using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something

Mainly someone. — Malcolm Parry

How is that art and not just some kind of gladiator blood sport for the blood lust of the audience? Where's the art angle?

I was thinking more of deliberate violence being part of a piece of work. Would it be deemed art? I’m no expert and I will defer to people who are. — Malcolm Parry

I think you need to expand on what you mean here. There's lots of performance art that has components of violence. But regardless, all uses violence as a component, a part of something. The intention and reason for violence is usually what the artwork is about.

Is hydraulic press videos art about violence itself?

But the violence would be part of the piece. — Malcolm Parry

Yes, but how is that different from violence in stories? From acts of love, compassion etc. in stories? If that is what you mean, that violence is part of a piece of art, then I think history has already shown violence being part of art. Almost any piece of art has some form of balance between destruction and creation, between violence and compassion. It's everywhere in art because it's part of the human condition.

But that would mean there's no real point to the discussion as the evidence is in the pudding so to speak.

What I interpreted of this discussion is that it's about violence itself. The violence being the artwork. And in that way, I'd say it's impossible to disconnect it as a component of a greater context. The ones doing violence and why superseeds the violence itself and the violence becomes merely the craft and brush stroke than existing as the entirety of the artwork.

Why not? Two men in a gallery intentionally have a violent fight. Performance could be art, the blood and sweat left could be art, a video installation of fight could be art. Why not? — Malcolm Parry

Did you read my entire thing?

And to follow up, having something in a gallery does not automatically make it art as that is not any form of definition of art. And as I said, a single brush stroke isn't really art.

To define art in any form of objective manner there has to be a creator who has an intention of communication, even abstractly so, with the goal of a receiver (audience) to experience it. Even when an artist creates something that isn't meant to be seen or experienced, it's the act of not letting people see or experience it that becomes part of the artwork.

If you have two people intentionally having a fight in a gallery, the violence itself isn't the artwork. That's my point. A single brush stroke isn't a piece of art until it has an intention of being the whole artwork, and thus the reluctant to paint more than a single brush stroke becomes the actual work of art rather than the single brush stroke.

Two men fighting becomes something else entirely; who are these men, in what way do they fight? In what clothes? Nude?

If a woman birth a child under much pain, and this is shown as a piece of art, does the violence in the violent nature of giving birth then become the artwork or just one brush stroke of the whole?

That is my point. Violence is a component of something else, you cannot have an artwork of violence that isn't about something else when counting all components of that artwork.

Otherwise, you need to point out a piece of art that only consist of the component "violence" without anything else in relation to that violence.

The question that has been prodding my mind in recent times is whether or whether not violence could be considered an art form? That not so much the act, but the nature itself of it, shares brutality & beauty. Innately, since at least two distinct beings have existed on our planet, there was some form of violence or discord. It is apart of not only our nature, but the nature of our world too. — gadzooks

You need to define violence. If it is merely one conscious being acting destructively against someone else, then there's no inherent art to violence than someone expressing love. In itself an expression of love is not art, but mere communication of a certain intent and emotion.

Art is when there's a form of universalization of communication, often through abstractions that pulls in a broader context and philosophy around something specific.

If violence is more general in its destructive nature, even childbirth becomes violence. The destruction of the human body to birth a new. A woman screaming in pain as she suffers violence done to herself or the unborn doing violence onto her; yet we portray childbirth as beauty in art.

The director Nicholas Winding Refn has made a career trying to use violence as part of his art. But I'm still thinking violence itself just becomes the means to tell something, rather than embodying the art itself. Violence itself becomes an aesthetic, a paint stroke of craft rather than the artwork itself. You cannot have violence as art, but violence is a part of the paintbrush just like love or compassion is not art, but part of the paintbrush.

Scientism is the belief that science is the most authoritative or even the only valid way to gain knowledge about reality. It often involves the idea that methods of the natural sciences should be applied to all areas of inquiry, including the humanities, ethics, and religion.

There are two main types:

Epistemological scientism – the claim that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.

Methodological scientism – the view that scientific methods are superior to other methods in answering all meaningful questions.

Critics argue that scientism is self-refuting (because the belief that science is the only path to truth cannot itself be proven scientifically), and that it dismisses valuable insights from philosophy, literature, art, and spiritual or moral reflection. — Truth Seeker

I've also found that scientism is usually used as a criticism of arguments made with evidence found in science. I agree that there can exist an extreme reliance on science for everything, but at the same time it's the empirical power of evidence in science that is underlying most of what constitutes knowledge in the world.

The key is to use scientific evidence and the scientific method where it applies. Moral and abstract concepts that has to do with the experience of being a human being, is often not quantifiable by science.

I think there has to be a balance and most of the world already operates on such. I do however think that science should weight stronger than anything else; it's a component of rational reasoning and logic and is able to produce actual evidence compared to arbitrary ones and biased thinking.

Most of the time, the strongest critics of science usually have little insight into what science actually means. They argue about it as some form of singular entity of belief, which it's not. It's a method of thinking and practice aimed to remove human bias and emotion in search of evidence that explains an observation better than our emotional reactions to it.

In that regard, it's not much about seeing science as some solution, and more that science is the method and means, the tools to find answers. And in that way, science doesn't operate like some singular belief, but rather as a tool.

When we refer to "science" and "scientific evidence", we are referring to the result and answers produced by those who looked much closer than us at the thing we want to examine. To dismiss that process and those results in favor of that which better adhere to our emotional comfort, is to fail the logic of rational reasoning.

None, in the sense you mean, but it would probably make a difference to us if we knew we were in a simulation. It's the same question as asking, "Are we in a world created by a God?" The answer seems to make a big difference . . . but maybe it shouldn't? — J

What is that difference? The similarity is here with the concept of God would be Deism, and in that case also, the consequences for us are irrelevant as we are probably an unknown entity of the simulation to those running it.

If we weren't, there is no reason to hold the complexity of the simulation at the level it is, with us unable to probe the rims of this simulation. The simulation has to simulate the entire universe, with laws of physics unknown to us in a way with an expectation that we would find out about them as we have constantly done. This exponential complexity of the simulation makes no sense computationally, other than the simulation being that of the universe itself, meaning, our existence is not the goal, but simulating the entire universe, and our existence is merely the byproduct of the simulation's parameters.

So in the end our perception of reality, our experience of reality, becomes exactly the same as if the universe appeared without any creator. We are limited by the reality we exist in and knowledge about anything else outside it is unknowable to us due to these limitations. And if there was someone running an simulation specifically to simulate us, then we're not talking about a God, but a being or someone with a clear intention; an intention and purpose that we should be able to discern logically. So why would a simulation of this complexity be run? What's the purpose of this level of complex simulation?

Such a complexity suggests that the purpose is of a larger context and the inhabitants of it are irrelevant to that context. We then still end up with an existence of the same level of nihilism as if it wasn't a simulation.

I think the question of "why" is an important and forgotten one. The allure of the concept of reality being a simulation is the allure of the fiction that grows from it. It's a fascinating idea that spawns movies and stories like The Matrix. But even that movie ran into the problem of purpose as it's the weakest part of that story's lore. The purpose of a simulation is the most central and important aspect of it and it gets overlooked as a premise in any argument about it.

The simulation theory is often just an extrapolation of mathematical probability; the Niklas Boström argument is based on that probability. But without the proponent of purpose, it becomes a contextless probability that has no internal logic. There are tons of weird mathematics that looks wild on paper, but that doesn't mean you can extrapolate purpose that forms a concept outside of that math.

I'm gonna give my views on each of these.

1. Solipsism – Only your own mind is sure to exist.
Why it's unfalsifiable: Any evidence you receive — from people, books, or even me — could just be a product of your own mind. — Truth Seeker

While true that our perception is a product of our mind rather than objective (in the sense of true representation of reality), I'd argue that when someone face a complexity they cannot comprehend and over time learn to comprehend, Solipsism suggests that the mind created a complexity it didn't itself understand yet and later did. A progression of understanding that doesn't merge well with reality being a product of our own mind as that would suggest it would know all things but arbitrarily limit that knowledge in ways that are illogical to the concept.

