No, you should get into proper dialogue with someone without being condescending. an argument does not become any better by addressing your interlocutor in a patronizing way.

Okay, listen carefully. There's something that you do not understand - that I am going to try to help you see. Just go with it, and after you "get it" - then you can object. But if you go into this objecting, refusing to understand, you won't see it. Okay? — counterpunch

I stopped reading here. Condescension pisses me off.

Another inconsitency in my thinking, I realize your objection now too... thank you for the concrete literature recommendation. Since Hegel is notoriously hard to understand and 200 years old, are you familar with a more current thinker that has synthetized this approach further and in a more "understandable" way - or is Mr. Hegel still the way to go — Trachtender

Well, I might not be totally up to date with current developments... I do think Hegel is the way to go, because after him the whole idea of a kind of theory of theories has died down. He was the last to formulate such an all encompassing system. that whole approach was dismissed by his critics and the philosophy of finitude of 'difference' came in vogue. I would not start with Hegel though, but something about Hegel to see if it is a direction you like to explore further. Peter Singer has written a very small and accessible book on Hegel. There will be issues to quibble with in that book, but is small and easy to read witch is valuable too.

Descartes wrote Mediations on First Philosophy, published 1641 - in terror of a Church that was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792. In it, he asserts the primacy of subjectivism - 'I think therefore I am' as the only certainty. — counterpunch

Yeah sure, so? A rather momentous achievement in philosophy. That he happened not to publish another treatise is no reason to dismiss this one.

No. Science has been rendered a whore to military and industrial power justified by religious, political and economic ideologies. Technologies have been developed and applied, not as a scientific understanding would suggest, but for power and profit. That's why we are destroying the environment. That's why we are threatened with extinction. We have used the tools - but not read the instructions. A scientific understanding of reality is the instruction manual for the application of technological tools. — counterpunch

Science is used by people for certain ends. Rather you seem to believe in some kind of exalted science for science sake, a kind of master discourse of science which determines its own ends... Scientific understanding does not suggest anything though, your subjective interpretation of the facts uncovered by science does. a possible cure for cancer is a product of science in the same way as the nuclear bomb is. Are we destroying the environment? Yeah sure, but we also look at science to save it. However, our comportment toward the abstract reality that is 'the environment' is ethical. No science will tell you whether 'the enviromnment' is worse saving or how to balance the interests of future generations with those of the current one. These are ethical questions, maybe legal questions but not scientific questions. Especially an epistemologist should know what questions belong to what realm. My feeling is that you simply accept some assertions as true unquestioningly when you usher in normative ideals in your scientific instruction manual.

I'm an epistemologist. The questions 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it?' are the two principle questions of epistemology, and are best answered by science. Epistemology is the epitome of philosophy, and in my view, the only real starting point for any philosophy worth a damn. — counterpunch

It might answered by scientists, but then they are doing philosophy. Moreover they cannot know it by using the scientific method. We cannot experiemntally test the limits of knowledge. What they can say is: using the scientific method we can know X and we may not be able to know Y. However the question 'what can we know' is broader than what can we know scientifically. Scientifically for instance we might not know how to punish rape, however a lawyer or legal theoretician might provide you with an answer. A provisional one, surely, but so are all scientific answers provisional until refuted. I think you are reasoning in a circular way. whatever can be known can be known scientifically and science determines what can be known...

Odd, no - that philosophy has established no method, no approach, no prioritisation of truth, that it remains an undisciplined free for all. Do you suppose that explains why philosophy has become a marginalised pursuit engaged in almost exclusively by the socially challenged? Zero barriers to entry - and no required standards! — counterpunch

A prioritsiation of truth... I would not know how that would work. Well, it has not established a rigorous methodology at least not as rigorous as the natural and social sciences. Whether that means no methodology I would doubt. There is in any case the methodological criterion that the best argument wins. There are certain methodological devices such as the thought experiment, the deduction and the reductio ad absurdum. Moreover it is easy to recognise good from bad philosophy through following the thread of the argument. I again think you want philosophy to do something that it cannot do, provide you with answers. Philosophy provides you with a sense of what questions are meaningful and which are not. Other than science which deals with the objective and knowleble, philosophy deals with the subjective and knowledge as such.

That's a sceptical question based in unreason; which is rather the problem with Descartes subjectivism. It may be that you are deceived by an evil demon, but as with all methods of sceptical doubt, it raises more questions than it answers - because, as Occam's Razor states: the simplest adequate explanation is the best. We experience an objective reality because it exists, and exists independently of our experience of it. That is what it is to be real, and this assumption underpins empirical science. — counterpunch

You misunderstand the nature of the methodological device employed by Descartes, namely the thought experiment. It does not matter whether the malicious demon is a plausible scenario, but our resolving that scenario tells us something about assumptions we (according to Descartes) have to accept, namely the fact that I think. Since the I think is not vulnerable to the demon hypothesis and the physical world (res extensa) is, thought rests on a firmer basis. There might be all kinds of things wrong with the argument, but that does not mean his method is bogus. Your invocation of Occam by the way is also not scientific, tried tested and proven in experiment, it is a heuristic device. Moreover it does not save you because we indeed perceive an objective reality, but we also notice that everyone perceives it differently. That it exists independently of us is also not scientifically provable, but an assumption.

