment that implicates them in doing good; such “one ought to be good” — Bob Ross

I don't understand how 'moral facts' don't have pretty direct normative implications. If we have a moral fact "x is wrong" then to act against that, would be immoral. I have no idea how you find daylight between the two.

Not if we are just abstracting categories of actions, and labelling them ‘good’ vs. ‘bad’ in a sense that ties well into how we typically use the terms. — Bob Ross

But this betrays those being facts?

The good is not a platonic form nor a priori under my view. — Bob Ross

Similar to above. Happy to acknowledge i've misinterpreted you, but then I fall back into - then these aren't facts. They're just socially-common concepts.

Morality, under this view, is not solely about what is permissible, omissible, or obligatory; it is also about what is good and what is bad. — Bob Ross

Are you able to explain what you're seeing stands between a moral fact, and it's normative implication? Im having a really hard time not thinking this is an attempt to do something that can't be done.

I don’t think you are completely appreciating the severed connection between the good/bad and normativity in this theory yet. — Bob Ross

I don't see it - as will be obvious now :razz:

It was an analogy, and the point had nothing to do with how many colors there actually are. — Bob Ross

My point is still live, though. If that's the case, the system is entirely inadequate to talk about human behaviour (which is so variably 'coloured' as to require about 2350824690438 categories.

I am open to there being multiple categories; e.g., a neutral category whereof an action does not promote harmony nor disharmony. — Bob Ross

Ok, nice.

The term traditionally is both of these, I have severed them from each other. — Bob Ross

If the only reply you make is to describe how this can be the case (i.e avoiding the implication from moral fact to normative 'fact') that would probbaly be the most important for me to understand the theory :)

I agree with MU here. If it were not for Minkowski spacetime allowing rest frames and thus the "passage" of time with no physical changes I would think time required change — jgill

Is there's a boil-down source to understand the concept? Im not seeing any necessity beyond trying to support the idea that time doesn't require change, which im not on board with quite yet. Would love to see something about that concept of whcih i have no knowledge :)

I don’t deny that Kant believed there were objects outside us. Only that we don’t know what they really are. — Wayfarer

If it wasn't clear (because I'm shit at philosophical exposition) this was what I was trying to point out.

It is inductively true that there must be actual objects, but we are precluded from any knowledge of them. I'm unsure that your wording means anything different rather htan more precise, than mine. In any case, it strikes me as commensurate with what I was trying to get across, having finally worked out separating the thing-in-itself from the noumenon (lets say, of it).

1. The thing-in-itself is not that which appears. — Mww

Well, it doesn't appear in intuition, but for the system to make any sense it must appear to our sense organs to impart an impression outside of our ability to perceive that process. Otherwise, again, we're left with impressions from absolutely nothing, instead of something for which we have no concept or knowledge. I don't see any reason we can't grasp this idea.. The 'thing in itself' cannot be 'nothing'. Only nothing in intuition.
Beyond that, yes, i'm describing the same process so neat-o.

:ok:

I wasn't sure anyone would care about the reasoning, about US politics, from an irish expat in NZ :P

The USA has an armed populace.

I think anyone seriously entertaining Fascism as an incoming concern in the USA isn't up to having a conversation about it.

I watched a Sideprojects this morning where Simon Whistler went over the misunderstandings around Schroedinger's Cat.

The indeterminacy is affected as much by the geiger counter as a human (or cat) eye/brain complex and collapses the wave-function in the same way. So, there's not really anything mysterious in the box anyway

All we know is that it is something with sufficient affect on our senses, a mere appearance. — Mww

Nice. Despite probably unfortunately saying something else, this strikes me as the same my understanding but in clearer words.

I suppose the thing remaining is that thing between the two -

1. Thing-in-itself appears to us as an unknowable entity;
2. ????;
3. Something is presented to our sensuous organs;
4. We receive that something, undetermined as sensory perceptions;
5. Off to the races with understanding/reason/judgement.

Sigh. Goddamn Kant.

:ok:

Then you have a burden to explain why that's the case. Insisting on your own definitions isn't reason-giving. — Hallucinogen

I don't think so. I'm attending the actually, etymologically sound usage of the words. Why would you accept randomly-ascribed meanings that don't fit the etymology. More on that below...

I did -- I gave the Oxford definition in the OP. — Hallucinogen

That isn't looking at the words - that's taking a definition that fits your point. The one provided by an institutional atheist organisation has much more authority, imo. And i did give that reason - apologies if it wasn't clearer. It should also be extremely clear by now that, three things are going on in my position:

1. I am trying to solve the problem.
2. I have identified robust meanings for these words which avoid double-counts, inaccuracies and inconsistencies, on my view.
3. I have provided a potential actual solution, rather than merely asserted "i am right'. I am asserting that my suggestion solves the problem of inter-subjective meaning making conversation either near-impossible, or totally unimportant.