2. Idealism – Only minds (or mental states) exist; the material world is a construct.
Why it's unfalsifiable: All physical evidence could be interpreted as patterns of experience or ideas within consciousness.

Implication: Challenges the idea of objective reality; everything may be “mind-stuff.” — Truth Seeker

Similar to solipsism, but more about the metaphysics. Deterministic events that can be witnessed by many suggests that there's an objective reality outside of the mind. This hypothesis is only true for the self and becomes an ego-arrogant observation of reality. In a broader context it suggests that all minds must share the same reality construct and that all measurable data about ourselves and reality must stem from some overarching "thing" that produce the same mental states for all.

It's an hypothesis that doesn't follow burden of proof and has no evidence for its claims.

3. Simulation Theory – We’re living in an artificial simulation (e.g., a computer simulation).
Why it's unfalsifiable: Any feature of the simulation could be indistinguishable from “real” physical laws.

Implication: If advanced civilisations can run simulations, and they would, we might be one. — Truth Seeker

If we are in a simulation, it is so advanced it is essentially reality for us, meaning, what's the difference between reality and a "simulation"? Comparing it to the holographic theory in physics, in which we are projections in 3D from a 2D surface outside of reality, it basically functions the same; without the fundamentals of the holographic nature of our reality, our reality wouldn't function as our reality.

So it doesn't matter if it's a simulation or not, the fundamentals of our reality is what it is and changing them would mean we aren't what we are.

4. Philosophical Zombie Theory – Other beings look conscious but lack inner experience.
Why it's unfalsifiable: You can’t access others’ inner lives; their behaviour might be perfectly human but devoid of sentience.

Implication: Raises deep questions about empathy, moral consideration, and what we can ever know of others. — Truth Seeker

Problem of qualia. But at the same time follows the ego-arrogant perspective of the self being more important than other beings. The question becomes "why you?" Why would others not have qualia and inner experience? The logic of the concept relies on the arrogance of the idea; that somehow you are the center of reality and everyone else is "fake". I'd say it's a form of fallacy out of paranoia, in lack of better description. While the concept is somewhat sound, it faces a logical gap too large to function in actually reasonable terms. In the end it becomes more of a science fiction concept in which the premise comes before the problem, in which there's a reason for others to be p-zombies and then the issue of knowing this or not becomes a reality. The question still remains, why are you at the center of this question? And why did someone else feed this theory to you if they don't have any inner life?

In essence, how can the question be asked by someone who does not have the knowledge of an inner life? How would the p-zombie who proposed this concept be able to conceptualize the difference between something with and without inner-life without an understanding of it?

5. Panpsychism – Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of all matter.
Why it's unfalsifiable: You can’t measure the subjective experience of an atom or rock.

Implication: Consciousness is ubiquitous — a kind of mental “stuff” in everything, not just brains. — Truth Seeker

This is not really just an untestable hypothesis. It depends on how we measure consciousness. If it turns out that consciousness is able to be measured in different states of gradual evolution based on the complexity of the thing being measured, then it can actually be tested. It is also a proponent in some theories in neuroscience.

What is being said here isn't measurable consciousness, but qualia. We can measure mental states and conscious activity in animals and even bugs. But we do not yet know if the physical processes of all matter have measurable consciousness, or if it's simply a matter of it being so minuscule that it becomes unable to be measured. Though, scientific research in this area is ongoing, so there's no conclusion yet.

And what is the difference between "everything" and "brain"? It's an arbitrary distinction as the brain is fundamentally just a composition of matter. From an outside perspective, what's the difference? Other than a certain and very specific composition that may give rise to an increased effect of being precisely an emergent consciousness?

6. Pantheism – Everything is God.
Why it's unfalsifiable: It redefines “God” as synonymous with the totality of existence — making it a matter of interpretation, not evidence.

Implication: Spiritual or religious reverence directed toward the universe as a whole. — Truth Seeker

Burden of proof and circular reasoning. "God" is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premises. Everything could be high energy ice cream of higher dimensions with the same argument.

7. Panentheism – Everything is in God, but God is more than everything.
Why it's unfalsifiable: Like pantheism, it’s a metaphysical interpretation that isn’t testable. It adds transcendence beyond the universe.

Implication: Allows both immanence (God in all) and transcendence (God beyond all). — Truth Seeker

Again, burden of proof and circular reasoning. "God" is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premises. Everything could be high energy ice cream of higher dimensions with the same argument.

8. Dualism – Mind and matter are fundamentally distinct.
Famous proponent: René Descartes

Why it's untestable: No clear empirical way to prove the existence of an immaterial mind separate from the brain.

Implication: Suggests consciousness could exist after death. — Truth Seeker

The problem isn't that it's impossible to empirically test consciousness outside of matter (brain), but rather that there's no evidence for them being distinct in the first place. It's circular reasoning basically and there's enough scientific evidence that points in the other direction, underlying that there is not consciousness without matter (brainbody or computer for that matter).

9. Theism – A personal God created and oversees the universe.
Why it's untestable: Claims about God typically lie beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.

Implication: Provides a moral and existential framework for billions, but rests on faith or personal experience. — Truth Seeker

Again, burden of proof and circular reasoning. "God" is a conclusion that doesn't follow the premises. Everything could be high energy ice cream of higher dimensions with the same argument.

Faith is no ground for sound philosophy. It's why most religious philosophers struggled so much. A tremendously biased itch in their brain they had to shoehorn into their philosophies, fundamentally limiting their inquiries.

10. Deism – A non-interventionist creator started the universe but does not interfere.
Why it's untestable: The absence of divine interference is indistinguishable from naturalism.

Implication: God exists but doesn't respond to prayer or intervene in history. — Truth Seeker

If there's any hypothesis of a God that has some reasonable ground it's this. Since it can be fused together with the simulation theory; essentially, we are a petri dish universe, something kickstarted as a chemical reaction in their perspective. But as such, it doesn't matter, because it just becomes a question about interdimensional aliens rather than "God" in the sense humans view the concept.

Another way to interpret is similar to movies like Prometheus and 2001: A Space Odyssey. That some entity kick started life/consciousness, but they're not God, but another form of life/consciousness creating us, as we would create AI.

Still, it becomes a hypothesis that demands observation to even come close to validity. So far nothing in science supports this other than maybe panspermia, but even that doesn't have as much support as abiogenesis.

11. Nihilism – There is no inherent meaning, value, or purpose in the universe.
Why it's untestable: Meaning and value are subjective constructs.

Implication: Can lead to despair or radical freedom, depending on interpretation. — Truth Seeker

The more we learn about our reality, the more support this gets. There might still be a purpose beyond human understanding, but that also means beyond us and indifferent to us.

Despair comes before the realization that we are forced to produce our own meaning. When God dies, it's our responsibility to create meaning for ourselves and our existence. Nihilism is only the depression out of the realization there's no meaning, it isn't a constant for our existence. The ones who propose such lack imagination and curiosity to look further. They are no pioneers of humanity.

12. Eternalism (Block Universe Theory) – Past, present, and future all exist equally.
Why it's untestable: You cannot directly observe future events as already existing.

Implication: Time is an illusion; "now" is just a perspective. — Truth Seeker

There are many concepts of the Block Universe Theory, not all propose the future being in that block. It can also be that the future is composed of fundamental randomness of probability and that this probability collapse when interacting with the presence composed of known states of matter, which solidifies in a solid state past. That our perception of reality is fundamentally the experience of these quantum states collapsing.

There's a lot of support in physics for this and time as an illusion is kind of accepted already.

13. Multiverse Theory – There are countless parallel universes.
Why it's (currently) untestable: Other universes are, by definition, beyond our observable horizon.

Implication: Our universe may be just one of infinitely many, each with different laws or histories. — Truth Seeker

There are two version of this. One is a multiverse with formed bubble universes, almost like bubbles in carbonated water. Each bubble has its own progression that doesn't split (as in quantum physics concept of parallel universes), so our universe is based on specific laws of physics that produce the properties of our reality. We wouldn't even be able to enter other bubbles as reality works fundamentally different there and we wouldn't recognize or could even comprehend the perception of reality in that place. This means, we only have our own universe and reality, while there are infinite bubbles in higher dimensional realities.