Not exactly. It's irrefutable that science as an understanding of reality has been downplayed, by emphasising the subjective - as consistent with the spiritual, and de-emphasising the objective as consistent with the profane - in service to the religious, political and economic ideological architectures of Western civilisation. — counterpunch

Yes Galileo Galilei has been bullied, but is that because of the prominence of the subjective in church writings? Weren't they simply bickering about an accurate objective description? Galilei did not care for metaphysics, and why should he? I think actually Western scientific practice and method has rather triumphed no, also during Descartes turn to the subjectve as an important pole? Newton had to hide his alchemistic writings which actually still are not considered when he is being discussed as a scientist, because that does not fit his place in the canon of great scientists.

You seem to equate philosophy with science but I think that is mistaken. Philosophy questions assumptions and science accepts some to make sense of the world in a way that gets things done. Galilei, Newton, but also Descartes showed Aristotelianism to be wrong, but that does not mean they were devoid of metaphysical assumptions. Both are very valuable, but do different things. I can very well be a postmodern thinker and a rocket scientist at the same time. The OP asks a metaohysical question, one theory to rule them all and alas we do not have it. Science gives us access to reality, but does not answer the question what it is for anything to be real...

Glad to see I was wrong about your conspiracy theoretical framework. It is a view I find reductionist though, but to each their own.

Mr. Lyotards and other post-modern thinkers seem to talk about this issue, if I understood it correctly. The result seems to be that there lots of different narratives that are all “true”. So I search for this super theory that explains how everything is a theory and has some truth elements in it although the theories may be contradicting each other. — Trachtender

What you ask for here is incoherent due to your insistence "it has some truth elements it". Now that can only be ascertained using this "master theory" that you would like to have. However, if we had that we would not have all these other theories anymore. We do not have a foundation for what is ultimately real. Even our dichotomy 'real / unreal' is itself an operation of thought. That is not to say of course that there is no progress in philosophy, we learned how to ask more probing questions. If you would like something really meta and explaining how everything is a theory and has its place in the history of philosophy, I suggest reading Hegels Phenomenology of spirit and Logik, however be advice that Kierkegaard thrashed it and so do all the analytic phillosophers. So het no idea if that is true or not ;)

Ohh and I would not advice listening to counter punch. He seems to hold an odd conspiracy theory informed vision of philosophy.

I am wondering. Do intelligent women ever find average to a little bit slow men attractive? I know they say if you're the smartest person in the room you're in the wrong room. But do intelligent women always need a guy that challenges them mentally? I find intelligence and an open mind attractive, but it doesn't feel like I qualify for those women. It often feels that I am stuck amongst women that question very little in the world and don't try to figure things out. — TiredThinker

I apologize for psychologizing the OP here, but what you are actually seem to be asking is, hey, I like intelligent women, but somehow, they do not seem to like me, is it because I am not smart enough for them? Well, I do not think that is the case. From my experience women do not generally like intelligent guys. I assume guys also not necessarily like intelligent women. It can actually be quite off putting if someone asks difficult questions all the time. Often intelligent guys tend to make a problem out of everything instead of going with the flow. Also they might not all behave very manly, because they are used to thinking before acting. (Now there are exceptions, some guys have it all, they are just lucky). I do not think your intelligence is the problem. Maybe you are intelligent and women who do not question everything might find your antics endearing.

I also think you are a but much in awe of intelligent women, wondering if you qualify. Well, no one really likes another person who is in awe of them, because it is quite an objectifying gaze. You reduce a woman to her intelligence and no one wants to be reduced to anything. Admiration is of course fine, but putting yourself down is not.

Contrary to "unenlightened;497655" I do think there are intelligent women who also like intelligent guys. I do not know if there are many but it certainly is possible. Maybe they are referred to 180's sapiosexuals. Yes there is a niche for everything even for us nerds.

There are two levels intermingling in your post and these two levels need to be untangled, one is the ideal, namely the conceptual and the relation between concepts to each other and the second is the real, material things interacting. the problem is persistent in philosophy, namely how does the conceptual relate to the real. However both levels are interesting. To start with the real:

If the quantum realm is truly random in most ways, this wouldn't mean our free choices are random if they come from this place. I think it is easier to understand free will materializing from something random rather than from something determined. — Gregory

How is randomness a better ground for free will than determination. If everything material fundamentally acts random than our material minds will also act random and your will is not free, it is just an intrinsically random reaction over which you have no control. Our mind is simply like a commentator on a football game (good luck at the super bowl) it rationalises our decisions which are dominated by stimuli and it reacts to it. It either reacts predictable (determinism) or it acts random (your quantum level) but both routes leave no place for freedom, at bestfor rationalisation after the fact. And maybe that rationalisation is also determined, or fundamentally random, but still no freedom there.