It is either luck, or my erudite treatment of the words that results in that solution aligning with the etymologically-sound use of hte words.

All of this is making me think that you didn't read the OP. — Hallucinogen

Do feel free. I'm not being shirty there - please, feel free.

No, anti-theism is moral opposition to God on the basis that belief in God is harmful to people. — Hallucinogen

I've never seen this position ascribed to the word from any other source including a brief click-about just now to ensure i'm not totally off-mark - unless you're misreading 'theism should be opposed' as a moral, rather than logical claim (here, they can co-exist - It can be immoral for society to accept patently illogical and false cosmologies - but that's not a moral opposition to God. Was Hitch's position best i can tell). If i'm wrong there, conceded, and I return to my 'solution-oriented' approach to it, using the actual structure of the words to deduce their meaning to avoid this pulling of teeth.

This reasoning doesn't follow, because if theism is the opposite of belief in God, rather than lack of theism, then it's the positive claim that belief in God is false — Hallucinogen

I assume you mean atheism there. And if so, I reject that oppositional framing. They are related, but not opposites. One is a positive claim, one is rejection of that positive claim with no claim of it's own. Clearly, 'anti-theism' is the literal opposite of theism. A-theism is patently, inarguably non-theism with no positive claim. I simply will not accept claims other than this, looking at the words themselves and their structure. Otherwise,. I'm choosing to roll around in a shit-heap of talking over and past one another at every turn. Call me dogmatic, or egoic - I'm just not willing to wade into a clearly dumb framing of words that matter to the conversation. I'm more than happy to be inflexible about nutting out useful strategies for discussing things when it is obvious we don't have one.

As such, and in any case, even assuming i'm mistaken in all these term's meanings and therefore all of my suggestions and positions are 'false': That's a stupid, unhelpful framing of these words that causes the utterly ridiculous conversations we're having now. Hence, actual solution being suggested (IFF i am entirely wrong and can't argue from the words themselves) Why not just accept that a better system of terms would be better instead of going "this is what we have, we'll make do" That doesn't seem to fly anywhere else...

Well, i guess this is what im trying to sort out for myself.

'time', best i can tell, is a mere relation in perception. So, without perceiving beings, time does not obtain.

Changes, however, do, in the absence of mind, but there's no perceptual relation that requires cause-before-effect in extended space, for an eg. Bear in mind, I may be contradicting myself due to not developing these ideas anywhere else.

time could not have been passing before there was minds? — Metaphysician Undercover

If time consists in either the changes described, or the relation between them, I don't see how that couldn't be happening prior to humans conceiving time in a particular order, to unify perceptions. Though, maybe i'm missing a trick but it seems to be that your suggestion presupposes an 'actual' time, independent of objects passing, rather than time being a description, or set of relations between objects.

I tend to think i'm missing a trick, but i conceive that the universe, as a whole, does not undergo 'time'. Sentient beings do, as a facility of relation between objects of change, to ensure a logical causal relationship in extended space to avoid the delusional mess we noted earlier.
So, prior to sentient minds, there would be the continually changing material of the universe, but no perspective to relate those changes to any prior or future state - just the entirety of hte universe changing in 'one place' as it were. I tend to think that without a mind to relate these changes to one another, 'time' does not obtain. Just changes, with no necessary relation to each other. Very counter-intuitive, and probably wrong.

Thank you mate. I'm having a bit of a build up here at work, so will need to get to this when i get a quiet spell :) Shouldn't be a long reply though, as you;'ve covered most of what was in teh air for me.

I was suggesting that if they are saying things that are understood locally as racist, and they are locals, then they probably are racist. — Hanover

Oh, no, I understood what you were getting at. I think it's an... objectionable... conclusion. But there we go.

Thank you very much for the tip on Cumberland!

It is a Kantian conception of time, and i do not believe it results in any of these logical issues. Do absolutely feel free to set me right, if that Kantian thought has been dealt with over the centuries. It almost certainly has, and I am, as I try to make clear, very naive :)

That you might mean something different when you say it will likely be realized with your Aussie accent, but, I assure you, the harder the Southern twang used when it is said, the less likely you're going to convince someone your questions about the presence of black people was just an innocuous curiosity. — Hanover

Fair enough. I still see that as utterly ridiculous - impugning someone's motives based on their accent or locale. Wild.

I have a british accent, ftr :)

Jekyll and St Simon's were the better examples i could think of. Big, oak-lined properties with Master homes, somewhat preserved.

Apparently, around fourteen were established on St Simons. I can only recall three different memories of different plantations on St Simons, though. As to Jekyll, i may be recalling PLantation Oak and then conflating.