The other version is the quantum physics interpretation (Everett). In which there are no quantum collapses and that everything exists in parallel universes. But what is missed is that the differences between them are basically the difference in one single collapse happening, and essentially produces such a large quantity of universes that it effectively needs to be counted as infinity. And most of them look identical as a quantum collapse in any part of the universe and reality would constitute a split. The idea of other universe "where we did other choices in life" is mostly fiction. While possible, the location is not a single thing, but closer to a gradient of infinites.

14. Reincarnation – Consciousness is reborn into new lives.
Why it's untestable: No conclusive way to track consciousness or memory between lives.

Implication: May promote ethical behaviour, depending on karmic beliefs. — Truth Seeker

Again, similar to arguments about God. Burden of proof and circular reasoning. The conclusion comes before any evidence or reasonable premises. Pure faith.

The only concept that comes close is that our matter returns to nature. In a sense we are formed and we consume matter that becomes us and then we are consumed back into nature. Like a bright point existing and then fading away. But nothing of this suggests consciousness does the same as it would need to first prove the Dualist concept and then needs to prove this state of consciousness moves deliberately.

That said, we don't yet know if we could copy our consciousness into something like a computer system. We wouldn't be able to "move" into it, but copying the brain composition and simulating everything in such detail that the mind functions in the exact same way would essentially be something like it. But then it becomes something else and isn't a fundamental part of what constitutes reincarnation.

And since most actual evidence speaks against dualism, there's little in support of consciousness being able to operate within the matter construct of another form of brain. The brain composition and the specific consciousness it produce seems fundamentally inseparable.

15. Absolute Idealism – The universe is the expression of a single universal mind.
Why it's untestable: The "absolute" mind cannot be externally observed.

Implication: All existence is interconnected as part of a single consciousness. — Truth Seeker

Similar to arguments for God and simulation theory. Conclusion before the premise as well as why would it matter? The effect on our reality would be the same regardless and the purpose of this single mind would be indistinguishable from questions about what existed before the big bang.

16. Nondualism (Advaita Vedanta, Zen, etc.) – There is no fundamental separation between self and universe.
Why it's untestable: It’s a shift in consciousness rather than a theory with predictive power.

Implication: Suffering arises from the illusion of separation; enlightenment dissolves this illusion. — Truth Seeker

Removing the religious components, nonduality holds ground in the sense that humans have an arrogance in how we view our existence in the universe and reality. Similar to the geocentrism, we place ourselves at the center of the universe and then think of existence as us in relation to it, when both logic and science says that we are part of the same universe as everything else and it's fundamental for the purpose of fully understanding reality and the universe.

The problem with Adaita, Vedanta, Zen is that the religious bits are invented out of the concept and generally becomes something other than the pure scientific perspective.

17. Cosmic Solipsism – The entire cosmos exists for one observer (e.g., you).
Why it's untestable: Similar to solipsism but extended to cosmic scale. — Truth Seeker

Fundamentally the arrogance of humans, the geocentrism fallacy, a concept out of the ego rather than rational reasoning. Faith not in God, but in the self as being the most important thing in the universe... yet we see examples of this arrogance a lot in society :sweat:

Empiricism says reality is what can be observed and tested.

Rationalism says reality is what can be logically deduced.

Phenomenology says reality is what appears in conscious experience.

Pragmatism says reality is what works — what lets you survive and make decisions. — Truth Seeker

Why not all combined? Each hold some merit in some form or another, they're not mutually exclusive.

I think most problems in philosophy around the subject of reality, perception and consciousness stem from the biases people have towards a certain school of thought they learned, rather than finding a holistic perspective that finds the merit in different thoughts.

For instance, reality can be logically deduced, then observed and tested and yet still be within the limited perception of experience we have.

People are too influenced by their biases, getting stuck in the mud of emotional attachment to some faith they have of a specific concept, losing the ability to reach into higher forms of understanding.

Essentially, most people just argue for their side like all of this was about their favourite sports team. It's why I think most people fail at philosophy. They argue for a belief, not what follows the rational, the logic, the evidence and so on.

But if Hitler was really standing up for free speech then alternative views would have an equal amount of play-time on the radio waves. There must have been something that kept citizens from hearing alternative views, or that made alternative views to fascism less desirable. What was that? Would you be enthralled by Hitler's words to commit genocide? There were some that opposed Hitler and hid Jews at their own risk. What makes some people become spellbound by fascism and others not even though they hear the same rhetoric? — Harry Hindu

Yes, people spoke up, opposed, etc. but it was exactly that which became easy for Hitler and the Nazis to oppose by using free speech absolutism as a rhetoric. "See they want to silence us". I don't know how much you know about Germany, Hitler and the Nazis before the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, but they didn't argue for genocide but for changes to German politics trying to radicalize people into a new form of thinking about what it means to be German, and which later played into the antisemitism.

It looks more like you have a hindsight bias here, together with just mixing up history into a large mess rather than looking at the progression of politics and the fall into authoritarianism as a long process beginning at the end of the first world war.

Before the1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, nothing of what you think about Nazis and Hitler were true in the world. He was just a chaotic politician that was after the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree viewed as someone "who could become a real danger", in a similar way to how we look at someone like Putin right now. And to some degree Trump as well, seen as how he uses the same exact toolset as the Nazis did before the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree.

You have whole libraries of material to read about the psychology of the German population from the 20s into the 40s. I suggest you go into the details because it will explain why some becomes spellbound and others not. You can ask the same question about Trump and the MAGA movement today. Why are people being spellbound by an obvious narcissist who don't really care about them, yet they still view him as a deity? You have the seeds for a fascist state in the US right now, similar to 20s Germany. How it goes depends on how far Trump and his similars takes it, or how well the good people of the US stands up against it.

What I'm saying in this thread is that the absolute state of freedom of speech is an utopian delusion either by those who don't understand Poppers tolerance paradox, or those with a very simplistic understanding of society and social psychology, or who are simply using it like the extremists, to champion an ideal in which they can say whatever extreme views they have without consequences.

If you champion absolutism in this sense, then you are indeed arguing for no consequences for the speaker. They can say whatever they like without any consequence. If you look at this forum for example, how do you think it would look with an absolutist stance on freedom of speech? Well, Twitter/X gives a hint on exactly what happens. People are generally unable to act civil without laws and regulations and just as we judge morals in justice for actions, why shouldn't there be consequences for immoral speech? We already live in a society which does not operate on freedom of speech absolutism, yet do you feel limited? The only ones feeling limited seems to be those who actually want to spread hate, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other slurred language. Society is better off without them pouring toxics into the social sphere. And I don't think anyone would disagree with that, except those on that side of the fence.

So the question is rather, why would you defend the absolute state of freedom of speech without falling into the consequences that Popper lays out in his tolerance paradox?

I ... umm... did. There is no paradox about speech and I gave the argument. I am sorry that this isn't landing. — AmadeusD

Why did Popper call the concept a paradox of tolerance? You never addressed that (which is the paradox I'm referring to). What's the point in having any discussion with you when you continuously just ignore what is being talked about in a way that is convenient for you?

It certainly is. — AmadeusD

If you think so, then discussing anything with you is pointless as you will not add anything of value to a discussion. Rather than honestly engaging with the opposing argument, you ignore and just reiterate your original viewpoint. I see now that engaging with your posts will be pointless as you lack the philosophical grit to engage in discussions in honest.

I can't quite recall exactly what I was responding to there — AmadeusD

How convenient.

but the point is that I think Popper is wrong. And patently so. I gave the argument (i will dredge it up at some point). — AmadeusD

You didn't address the core premises of his argument or mine, you basically just said "I disagree" wrapped in the appearance of an argument. And it seems like it is pointless to ask for more as I'm not sure you know the actual difference.

This is so utterly bizarre and childish. I was going to go through both responses, but fuck that lol. — AmadeusD

No, it's you who acts bizarre and childish, and I think most people sees that.

The method by which it attained power was by suppressing alternative views - by keeping the citizens uninformed of viable alternatives. The moment they were able to suppress any opposing viewpoints, they held power over the people. — Harry Hindu

I think you need to look into the entire progression of what happened. You're still looking at the tail-end of the transition into authoritarianism. It began with the Nazis championing absolute free speech in order to paint those who wanted to silence them as the suppressors of free speech, and through their championing of free speech absolutism they could slowly erode the publics perceptions and radicalize people into standing behind their definitions of what is allowed to be said.