You like to find a real ground for the freedom of the will, but I think both your routes do not end where you want to go and for that you need another hypothesis. That is your emergent hypothesis, that somehow free will is created by the combination of material parts. It may be but that qualitative jump is still not understoond. Your randomness or determination idea does not save it.

Now the other level is the conceptual, here you start dealing with abstract concepts. they also do not explain free will, but they might explain the way we think. and I think here you are quite right. the dynamic though and life is already discovered in philosophy. This game you play with being and nothingness has been played by GWF Hegel in the first chapter of his Logik. Now his solution was indeed the primacy of becoming as the negation of being and becoming.

I think you are right about paradoxes, but I would indeed recommend you to read Hegel, you might well enjoy it.
I also think paradox is indeed the root of the free will problem and its solution, but well maybe we will get there still.

best
Tobias

It may be also the decadent romance of encountering the shadowy figure of the gothic depths, like a fictional vampire romance story. Perhaps some would say that this is not romantic, but there can be dark romance and this applies to philosophy because it can be about encountering the depths and the heights. — Jack Cummins

Of course and I would not call it decadent, I would also not call a gothic romantic story philosophy, but they do point to something inherently troubling in the idea of the particular becoming the cosmic. The flip side is that you know someone else, some insignificant and fickle just like yourself, holds the key to your world. The fear it causes is existential, hence all the theme of mirror and castles in gothic novels. The other, a mirror image of yourself and yet truly unknown manages to capture you, literally.

I would suggest that, to the romantic, the object of their affection is perhaps equally important to them, or more valuable, than the cosmic. — Book273

Indeed. those metaphors all suggest something, namely something insignificant (a pair of eyes)suddenly become something massive and deep. That is I think what happens in romance, or love. The cosmic becomes tangible in the romantic. Suddenly your day has a point because she is there, the world obtains a brighter color and more meaning because she is there. Those words are not believed, a metaphor is something else than a proposition with a truth value. Rather the metaphor is a poetic expression of a sense of meaning, suddenly the cosmic is there for a reason, namely the particular, that utter particular other.

Romantic philosophy in my view sees the overcoming of reason by feeling as a supreme form of the good, or being, being is not thinking, being is feeling. The above lines are in that sense a form of romantic philosophy in that the totality is reduced to the particular. It is not the ratio that seeks for unity that is paramount, but feeling that seeks alterity and needs another to be directed at.

I started Nietzsche with Beyond Good and Evil, my phil. prof recomended me to do so and who am I to object... so I would still say yes to your question.

I would also not recommend Russel. He is very much into the analytic tradition, which is not where existentialism comes from. I myself was taught from a rather down to earth book. The Penguin History of Western Philosophy by D.W. Hamlyn. A great intor is also to take a philosophy course. It is handy to have someone around to throw ideas at and recommend you the specific works you might be interested in. Schopenhauer is good too as it is rather easy to read and most of all fun, because he wrote well and he is interesting in his own right especially if ou enjoyed the mystics like Plato Meister Eckhart etc.

"We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting, but it’s incredible."

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump thinks Jim Jordan is actually getting in fist fights on the House floor? — NOS4A2

Well, he uses the words ' fight' in those instances figuratively perhaps. As I would argue he does. However he is not indicted for those. He is indicted for speech acts which might well have lead to the storming of the Capitol and him tellingly refraining from condemning the action. It is rather pointless to debate what times Trump used ' fight' figuratively sometimes, the question is could a reasonable person predict that his words spoken there and than lead to violence and than my answer would be yes. Did he mind the violence? Well there are indications he did not otherwise he would have spoken out immediately against it instead of watching television, right? Did Trump's incitement to walk to Washington helped creating an insurrection? Yes. Is that unbecoming of a president? Yes. Does it amount to high crimes and misdemeanors? Yes. Is an impeachment therefore constitution? Yes.

"immanent lawless action". Congress uses the similar phrase "lawless action" in the articles (minus the word "immanent") hinting that they are in fact alluding to the Supreme court standard "immanent lawless action". I'm not sure why they leave out a very important part of Supreme court precedent, but my guess is that it is a specious attempt to tie much earlier speech to later violence—"before this therefor because of this" nonsense. — NOS4A2

In law the devil is in the details. What doe imminent mean? Immediately? Well, not very likely. It would narrow the definition of crime to the point of redundancy. Incitement takes some time to foment the necessary will in those incited. I might incite to violently and openly to overthrow the government and the coup d'etat happens a couple of days later after., because it needed some time to prepare Was that imminent? depends on your interpretation of the word. This is called the open texture of law. There is some necessary interpretation going on in every legal definition.
So maybe they want to avoid the bickering about the word ' imminent' . You might find it problematic, I do not. Again, impeachment is not a criminal trial, so they do not need to stick to definitions of the criminal law. What they need to prove is that the president acted in ways contrary to how a president should behave. Undermining democracy does not seem to fall out of that category. I believe Nixon was inter alia impeached for contempt of congress. That is not a criminal offence and actually inherently vague.