This is Hitler in the 20s:

We asked nothing of the world but equal rights, just as we asked for the same rights at home. At home we demanded the right to meet freely, the right which the others possessed. We demanded the right of free speech, the same right as a parliamentary party as the others held. We were refused and persecuted with terrorism. Nevertheless, we built up our organization and won the day.... — Hitler

I don't think you look at the transition into authoritarianism in the logical way it historically and psychologically happens, i.e you have to get the public behind your suppression of free speech in some way before you do it. They have to back you up suppressing society in the way you want, and the best way to do it is to first role play as the good side and then when you start to suppress society you do it in a way that includes all people who supported you. That way these people will feel like they are on the "good side of history". This is radicalization 101.

As you can see in that speech, Hitler positioned himself and his party as being suppressed and as championing free speech to allow them to spread their propaganda which eventually eroded the public into a radicalized state. The power of that rhetoric is that he gained power by putting himself in the position of standing up for free speech, not suppression.

It was only after he was elected that through the Reichstag Fire Decree they changed the Weimar constitution to start suppress society, but people supported them in doing so, because he'd convinced them of him and his party being on the good side. That it was an emergency change to protect society.

You are only speaking of what Hitler and the Nazis did post the 1933 Reichstag Fire Decree, when they already reached the point of having the people's support in suppressing free speech, it does not happen without the public standing behind you and for that you need a narrative that works. This strategy was what was criticized by Popper and other philosophers as being the absolutist state of free speech that eventually erodes free speech itself.

Yet people in society were incited by what someone said, even when opposing viewpoints are available. It was because the information was suppressed that people were incited. If the rioters had the correct information and still rioted, who would be at fault? — Harry Hindu

I don't think you understand the point I'm making. I'm saying that if a political party were to suppress freedom of speech directly without anything leading up to it, people would notice and oppose it in much greater numbers. But by eroding who the public think champions free speech, you can place people in the bubble that supports your side because you paint yourself as the champion of freedom in opposition to those who want to limit your speech. That way you gain numbers in followers so that when you tell them that you will suppress what can be said and talked about in society, it is in their best interest and that it's for their protection in order to protect their freedom. This is exactly how it went for Hitler and the Nazis and how they gained true power.

Just look at the political discussions on this forum. Most people on the left and right live in bubbles where they only get information from one side. There isn't always a counter-point if they live in a bubble, hence my solution to change the way the media disseminates information and abolishing political parties. Again, if the rioters had access to the counter-point and still rioted, how would that change the culpability of who started the riot? — Harry Hindu

This forum consist of people from all over the world. And I would rather say that the forum holds a rather good balance in the debates, disregarding a few very obvious ones. People cannot rid themselves of biases completely and abolishing political parties will do nothing to change the fact that people attach to different biases. Abolishing and ripping something up by the roots in order to replace it with something "better" will always lead to the animal farm scenario if the people doing so doesn't have a deep insight into how biases and psychology play into things and how to oppose those taking advantage of chaos.

But nothing of this has to do with the topic at hand really. Free speech absolutism vs restricted speech is more about the tolerance paradox than biased opinions. Opposing views does not change someone's bias in a straightforward way, and free speech absolutism has more to do with how very specific, radical, and extremist views take root in an open society.

The problem is that people don't think about freedom of speech absolutism towards its logical conclusion, and rather buy into the narratives that extremists use to give themselves free reign to spread hate.

Free speech without the absolutist state of it does not limit free speech. A non-absolutist version of free speech just requires more effort to recognize when the line has been crossed. So it's more about people leaning towards that which requires the least energy and effort, i.e the lazy. Instead of letting freedom of speech be something that is actually defended.

You are confusing freedom of speech absolutism with authoritarian speech - where you are ignoring that free speech entails the ability to question what is said, and the rioters did not have that, and possibly didn't care that they didn't. The only absolutism of free speech is the absolute capacity to question authority. Even then I might not say absolute as any criticism needs to be well founded and logical, but then I might ask, if criticism is not well founded and logical, is it really criticism or a straw-man? — Harry Hindu

How am I confusing the two? You are placing this into a binary construct that doesn't exist. I'm not really sure what you are arguing here. Free speech absolutism is not what you think it is. It's not "normal" free speech, it's a foundation of giving extremists free reign and a form of free speech that eventually always lead to intolerance and authoritarianism. This is what Popper argued, that the absolute state of freedom of speech leads to limited speech, that's the paradox he talked about. That in order to have free speech there must be limitations specifically on those who try to dismantle or manipulate the public by the means of freedom of speech absolutism.

I don't understand why you keep mentioning strawman all the time when I do understand that you try to juxtapose authoritarianism against freedom of speech absolutism and that the latter would grant the freedom to oppose authoritarianism, but that is a very simplified observation of how society and people works, in the same way you ignore how the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s actually happened and just boil it down to "authoritarianism" as if it just popped into existence from nothing in 1933.

The question is about freedom of speech vs freedom of speech absolutism. Almost all functional societies and democracies today operate on a non-absolutist version of freedom of speech in which society do not tolerate the spread of hate speech and moderate the public sphere to be protected from those who tries to openly radicalize. Though the complexity of radicalization is a topic of its own, free speech absolutism is one of the greatest tools used by extremists.

As Jamal points out, the holistic perspective doesn't mean the details are absent. A good way to look at it might be that the conclusions paint the big picture, while the premises in support of that conclusion compose the finer details.

Yet it's now laughable how the Trump crowd was against corruption and hated the Clinton's having a foundation and getting those speech fees etc. Especially the idea of American politicians getting money from the Arabs. But now... it's smart! — ssu

Because people are biased and the majority of people cannot think outside those biases they have. If someone on the other side does something that their own camp judges immoral, then they will pour all their hate towards that person. But if they later do the same thing, then they will not think it's immoral, even when faced with the fact that they've shown this hypocrisy. It's biased behavior 101.

People who are able to act, think and see past their own biases are rare, like, 1-2 % of the population rare. The world rests on people's biases being somewhat moral, by good people in the lead (or at least good enough), but all it takes is a slight corruption of their thinking by bad actors to influence their biased thinking into becoming supporters of murderous, hateful, racist and criminal behavior.

This is why people are shit. Not just leaders and corrupt politicians, but the people, embodying the banality of evil.

Can’t disagree but increasing tax rates on higher incomes is necessary and it would be a forward step if a Republican congress does it. — Wayfarer

Not opposing it at all, it's a great idea and has been a great idea for a long time. The further the gap becomes between low-income and rich people, the better it is to tax the rich. The laissez-faire ideal pushed by neoliberals is a capitalist utopian fantasy that the rich are good hearted people who put their money back into the economy... however, just as in any fucking part of history, the rich doesn't do this, they pool their income and wealth into dynasties and gain power, they do not infuse the economy or society with more wealth. The American dream is an ideal image that was built on extreme tax levels in order to kickstart society post-war. The way to actually transform a broken society to the better is with high taxes. But in a world where the difference between the rich and poor is as extreme as it is today, the logical way to improve society is to stop letting rich people pool their wealth away from society like some bloodsuckers squeezing out the last drops of lifeblood and actually tax them increasingly. If they oppose with the argument that they are investing with their money (lying), we can easily transform the tax laws so that private wealth is taxed (with stocks owned being earmarked for taxes whenever sold) and any capital gains within a company is required to be held within the company as investment either in or in a new company.

Society would look very different and the argument has never been to take people's hard earned money, it's an argument for how much money some people actually need. We already adjust the economy in a way that removes money from citizens in all kinds of different ways, so why would taxing the rich with higher taxes be any different? Why are people defending the rich but accepting regular folks getting their bank accounts drained?

Taxing the rich in today's society, globally, is a straight path to improving society overall. It's obvious and the only people opposing it is the rich, and their gullible idiot followers or people believing they will be rich one day, being fooled by their narratives.

Well, knock me down with a feather. Trump has told Johnston that he wants him to support raising tax rates on high incomes :yikes: - something the Republican Party has long refused to even consider. My bet is that Bessent and his other Treasury wonks have suggested it. But it actuallly seems - gulp - a good idea. — Wayfarer

Well, Trump is not a republican, he is his own thing and republicans seems too stupid to notice how he just chose them because they were most inclined to put him forward as a candidate. He's in it for himself, so policy and traditional ideals of the republicans doesn't matter at all. He is a dictator who's only unable to fully act as one because of the thin line that still protects the US from becoming a full autocracy. But if he were able to, he would make himself a king, he's already making AI images of himself as the pope. So being part of republicans doesn't mean following their traditions of ideals.

He's a child who wants attention and wants to be king. It's both fundamentally pathetic and terrifying.

the people who could do anything about it - mainly, Congress - don't give a shit. — Wayfarer

Then the people should show the congress what they think about their apathy. Democracy isn't just an election every 4 years. If the people actually cared for real, there would be millions in DC protesting, but the people doesn't give a shit. The people in congress is only interested in maintaining their individual power and will act accordingly, but with enough pressure they may feel that they will maintain power if they back the people protesting and not the backs of those around them.

Well worth reading the rest of that article (via gift link supplied). The blatant corruption of the office of the Presidency is absolutely staggering. — Wayfarer

Yes, but as I'm always wondering, does anyone give a shit about it? Is the corruption being stopped by enforcing the law? Where's the US marshals dragging him out of office? If the corruption isn't stopped and he can break whatever laws and regulations he wants, then there's definitely no democracy in the US. And if there's no democracy in the US, then what are the population opposing him waiting for to happen? For the storm to just calm on its own?

I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state. — Harry Hindu

I'm not sure what you mean? Nazi Germany was not authoritarian before it became authoritarian and it's how it became authoritarian where these things happen. It's the erosion of free speech through the absolute tolerance of all speech that enables the radicalization of people to the point of them then standing behind authoritarian restrictions.

They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. — Harry Hindu

You are still talking about the end game authoritarian state, not how it got to that point. If you had a group in society which just started limiting opposing viewpoints it would rally the people against them, this is not how a free society evolves into an authoritarian state.

Here's what I wrote above to further explain:

the Nazis changed the definitions of Germanness and culture by championing free speech absolutism to enable their manipulation of the population through propaganda that eroded the freedom of speech down to controlled speech based on what the Nazis decided to be allowed, changing the perception of the population into agreeing with that limitation on freedom of speech.

This way of using the idea of championing something good, like freedom of speech, in order to position themselves in opposition of the bad (those who wanted to limit certain speech that promoted the Nazis worldviews) weaponized freedom of speech absolutism in order to form the perception of the Nazis as being champions for good against those who "tried to silence them", while using the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly radicalize the people in a way that any critic would be polarized into being an enemy of the "good side".

This is the path that the tolerance paradox is talking about. That freedom of speech absolutism is an utopian ideal that ignores that over time there will be those who can take advantage of it to begin radicalizing people in a way that is hard to combat as the very nature of its absolute state makes any critics who tries to stop such radicalization an enemy of freedom of speech rather than combating the radicalization of the people. — Christoffer

You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. — Harry Hindu

That's not the problem, the problem is that you misunderstand the core premise and confuse the authoritarian state with the pre-authoritarian state that leads to it. Misunderstanding that makes you misunderstand my argument.

I said that we need to revamp our education system and the way the media disseminates information, remember? - that part that you did not quote in your response to me, which just makes your response a straw-man? — Harry Hindu

Here's the full thing of what you said in response to me:

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash them? I don't think this logic holds.
— Christoffer

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives.

Yes, yes, and yes. We need to revamp our education system, the way the media disseminates information and abolish political parties (group-think and group-hate). — Harry Hindu

First part is a misunderstanding of my argument, focusing on the end-state of the authoritarian state, not how it becomes such a state. Second part is describing how in a free society people would not be fooled or radicalized because there's always access to a counter-point; which I noted isn't how things works as that's not how people operate psychologically. Just having an opposite voice in society does not mitigate radicalization or preventing society to change into authoritarianism.

The reason I didn't quote the thing about the educational system is that it seems disconnected from the argument itself. The first two parts speak of authoritarianism and how the existence of opposite voices would prevent people from being fooled or radicalized. A revamp to the educational system doesn't really have a logical following. And I agree that many privatized media outlets and political parties polarize more than help society, but what revamp to education would help with that I don't follow because that's a bit vague what that entails? As well as the fact that we also have media in the world that do not polarize and that should be championed in opposition to the privatized media who holds agendas. And that there still has to be something instead of political parties if society is to function. So that last part is more confusing to answer as it doesn't really follow the first two premises.

Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time. — Harry Hindu

I don't think you use the straw-man here in the correct way. I'm not strawmanning, I just think it's vaguely argued. What revamp should be made to the educational system? What is the problem with how legacy media spread information (all media is not partisan media)? and what will be instead of political parties?

I'm not really sure of what the solution is here? I answered what I could interpret of your argument, that's not a strawman, it may be a misunderstanding of what you argued, but then explain it further then. A strawman is deliberately misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to counter, not misunderstanding an argument because it was too vague in its conclusion.

Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words. — Harry Hindu

I think you need to read up on the tolerance paradox first to get what I'm talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

It's not about politics, or which spectrum of politics "gets to decide". You are politicizing it when it's not a political issue at its core, but rather about the nature of a free society regardless of politics. The definition of intolerance is at its core that which tries to limit others freedom of speech, and it's why it's called a paradox since the solution more or less leads to limiting others speech.

But that's why I mentioned it in a Kantian perspective, that if we are able to universalize the first message in a chain of speech, we know if it is in favor of intolerance or tolerance. If an expression under freedom of speech criticize a systemic problem of a group in society, that is universalized as a critique of a system that does not have speech in of itself. If you on the other hand criticize the people themselves in that system as the problem, you are aiming to limit the speech of people and not limit problems of a system. It makes it easier to find out what in speech should be tolerated and what should not be tolerated to protect freedom of speech.

But that's a very simplistic example of it. In general, it's the people who are able to deconstruct what is being said in society who are best able to spot what should be tolerated or not. Which is basically what we've already done in society. It's a process of discerning the morality of rhetoric and topics and continuously updating what we define as hate-speech and intolerance that defends the free society we have.

And that is a direct result out of the philosophies that Popper was part of laying out in the post-war era. There's a reason why many of those, like Elon Musk, who champion free speech absolutism, in the end clearly limits free speech. They use the concept of free speech absolutism to vilify the process of discerning what is intolerance in society, even though our society has become a much better place to live in because of exactly this continuous process to discern what is what. It's a way to enable themselves to say things that we consider hate-speech or to use rhetoric that slowly radicalize without anyone able to stop them as they can then point to such attempts and say "they are the bad guys, not us, we stand for freedom of speech while they want to limit us", as part of their radicalization process of people on their side. This is exactly how it went in Germany before it became a Nazi authoritarian state.

Freedom of speech absolutism does not have limits on anything, that's the core of that ideal. There are no consequences for what you are saying, because it's absolutism. I'm not sure people really understands what the "absolutist" state of it means. It means that someone could say they want to legalize the actions of pedophiles or send be able to send death threats without repercussion. Or... which is the entire point of the tolerance paradox... tell people that "those people should not be able to vote, should not be able to speak up and they should be silenced", effectively eroding freedom of speech. It's this progression of the absolute state of freedom of speech that eventually leads to limiting freedom of speech, absolute tolerance into intolerance, free society into authoritarianism.

And since this is the closest you got to an actual argument, I separated it into this as I've said enough about your behavior in the discussion. I will not engage in that discussion anymore since that's not on topic.

---

"free speech absolutism" does not allow for the outcome you want it to. It is a fugazi of discourse about free speech that it leads to intolerance. It is patently untrue. Only force could do this. — AmadeusD

"Patently untrue" is a rather strong wording for something that literally happened:

The Germans’ ambivalent relationship to propaganda was also evident in politics: while the Weimar governments displayed uneasiness towards propaganda, the Nazi movement called for its unscrupulous use. In this way, the Nazis not only prepared for the destruction of democracy, but also stood for a different understanding of ‘Germanness’.