What I will repeat is that their version of “incitement” is no standard and is contrary to the constitution, which they have sworn a duty to support and defend. — NOS4A2

I wish you ha bothered because it is fairly easy and I can show you by way of an example:
"Hey boss, what we supposed to do with that broad that keeps steelin our stash and keeps snitchin' on us to them cops"? You know what to do Antonio, make sure she sleeps".
What do you think 'to sleep' means here?

I’m not going to bother asking for the specifics on how one is able to compel another adult to criminal action by speaking of peaceful action. — NOS4A2

I love it when people keep repeating assertions without an argument. Firstly there is no "standard" for incitement as if there is a specific subset of words with which one might incite and others with which one might not. Something like incitement, just like insult or defamation is by necessity context dependent. Of course were it a criminal trial the bar for words to reach the level of incitement is higher, due to the restraint with which criminal law must be employed, This is impeachment and not criminal law. Secondly I have explained to you how impeachment works. ' High crimes and misdemeanors' is an open category. We are not dealing with criminal law, we are dealing here with constitutional law. I do not not know if it is often employed in constitutional law, but in private law and even sometimes in criinal law the 'reasonable person standard" is used. To come back to my example above, "let her sleep" might come down to aiding and abetting murder (or to construe some sort of conspiracy if that is not feasible) because of the context. Any reasonable person would know what the words mean.

Now let's apply the reasonable person standard, tried and tested in US law, to this situation. "March on to the capitol to give the encouragement they need" might in itself not be enough. However his aides urged for trial by combat the same day and consider Wayfarer's examples:

Trump at the time of the riot was President of the United States. So his words obviously have the power to influence others. When he said 'go there and fight like hell' and 'we cannot take the country back through weakness', his many followers took that as a call to arms and acted accordingly. And he'll never live it down. — Wayfarer

Add to this he did not tell his followers to back off immediately. Could he have known his leads to the endangerment of government officials in session? He most certainly could. Therefore his impeachment is justified.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights. — NOS4A2

It would be if that is what he did. And even then, for an average citizen to call for protest is ok. For a president to do this and challenge an election certified by officials and the judiciary alike which he lost, is altogether different. I would argue actually that even there has not been a storming of the capitol his words merit impeachment.

In America this is called “free speech”, and it applies to everyone equally. — NOS4A2

No it does not, it is always subject to time and place constraints. If I start yelling obscenities at Trump during his rally and he cannot continue because of my verbal abuse I am forcibly removed.

is contrary to the constitution — NOS4A2

You just saying so does not make it so. Actually I get visions of this baboon just clapping his hands together and uttering constitution, constitution in a nigh unintelligible fashion. No matter how often you say it is against the constitution, that does not make it so.

Trump was charged with: — Wayfarer

Yeah... seems to me not out of the bounds of the reasonable. The actual charge is high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a legal catch all term as explained above. The incitement of insurrection is the species of it, but not the same thing as the criminal law definition of the crime. That would actually punished by a heft jail time I reckon.

It is impossible, I think Kant was very right here. we simply cannot have any experience without structuring it in time. So time is not an illusion. It is an a-priori condition for experience. Whether this experience resides in the subject or the object is as such a meaningless question, because it does not matter.

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. So why would they keep claiming that he incited violence? Same thing with the trite phrase “undermining democracy”. These violations are made up whole cloth, inventions, fantasies, inapplicable to any set of rules or codes of conduct, legal or otherwise, and apparently only the president can be guilty of them. This is arbitrary persecution. — NOS4A2

Well one can incite violence irrespective of the criminal difference for a crime names 'inciting violence' is fulfilled. Het is not charged with the crime 'inciting violence' he is being charged with misconduct, namely the inciting of violence. For good reasons the criminal law restricts its ability to punish to certain very strictly described behaviours. That does not mean that behavior that falls outside of its scope is automatically ' right'. Especially a president must know that his words carry weight. If he says " March on the capitol to give our republican allies the encouragement they need", it is A. not likely he meant that literally, i.e. his followers singing a round of Kumbaya together and B. if he did mean it literally why then did he not urge his followers immediately to stop storming and start singing? Only the most naive among us, or those pretending to be naive would take the president's words literally.

He is not being prosecuted, he is being impeached. And indeed certain roles makes one more liable to prosecution, even in the criminal law sense. That is known as ' garantenstellung' in German. From someone trained with firerarms you may expect to shoot at the legsin self defense, whereas an ordinary citizen might indeed beexcused when shooting an assailant in the chest. There is nothing odd about it. Especially a president who has bred a following of devoted citziens a number of whom who are known to be violent, should choose his words more carefully than indeed Joe Blow.