...and which was the thing that spawned the idea behind the tolerance paradox.

Your strong opposition here leads to a question which answer would form a better context of your opposition; do you not believe that people, a group, can be changed into a new belief through rhetorical means? If such belief can be changed through rhetorical manipulation, do you then consider the way the Nazi's used this unscrupulous use of propaganda and redefinitions of "Germanness" to be of such rhetorical power to radicalize?

And, if so, does that not lead to a tolerance paradox in which the absoluteness enables such use of rhetorical means to radicalize a people until it's not absolute anymore, but restricted by the rules set by the manipulators? I.e absolute tolerance leading to intolerance.

How is this "pantently untrue", you've not demonstrated any valid counter argument to it outside of that remark.

Free speech absolutism means no one has the ability to change society on their say-so (i.e using their "speech rights" as it were). The claim made by Popper et al... isn't reasonable in any way. it is a fear-driven expectation that might will overcome the right. But, an absolutely free society (speech-wise) does not have that door open becaues every opposition has the exact same rights. — AmadeusD

Do you think that society is operated by a population of people, or by a system that isn't able to be changed by that population? You describe a system, an ideal system, a form of utopian conditions that we've already in history seen easily transformed from such freedoms to no such freedoms, through the means that those freedoms grants individuals to change society.

Society is an ever-changing entity, with guardrails through laws, regulations and culture that define in what ways and what paths it can change. If we have numerous examples of how a population can be psychologically manipulated into beliefs that roll out the carpet for an intolerant society, then absolute freedom of speech is an ideal that does not function to guardrail a free society.

That is the core of the tolerance paradox. It's not out of fear, it's out of historical observation and understanding of group psychology. You can't ignore those aspects.

if you could, perhaps (and not using Popper as your template) come up with an example where you think this could be relevant, I can get on with that. in the abstract, it is patently false. — AmadeusD

I did, with how the Nazis changed the definitions of Germanness and culture by championing free speech absolutism to enable their manipulation of the population through propaganda that eroded the freedom of speech down to controlled speech based on what the Nazis decided to be allowed, changing the perception of the population into agreeing with that limitation on freedom of speech.

This way of using the idea of championing something good, like freedom of speech, in order to position themselves in opposition of the bad (those who wanted to limit certain speech that promoted the Nazis worldviews) weaponized freedom of speech absolutism in order to form the perception of the Nazis as being champions for good against those who "tried to silence them", while using the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly radicalize the people in a way that any critic would be polarized into being an enemy of the "good side".

This is the path that the tolerance paradox is talking about. That freedom of speech absolutism is an utopian ideal that ignores that over time there will be those who can take advantage of it to begin radicalizing people in a way that is hard to combat as the very nature of its absolute state makes any critics who tries to stop such radicalization an enemy of freedom of speech rather than combating the radicalization of the people.

Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices. — Tolerance Paradox

Since we have both historical examples and psychological research on radicalization, you need to include that when arguing that the tolerance paradox is untrue. It's not untrue just because you say so, that's a weak and invalid argument.

I understood what you were saying. I disagree — AmadeusD

You are disagreeing with something that's been reported on and dissected for a long time. You're not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with Popper and you have to make an actual counter-argument. This is not a forum where you just say "I disagree" and leave it at that.

and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuous — AmadeusD

What about this is disingenuous? It's an observation of society through the lens of Popper's stated paradox of tolerance.

Everyone who is thrown under the bus for a vague association with some group you (and many others - me included, don't get me wrong) have deemed unacceptable. I would, almost surely based on our exchanges, come under some similar description for you (if not, fine, that's what comes across in our exchanges, though). — AmadeusD

What are you talking about? You seem so triggered by the philosophical discourse around free speech that you are unable to argue outside of whatever group you, yourself, has attached yourself to. It's not any of us who've put you in some group, it's you and then you're operating on some anger against others that for us makes no sense, especially not within the context of a philosophical discussion. Philosophy is about the ability to argue outside of such biases and if you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance when involved in a discussion like this, then maybe you should take an introspective breath and ask yourself if you're the one putting people and concepts in simplified boxes rather than other people.

From what I can interpret, you seem to have positioned yourself as a free speech absolutist and you're defending that position not with philosophical arguments, but with arrogance and hostility.

The fact is that Popper and other philosophers of his time recognized through what happened in 1930s Germany, freedom of speech absolutism can be used to radicalize an entire population who weren't extremists before hand. It was part of a powerful toolset of reprogramming a population's core beliefs and it's still a powerful tool today when the way its used isn't recognized.

So when we speak about freedom of speech absolutism, its history and the philosophy around that subject, that's not an attack on your personal beliefs, it's a deconstruction of the subject. When you lash out in the way you do, that just perfectly shows us the cognitive dissonance at play. The inability to form a proper argument, the constant emotional, arrogant and childish bully-speak... how can anyone take you seriously when that's the level you operate on? If you're unable to form an actual argument and just attack, you're shown you are unable to discuss this topic further and only operate on the low-quality level that this forum have rules against.

Act like an adult or be treated like a child.

Quite frankly, you are not being a reasonable person using phrases like this, and the following line. "No one thinks you're cool" is honestly one of the most ridiculously childish things anyone has ever said to me on this forum. — AmadeusD

You're just continuing the "you too" rhetoric that children uses. If someone recognizes your behavior as childish, you simply say that back believing you've leveled the playing field. When I say "no one thinks you're cool" it simply means that your style of writing seems to revolve around compensating the lack of an actual argument with snark irreverant comments to try and disguise its obvious argumentum ad lapidems and it comes off as sounding like someone desperately trying to sound cool to mask this inability to actually engage with the philosophical discussion.

The silliness of your position is writ large with the example I gave. Hitler loved dogs, therefore, we should probably demonize people who love dogs - is literally the exact same logical throughline as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist should be demonized because some number of them are POS's" — AmadeusD

That's your strawman right there. Can you see it? Can you see the fallacy you're making in your reasoning that is the foundation of all your quick emotional remarks? - The inability to understand that when I say that free speech absolutism is used by extremist groups to move goal posts and radicalize people; the same observation Popper made in the 40s, that's not in your strawman simplification the same as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist".

What is telling about all this, is that the way you defend your position is in such a loaded political form that you're not doing philosophy here, you're lashing out a personal belief, an evangelical defense of that belief rather than an examination of what the absolute state of free speech means. This kind of evangelical behavior is also not allowed on this forum. Strawmanning and changing other's arguments in order to make evangelical defenses of your beliefs is not philosophy and belongs in the cesspool of other internet debates that does not have the stricter rules this forum has to cut out that low quality writing.

Are you 'triggered'? ;) — AmadeusD

No, I'm not, I'm simply observing someone with a bully mentality trying to make some personal win for his beliefs rather than engage the topic in a philosophical way, and not recognizing how futile this behavior is and how the thin veil of this tough guy attitude is transparent for anyone.

Yes, that's right. I dishonestly approach conversations by refusing to even read your posts before commenting. When I do comment, its pure luck that things I say i directly relevant and cause us to continue exchanging. Mhmm, Totally reasonable position.
You are just constantly attacking the person in these exchanges, so I don't care to shy from sarcasm. — AmadeusD

But you're not though. You've not ever once engaged with the actual argument on free speech absolutism. You've evangelically defended your beliefs, without even attempting to address Popper's tolerance paradox in any meaningful way. That's what I mean with you not engaging with the topic in honesty. And this continued sarcasm just continues to prove my point about your dishonest engagement in the topic. You're not here to discuss it, you're here to defend your personal belief and through an obnoxiously silly and childish behavior avoid any criticism. Again, what are you attempting to do here?

Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here? — AmadeusD

You've not engaged in what I said with philosophical scrutiny, you've lashed out with a strawman simplification and downright inability to understand what I wrote, some emotionally triggered defense that you're just escalating over and over and then try to point out, "no, I'm actually writing good long arguments". Saying something is not the same as actually doing it and you've not once engaged with the core of my argument, you avoid it like a plague and continue with your short-burst snark attempts at edgy counters. It's actually like talking to a child.

I get fed up with others sometimes, and so i become terse or curt. That is exactly how everyone in the world with a brain responds when things are going no where. I simply do not care what your moral assessment of me is. I would expect you to feel the same in reverse. — AmadeusD

You are on a philosophy forum, with clear rules of engagement. It's meant to keep the people away who "get fed up with others sometimes" because that's not the level a philosophical discussion should be operating on. If you don't understand where you are, and what the rules of conduct is, then that's on you. Grown-ups are able to control their emotions, especially in places that try to focus on intellectual discourse.

It's not a moral observation, it's an observation of someone failing at the very thing this forum is about. It's you who have decided that things go nowhere, yet you've not gone in the direction of the argument I've made, you've invented your own situation in which things go nowhere in order to try and back up not having to engage with the direction a discussion is actually going.

This avoidance behavior informs that you've hit a wall or can't engage with the discussion honestly, not because you can't, but because the cognitive dissonance it triggers puts you in the fear of having to examine your core beliefs. But doing actual philosophy is to always examine and question your core beliefs. If you're not up for it, go to Twitter or similar channels where beliefs are shouted into the void. In here you can't interpret a criticism of something you believe in as some attack on you personally and then expect to be in the right by trying to bully that criticism away.

When you cannot read clearly, or understand what someone is saying, you will certainly fall back on claims such as this. Common. My posts speak for themselves, though. — AmadeusD

Again, you're trying to just flip the criticism you get back at where the criticism came from. It goes nowhere for you. This kind of behavior just leads to eye rolls as it's an obvious attempt to psychologically win an argument. But it doesn't work on people who've seen this stuff a million times before. It's almost a form of easily recognized rhetorical archetype behavior. And your posts speak for themselves in that emptiness, that's true.

This is in your head. I cannot possibly pretend to take this seriously. — AmadeusD

I don't think so, I think you genuinely believe that this bully behavior of yours works as a defense, but it doesn't. It just informs on what level you operate in philosophical scrutiny.

Your eyes, Christoffer. Yours. And I do not care about your assessment there, because in my eyes, you're doing exactly what you've charged me with. So be it.. — AmadeusD

Again, you try to flip things around. It's a constant and repeating pattern that just repeats the same empty point over and over. And what I mean by "us" is that you've been criticized for this before, not just in this discussion with me. So yes, more eyes than mine and the way you are being criticized is not in the way you operate. If I deconstruct your rhetoric and behavior, that's not the same as conducting that behavior. I'm doing this in order to push you into making an actual argument rather than continue down this path of low-quality writing that you constantly continue with. But I'm starting to see that you are unable to, since you've demonstrated very little effort to attempt any philosophical scrutiny. Even after constantly being asked for an actual counter argument, you continue to avoid doing so. The proof is in that pudding of your rhetoric.

I've responded to this. — AmadeusD

You have not. Where can I see this argument in opposition of Popper's tolerance paradox for which I've been talking about as the core premise of what I wrote? Stop saying that you have done so and actually show it? Where is it?

That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarification — AmadeusD

If you are vague and unclear and being asked to clarify, that's what you should do. This is not a place for you to make plaque statements of your beliefs or anything like that. Again, you don't understand what philosophy is about. This kind of rhetoric is exactly the subliminal "you're too stupid to understand my point" that people who want to avoid a deconstruction of their beliefs make as a form of defense in order to avoid that introspection. You've not made any counter arguments at all and if asked to clarify you should do so on a forum like this, not behave like this is your personal place to shout your beliefs.

not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views. — AmadeusD

Again, trying to flip around who's doing what here. You get criticized for acting like a child and then you try to swing that same criticism back. These are such obvious rhetorical tactics that it's getting old. You lashed out with a strawman interpretation of my argument, gets called out for it and then starts to behave like a child would do, trying to bully yourself into respect and when that doesn't work, trying to blame others of doing what you are doing. It's this behavior that is childish, because this is how children acts when emotionally pushed. And you're only indirectly pushed because your core beliefs are criticized within the topic of this thread, leading to a cognitive dissonance triggering this behavior. So you fail at engaging with the topic philosophically, and instead falling back on a rhetoric more fitting of Twitter than this forum.

You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL. — AmadeusD

Here you go again, saying something without demonstrating anything. You've not addressed why he is wrong, you're just "LOL"-ing your way out of it... like a child.

Why is he wrong, what's your actual counter argument? How many times do I have to ask you to make a proper argument? It's this simple thing that makes all your avoidance behavior and bullying attempts echo empty.

I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct. — AmadeusD

Again, here you try to flip things around. You're the one who's behavior out of some core belief because you're not explaining your philosophical argument, you're just in a desperate defensive mode. You're talking about yourself and that's not me saying it, it's the very fact that you avoid making actual counter arguments to the philosophical argument and then just demand to be taken seriously by force.

I have no idea how its even vaguely possible that you're having this breakdown in understanding given how direct I was on this point. — AmadeusD

Can you point to your counter argument of the tolerance paradox? Other than you just saying "there's no paradox" without any further reference to what that means in opposition to Popper's arguments? You're failing philosophy so bad here that I wonder, why are you even on this forum if you can't engage with these topics honestly?

Given I have out-right said that I'm not - at what point would you tell someone to piss off when they wilfully misrepresent you to support insane passages like this: — AmadeusD

So what is it that you are defending really? You are obviously arguing for freedom of speech absolutism, so why are you evangelically promoting it without engaging honestly with the criticism of it? You're rhetorically behaving in the very same way as extremists do when championing freedom of speech absolutism and you're not proving to be otherwise.

If you actually had an argument that engages with the problems of that ideal in an honest and philosophical way, there would be no problem, but when you behave and argue in the same hostile way around this topic as those who use freedom of speech absolutism for their own agendas, then what should people think of you and your way of arguing?

Prove you understand the topic, prove that you can argue for freedom of speech absolutism instead of this constant low-quality bully behavior. No one cares about your beliefs and convictions if you can't make a true philosophical argument for it and address the issues raised with it. Do philosophy please, or why should we bother even talking to you otherwise?

??? For me, it's getting very close. This has become an exercise in watching how badly I can be talked past. It is not interesting. So either dispense with the personal garbling in your response, or accept that you wont get replies. — AmadeusD

Is it "personal" to ask you to behave in line with what this forum is about instead of behaving like a child trying to bully himself to winning an argument?

It's your attitude that spawns the criticism of your behavior. Do you see me engaging with any other in the same manner? No, because they can discuss the topic on the philosophical level appropriate. Maybe you should ask that question instead, why do you get this deconstruction of your behavior and not others? And the reason why I take time to write all this? I don't like bullies and I especially don't like them infecting philosophical discussions.

The consequences of the tariffs are starting to show. The coming weeks will be interesting to witness how the public reacts to everything. Cargo ports are showing empty lots and ships are registered to not even begin the journey to the US.

If the sentiment for his presidency is low now, just imagine what will happen if the regular Trumpster begin to use their braincells to connect the dots between Trump's tariffs and the price of the product they hold in their hands... if they are even able to find a product to hold in their hand to begin with.

What you are describing is a lack of free speech, not an abundance of it. Authoritarian states, by definition, do not have free speech. This is the straw-man of "Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." argument. — Harry Hindu

You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states:

The Germans’ ambivalent relationship to propaganda was also evident in politics: while the Weimar governments displayed uneasiness towards propaganda, the Nazi movement called for its unscrupulous use. In this way, the Nazis not only prepared for the destruction of democracy, but also stood for a different understanding of ‘Germanness’. — Benno Nietzel

- They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech. This is at the heart of the tolerance Paradox, that an absolute tolerance leads to intolerance. And with the backing of psychological research over the course of the post-war period up until today, we can clearly see how people's perception is easily changed and having no guardrails on freedom of speech it opens up the doors to this intolerance establishing itself and easily spreading.

People are easily fooled and come to believe in illogical ideas when there is no counter to those ideas being heard. — Harry Hindu

Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them?

You are being raised in a bubble, which is exactly what is happening now with thanks to the partisan media and people unwilling to listen to alternatives. — Harry Hindu

Alternative media is no better, it's even worse. While the state of the US media being awfully corrupted by billionaire influence, the alternative is not to abandon institutions which operate on journalistic ethics in favor of alternative sources of information, it's to champion neutral institutions who aren't owned by billionaire's influencing the content and information being broadcasted. And alternative media has even less visible "follow the money": https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election-influencers-youtube

Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking about here. To think that such voices have less of an agenda than legacy media is extremely naive to the point of being dangerous.