So why wouldn’t Congress, those who swear an oath to defend and support the constitution, defend and support the rights of the president instead of violating them? — NOS4A2

But what makes you think the President has such a right? If the president incites a mob to 'march on the capital' and if his personal lawyer utters statements like 'trial by combat', the president is not doing a proper job, i.e., behaving as the president should and accepting the outcome of the democratic process. He should not, express or implied, either by himself or by those he employs, incite his supporters to violence. That is not what a godo president should do. Having a certain right does not reason not mean one is exempt from the consequences of exercising it, in this case, becoming impeached.

by attempting to criminalize, contra the first amendment, Trump’s speech. Had Trump said something racist or anti-American — NOS4A2

Here you go again. It is not even necessary to criminalize his speech. His speech need not be criminal just unqorthy of or unbefitting of the presidential office. I do not see why you would accept 'un-american' as a reason for impeachment and not first amendment protected but you do consider undermining democracy, by the president, to be so protected. I can only conclude you do not find undermining democracy un-american.

but he said nothing that violates the bounds of polite discourse, let alone something that rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. — NOS4A2

And why do you think this simple unqualified opinion of yours is correct? Many do find it impeachment worthy and have actually moved towards impeachment. They have seen something different than you did. Now why would we accept your take on 'polite discourse' and not theirs?

The House has certainly proven its disregard for the rule of law and the United States constitution, and thus their oaths. The article of impeachment is contrary to the 1st amendment of the constitution, does not pass the test of “immanent lawless action”, and thus does not raise to “incitement” according to any American law. In other words, they are impeaching him based on something they made up, a clear weaponization and abuse of power. — NOS4A2

Why disregard for the rule of law? You seem to equate impeachment with a criminal trial, but it is not. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not to be understood in the sense of criminal law doctrine as pertaining to a certain set of defined crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors denotes a rather nebulous category of behaviors that are unbecoming of the executive power. The verdict rendered is also not of a criminal nature. Criminal law sanctions punishment, the inflicting of suffering on the person convicted. The aim of impeachment is not to punish, it is to remove from office because the person concerned is considered to behave inappropriately, or overstepping the boundaries of his powers. Since there is no punishment in play there is no need for the strict legal protection for suspects under criminal trials such as the lex scripta and lex certa requirements. The same reason actually why Trump is not just by an impartial judge or jury but by the inherently partisan members of the house and senate.

If it was a pointless poll, what was the point citing it in the first place?

These are things they cannot explain. They can only explain it away. — NOS4A2

Are you referring to this: "18% of Americans named Trump, 15% named Obama, 6% Biden and 3% Fauci." ?

That is simple mathematics no? That is why many election systems such as the French have a first an a second round. It just shows that Trump has a very firm and loyal base, not per se a large one. But you know that, you are bright enough.

The most beautiful thing is that nobody remembers that the cause of the riot in the Capitol in the first place was the biggest electoral fraud of all time, an obvious crime of high treason protected by the Senate and Big Tech. — Rafaella Leon

Fuck me, totally forgot about that one! Thanks Raf. Guys, have you been following that election fraud thingy? They are all in it, the judiciary, Republican governors, Even Hugo Chaves was raised from the dead to play his part! It must have slipped my mind...

Indeed that was exactly the word that got me here Benkei :D But anyway, why is someone banned for posting his wife's boobies? I mean, sure delete the post and quickly have a talk with the guy, but a ban? Isn't that a bit like... puritan? It is not that this is a forum that caters to 10 year olds....

I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it. — counterpunch

You think truth and politics can be easily separated, but that is a naïve notion. I believe in rational discourse too, but the questions we ask produce the answers we get and the questions we ask are a result of politics, not truth. You simply buy into a different set of assumptions than most people who are considered to be on the left would. You believe in free markets, but just think about the enormous apparatus of rules required to keep a market free. In free market societies we have constructed a whole battery of rules and regulations, top down, to protect our 'free market'. Now leftists would say if we have that battery of rules anyway and if free market requires an infrastructure, why not tax people for its use? We can use it to steer society in the direction we find desirable.

Now liberatrians would say that no such steering is warranted, but they forget that a free market is itself a steering mechanism. It promotes certain values and penalizes others. One is not inherently more free than the other, it simply depends on your assumptions. This clash of people with a different outlook on life, the values worthy of protection and the virtues that are to be cultivated is what is called the political. The left is no ore 'getting off' on telling people what to think as the right 'gets off' on exploitation of others.

Tobias should be enlisted to do this — The Opposite

Thanks I take it as a compliment, though my time is also extremely limited... I am of the conviction that there is one reason for all. People from all stripes and walks of life can understand the difference between a good and a bad argument. That is an essential article of faith in philosophy I think, though not uncontroversial.

Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas. — Rafaella Leon

Communist censors? A lot must have changed since I went MIA. Or do you just use 'communist' as a label for people who's political views you do not like? If so, isn't that some sort of 'Godwin' you exploit? The censors would never allow me to call you a national socialist for instance, but hey you may call everyone communist and associate them with Stalin.

If the Trumper movement was about anti-corruption.. Trump is more corrupt than all the insider politicians so don't know what that's about either. My theory is people like leaders that act like dicks. They want an idiot boss that just rules by force of personality and not reasoned understanding. — schopenhauer1

I certainly do not rule that out and as has been pointed out above, it is a staple in fascist ideology, charismatic leadership as Weber called it. Here we saw the clash between charismatic leadership and formal rational leadership play out. I do also think though in order for people to risk being hurt there must be something at stake for them, apart from a leader that is a dick. Whether they marched against their own interests is irrelevant, they thought they marched for them.

But the most obvious disparity is in the cultural response. Trump has already been banned from social media for “incitement to violence” whereas BLM, its leaders, its countless enablers have not. In fact, they received corporate donations in the countless of millions, and support from virtue signallers world wide. (We cannot know whether companies like Apple donate because they believe in the cause or because they didn’t want their apple stores looted). The one Trumpist riot is panned as violent rebellion while a wide variety of euphemism is used to explain away the hundreds of BLM riots. — NOS4A2

Yes and it is entirely rational to do so. It is a tried and tested way of dealing with protest groups and it is called accommodation. (At least in the parlance of Dutch governance studies it is). It is rational because oppression does not work and and they demand a seat at the table, so you give them a seat at the table. The strategy is also known as repressive tolerance in Marxis palance. Corporate sponsors of course donate because they see they have sympathy of a lot of people and the protesters and their sympathisers are a significant market. The BLM riots display a wholly different pattern from the trump riot and that is because their aims are different. Trumpers do not wat a seat at the table (they have that), they want to determine the table and who is sitting on it. That is a much more ambitious and dangerous aim. I wonder why you keep missing the distinction while i has been explained in countless forms.

I spent the evening glued to the news and was disappointed with the reactionary response to the protest, which not only condemned the violence, but also the spirit. All that hogwash about an assault on “the citadel of liberty” and "democracy" was laughable, especially given that for the last 4 years we’ve been taught that violent protest was the surest expression of the voiceless. Perhaps if the Trumpers burned down innocent people’s businesses and looted Target the politico-media class would paint a different picture.

For once it was aimed at the guilty. Seeing the picture of lawmakers cowering behind their benches and their armed guards reminded me that these are the people that send young men and women to war. (“Lawmaker” is a specious term. They do not write our laws—hell they don’t even read them—they just sign whatever lands at their desk, more evidence that this “citadel of liberty” is a citadel of incompetence and corruption). And until now, our lawmakers have been mostly insulated from the pestilence they’ve let loose upon the country. — NOS4A2

I agree partially with you NOS actually. There are multiple levels of analysis here. At the highest level (the level of spirit ;) ) one may say that the BLM protesters and Trumpers share similarities. It is a backlash against a system that is stacked against both groups, albeit in different ways. The working class, even the middle class have legitimate gripes against the system that governs currently. It is actually a bloody shame that even during a pandemic the amount of millionaires has risen whereas a great many people see their livelihood in danger. And well that increasing gap is partially due to the policies that come from the Capitol and the government buildings of other places. So yes, there is a legitimate outpouring of anger and maybe a revolutionary spirit, Streetlight also alluded to that in earlier posts. Indeed the situation is so polarized that angered groups turn to violence. Now violence of course has indeed always been the means of the masses to effectuate social change. Libertte, egalite and fraternite did not come about in the ballot box, indeed even universal suffrage is the result of violence.

Indeed the reporting on such events is by and large 'conservative' and anti-revolutionary, also here I agree with NOS. Especially when such revolutionary attempts have a chance at succeeding one will see that vested interests in the status quo will vilify them. I was rather amazed with CNN's reporting of the event. In every sentence the name Trump was mentioned, they also had to mention what a terrible person he was, lest we would not get the message. In my view that is not needed and only plays into the hands of those saying that 'the media' is against them.

Where I disagree is the ease with which you equivocate one protest with another. As Praxis pointed out, the Trumpers proclaimed the Capitol to be 'their house!'. Now would a BLM protester do that and what would we think when he/she would. If he would I would find that a hopeful sign because it means she still saw himself a part of mainstream society and did feel that the representatives ruled in her or his name. My hunch is she he would not. In a sentiment I would totally understand, he might well consider it a long standing symbol of oppression. The point is that where white working and middles classes have legitimate bones to pick, the black working and middle classes have those to a much greater degree. The system is much more stacked against them than against Trump's supporters.

That partially explains the different types of violence and the different targets. Looting is a sign that one wants stuff that one cannot have but others do. The stores for the rich are just as much of a legitimate target as is the Capitol because in the eyes of many protesters they are just as guilty. They benefit from the unequal opportunity structure. (That is not saying I approve of it, I am merely trying to understand) The opportunities is what the Trumpers have more than the BLM protester (of course not all, it is a generalisation as you have underestood I guess). What the Trumper wants is direct influence on government and he is actually against the new government because he fears for his advantaged position. That makes the Capitol the prime target. The Trumper is afraid of losing a certain position and entitlement. On the level of spirit it might well be a revolution, on the level of ideology where these different groups fight for the Trump storm is actually a counter revolution. Trumpers intend to stop the wheel of change, which as they rightly perceive is not running in their direction.

The difference is actually starkly seen in the difference in deployment at BLM protesters and Jan 6. The level of oppression perceived as needed to quell BLM protests is far higher than at Trump rallies apparently. Could it be that that is the case because the Trumpers are still seen as people still benefited by the system whereas the BLM protester is not? They were wrong, they underestimate the level of fever and anger that can be instilled by national populists, but essentially that is the difference. That also explains why BLM protests lingered on and these will not. Trumpers still have far more to lose.

And you? — Ansiktsburk

I am not complaining that people should go to work instead of invoking their right to protest (subject to reasonable constraints of time and place). You made that remark, so you practice what you preach. I preach something different.

What I find truly tragic is that a nation which was one the smartest and most benevolent on Earth has been dumbed down to such a level of stupidity and hatred, where something like 40% of the people hate truth and wish their democracy away... — Olivier5

It never was the 'smartest and most benevolent on earth', or maybe it was but that would be truly coincidental. It is just a myth of American exceptionalism. the US is built on a form of genocide which in today's enlightened age would amount to crimes against humanity. In the 1930s' it had laws not much different from those of fascist European nations (Other Eruopean nationshad such laws as forced sterilization of minorities etc, as well). It was a leading superpower, it had a lot of money, but the smartest and most benevolent, come on. Maybe that price goes to... well.... Czechoslovakia for instance? though they never had the clout to play a meaningful role of the world stage.

As for it being 'dumbed down', yeah but so have other nations, including my own. I prefer the Rhineland model over the Anglo Saxon one, but I fear the European are not 'smarter' than Americans, even though they very much think they are.

BLM, BLM-supporters, Environment activists, Senate Invaders

Same shite kind of people. Persons that due to too much or too little money in their families growing up focuses energy on other stuff than their daytime 9-5 work. — Ansiktsburk

What 'ya doin' hangin' around PF, get to work!

You have a rather cavalier attitude to attacks on democracy. — Olivier5

Not at all. I feel democracy can and should defend itself and yes that might mean opening fire on rioters that threaten to overwhelm government buildings. However that does not mean I cannot also find the deaths that this leads to tragic. Such an attack is not black and white, it is black and black.

Had she been attacking him, perhaps. But she wasn’t. The shooter was under no threat. — NOS4A2

Well, if there is a gang of violent people descending on you, you may well have a different perception of the situation. Legally, that is a key question. Could this officer reasonably feel under direct imminent and unlawful attack? I do not know but it cannot be ruled out. She herself was no direct threat but the whole mob was. She was an unfortunate death.

There are far worse tragedies in this world. I see this one more as a ‘what did they except’ kind of tragedy, like when a drunken fool tries to walk on top of a train or to give a blow job to a bear... Darwin award material. — Olivier5

Nahh, many people do silly things. Indeed a drunk fool also does not deserve to die. You have a rather cavalier attitude to human life, but I think it is for the sake of argument.

I should perhaps clarify that I am using "troll" in the more modern sense of:

someone intentionally trying to disrupt or manipulate online conversations and communities. — Echarmion

It might well be, but I am also puzzled at the defensive reactions. I remember PF long ago and the battles with Baron Max and Darkcrow, they were far more vicious.

I consider it fairly likely that NOS is a profile of a professional troll. — Echarmion

A troll I do not know, but he might well be a pro, I do not know. either way... even if he wields Trump propaganda I am still interested in who NOS is and why he think the way he does. (Or offers trump's spin).

I am not aware if the protesters were armed. DC has very strict gun laws, and in the livestreams I saw, no one was brandishing weapons, save for perhaps some American flags. — NOS4A2

Everything could be considered being armed if the force wielded is strong enough. The agent running scared and the reporter behind him certainly feared the crowd. Moreover the police present was overwhelmed, what more evidence of an asymmetric ratio of 'fire power' do you need?

I do not think the protests under discussion were similar in intensity. The #removeTrump protests and the disruption of the Kavanaugh hearing were heavily funded by political action committees, but I don’t think they resorted to breaking windows, just making noise, the old heckler’s veto. They berated one Senator, but I do not think he was in any danger. — NOS4A2

Agreed and though that might be 'too much' protest it is not threatening existing institutions.

The trump protesters were not organized at all, but certainly more instance. CNN is comparing this 1812. But I cannot see it. As I watched it live, the protesters were mostly meandering about the building, putting MAGA hats on statues and taking pictures. Level-headed people were yelling not to destroy anything. No statues torn down, no spray paint, no weapons, just people yelling. Then 3 or 4 protesters tried to get past the barricade, breaking windows. The woman then tried to jump through the window, unarmed, and she was executed before she could make it through. I suggest watching the raw footage and come to your own conclusions. — NOS4A2

Well the point is not to physically destroy something. The aim is to conquer and they succeeded. I am sure you are aware of the picture below. Why is it such a strong picture, because it is the picture of conquest. Short lived maybe, but the message is stark, your force might not prevail, we will if we want. That is what makes it such a disgrace. The intent of conquest is not the problem, the success of it is. The message to everyone is, the police will not or cannot do much, we are the ones that wield control. That is why the slogan "you did not take back control, we gave it back" is meaningful. The maga hats on statues were similar signs. Everyone who has ever played a strategic war game, from 'stratego' to "Medieval" knows about capturing the flag. A state institution can never let that happen unwillingly.

As to the point that this was insurrection, a coup, not protest, there is no evidence of this. There never was. I’d love to see some evidence for this, because I much rather find myself misinformed than having to believe countless people are lying. Who knows? Perhaps some Q nutter thought this was his moment, but have not seen any evidence of this. — NOS4A2

Well, as Hume famously pointed out the fact that you see a billiard ball move after it has been struck by another billiard ball is no logical evidence of one billiard ball moving the other. Here you see a president telling his followers to march to the capitol because nothing has ever been achieved by weakness and the crowd cheering "stop the steal" while they were interfering in the exact meeting in which Biden would be certified. Of course maybe they just wanted to buy tickets to the next Yankees game but it is not likely. They wanted four more years of Trump. They were there to insist on it happening. I do not know how much more evidence you want or how much would convince you. People are not lying. They might see or interpret things differently from you, but of course they are not lying. That is the exact oddness of your position and that of those so angry at you. You take issue with that, this black and white distinction. However, you buy into it too, they must be lying when they see things differently.

They don’t want anyone to hear these arguments, let alone discuss them. — NOS4A2

Who is 'they'? I think those arguments are heard, actually quite loudly. These arguments got this horde on the steps of the Capitol in the first place no? If no one wanted those arguments to be heard they would not have been. I think they are actually heard way too loud.

And thanks for hearing me out despite the ad hom. — NOS4A2

They might have gotten into this game too many times. There might be a reason for it, I know most to be sensible people. But well, I do not mind tough debate, including the odd ad hominem sometimes.

It’s called law and order: if your Dutch guy tried to storm the royal palace instead of tagging it, he might get shot at too. — Olivier5

Well if a Dutch guy would storm the royal palace all by himself he would not be shot. He would be looked at with incredulity. He might well be shot if he would storm the royal palace together with a whole violent gang. That would be tragic, because someone caught up in a feverous frenzy at the wrong time and place does not deserve to die, even if the shooting might be justified.

(I seem not to be able to copy an image or paste it... too bad, but it is the image of the many sitting at Pelosi's desk, I think you saw it 1000 times.)

I once made a student almost confess a crime during a tutorial. I know how it works... (It scared me though but that aside). I only wonder why Nos is thinking what he thinks. The danger is that people do not see each other as reasoning beings anymore and do not recognize each other as such. I firmly believe we all share one rationality and can place oneself in the shoes of another. If not all communality breaks down and there is nothing left but friends and enemies.

That doesn’t seem much worse than people literally calling for the removal of the president while occupying the senate building. — NOS4A2

How did they occupy the senate building, using potentially lethal force or armed in a way that might enable them to do so or not?

You are familiar with the term "gaslighting" right? Well, I suspect some gaslighting here.. — schopenhauer1

Gaslighting as in making the other believe they are crazy? How do you mean this exactly? he crowd was gaslighted into thinking they are being oppressed by an unseen elite and the media, or gaslighting as in the media are making us believe we see something that is actually not there, i.e., a violent mob invading the Capitol?

s — NOS4A2

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning?

It was certainly a person using violence for political gain, aka a terrorist or if you prefer, an old style fascist. And of course it’s logical from their screwed-up POV. Mussolini was logical too, and his reactions perfectly understandable from a fascist perspective. — Olivier5

I do not presume to talk for Benkei, but we do come from the same legal tradition and are surprisingly often in agreement about such matters so I will give it a shot. Not everyone who uses violence for political gain does it to the same measure and degree and therefore not everyone deserves the same punishment. If you are a street artist and you spray 'fuck the king' on a Dutch building you are committing the act of violence against goods, with a political motive. However it is hardly the same as planting a bomb in a crowded place in order to get the Dutch to withdraw from Afghanistan or wherever they might be. It has to do with the threat and shock to the legal order again. If you get swept away in a crowd with people who you agree with and in a frenzy of righteous fervor do something you really should not be doing, do you deserve to die? My feeling is no. Her death therefore is tragic. Could it be avoided and by who, that is the question of culpability for her death. The shooter might have acted in legitimate self defense or defense of others, but her death is tragic.