And the poll is misleading. Free speech is NOT saying what you want to say without consequences because we ALL have the right to free speech - which INCLUDES disagreeing with what someone says.

You have the right to say what you want, but so does everyone else. This is the misconception about what free speech is. It is not "say what you want without consequences". It is the "the ability to disagree with logical alternatives and to question authority, not submit to it without question (being incited)". — Harry Hindu

Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance.

Could it not be possible that those that are incited already have hate within them and are looking for any excuse to unleash it. — Harry Hindu

The history of psychological research and authoritarian states radicalizing its people says otherwise. People are easily fooled, easily duped into narratives that makes sense to them until being woken up by a deconstruction of those beliefs.

And to further question this, where do these beliefs that are supposed to already be within them... come from? Are children born with a hate that may only be unleashed when they get excuses to unleash it? I don't think this logic holds.

No, it doesn't. It just proves that you think racism is a catch-all for any kind of specialized discrimination. — AmadeusD

What are you talking about? I used an example to demonstrate the difference between hate speech rhetoric and valid criticism of Islam. On both the side of Islamic extremism and the side of right-wing extremism, they take advantage of this societal confusion to gather more supporters for their causes.

Not the people you are so badly trying to demonize for reasons unknown *yes, extremists exist. Yes, largely they lack nuance to say anything of worth. No, "right wing" does not = extremist. Good GOD. — AmadeusD

Who am I demonizing? Who are you so desperate to defend here? You just sound so confused and your extreme inability to understand the philosophical points I'm talking about makes you drive the whole topic off road.

Not a single straw to be seen. You said something absurd. I gave you a reductio. Your bed, mate. — AmadeusD

Your reductio, "yeah, Hitler loved dogs", as an answer to me mentioning the well-documented use of free speech absolutism by extreme groups, is the strawman since there's no "absurdum" it leads to. The risks of freedom of speech absolutism that Popper and others have been making arguments about is not an reductio argument just because you feel triggered by it.

And stop with the childish tone of language. No on thinks you're cool.

It is beyond comprehension why you thought this paragraph would be relevant. It is pure prevarication and an attempt to insult. — AmadeusD

No, it is relevant, just look at the tone and way you're arguing. It's not befitting of the standards of this forum. You don't argue in honesty or you don't care to grasp the points being made before charging in to attack. You're the one who's constantly acting like an asshole and then you try to play an innocent victim when people get fed up with that tone. It's childish.

That is one way to avoid engaging with anything, whatsoever. Feel free, i guess. — AmadeusD

What is your substantial counter-argument? All you do are these short-burst arrogant twitter-esque answers. Vague, angry, arrogant attempts to combat an argument with writing that in anyone else's eyes just looks like confused misunderstandings of what is being discussed. I can't make any substantial counter-arguments to your counter-arguments if there are non being made on your side. You're failing at basic philosophical discourse here while sitting on a high horse trying to bully your way forward. You think I haven't seen this type of rhetorical behavior before?

I know exactly what you're talking about. If you didn't understand what I said, that's fine.. — AmadeusD

Again, you're just saying that you understand, without actually demonstrating it, and then trying to turn that around into me not understanding you, with the rhetorical weapon of "just saying so".

Its easier to say that than make it patently obvious you'd rather whistle dixie. — AmadeusD

In what possible way have I an overly optimistic view... and of what? What are you on about? You make so little sense in your attempts to sound edgy that I think you're getting lost in your own train of thought.

And did you even care to engage with the further reading material attached to that? The stuff that I've been talking about all this time?

But that is patently untrue. So, it doesn't really matter. I got that this was your point, and that is what I responded to. It is absolutely nothing but a fear of a small sliver of hte 'other side's mental state. Which is what i said (in briefer terms). Nothing about "free speech absolutism" gives us what you want it to. — AmadeusD

It's not untrue, what are you talking about? Free speech absolutism is exactly the thing that Popper and other's are referring to in their paradox of tolerance. And I agree with them that there is a tolerance paradox that needs to be overcome in society in order to sustain tolerance.

What's your argument in opposition to their argument? Just saying that it's untrue does not make it so... You need to get off your imaginary high horse and make your case for why its untrue, act like you're on a philosophy forum rather than some twitter brawl to sound edgy. You're not cool, you're not winning anything through it and no one takes you seriously if you act like this. If anything, it rather seems like you're defending extremism, which I hope is just the misunderstanding that happens because you're unable to actually make your case and formulate a counter-argument against Popper's concept.

Your are correct in saying Free speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view but foolish if you believe that absolutism isn't used by extremists to tolerate the intolerable and as Christoffer said "Shift the goal posts".

Free speech absolutists just want to spout hateful stuff and get no repercussions for it. . — Samlw

Exactly, I've never said that absolutism isn't "a thing", but that it's so corruptable as an ideal that it basically always lead to manipulatory rhetoric used by the most extreme.

It's the core problem at the heart of the tolerance paradox, which is the philosophical idea that talks about the very topic of free speech vs restrictive.

Islam is not a race my friend. — AmadeusD

You saying that just proves my point that many in society are unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios I described.

And I wonder why you use the same rhetoric there as I've heard so many times used by right wing extremists; with a clear dismissal of the fact that muslims is a group of people who are very much targeted not because the religion affiliation, but rather by their brown skin, even to the point that Siks are being branded muslims because they fit the "archetype" within the racist mindset or that christian people from the middle east are still treated as muslims. Muslims have just become the "name" of that group of people being racially targeted and as I mentioned, the difference in how you address the cultural problems within islamic nations is different between saying it comes from the people or saying that it comes from the systemic problems produced by islamic authoritarian figures.

A point that clearly went over your head.

Yes. Obviously. Hitler loved dogs. — AmadeusD

Stop strawmanning. And you're the one trying to lecture on standards of discussions on this forum. Just because you don't understand the subject I'm describing doesn't mean it's well-poisoning. And no, you're not understanding the thing I've describing, by the very nature of the the first thing you wrote above.

Quite a lot. You're caving into a fear of someone else's mental state. Ridiculous. — AmadeusD

So a short sentence is all it takes to describe an entire societal behavior from extremists groups that has plenty of research papers to fill whole volumes of books? Including all the methods and tactics used? And when I describe a common such tactic and rhetoric you counter with just telling me you know "quite a lot".

If you try to lecture others on the standards of this forum, then remember what "low quality" posting means. You've made no substantial counter-argument here, neither understood my point at all, or answer in a way that builds on a discussion that is able to be continued. Telling people "Islam is not a race" as an answer to a description on the difference between hate speech against muslims and criticism of islamic states just shows how little you know of what I'm talking about or that you engage in the discussion in such a sloppy and dishonest way that it falls under breaking actual forum rules of conduct. This is not the lounge and if you want to lecture on forum discussion standards, then people should expect more than "I know quite a lot" as your elaboration on a subject.

There is no paradox when it comes to speech. — AmadeusD

So you clearly don't know what I'm talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Educate yourself on the philosophy before you speak again. This is a philosophy forum, so act accordingly. Especially if you try to tell others the level of quality their writing should have on this forum. There's a lot of irony to how you act here.

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF. — AmadeusD

Is it well poisoning to mention how “free speech absolutism” is used by extremist groups as a rhetorical tactic? How it is actually a very common tactic by people to justify their hate speech? And often later using the rage-bait from the reaction of that rhetoric to gather people behind them as champions of free speech against those criticizing their hate speech. Radicalizing incrementally. How much do you know about extremist radicalization psychology?

How do you avoid the tolerance paradox when these groups use the “absolute” to change a society from a tolerate to an intolerant one?

If you can’t answer that, don’t lecture anyone on what is a “bad” discussion.

If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to? — Samlw

The court of law, any laws does not come from nowhere. They are formed by people thinking about morality. It's moral philosophy that defines how we guard society from itself and informs what laws we have and how courts should decide.

What I mean is that if you ask the philosophical questions around free speech and where we restrict it in order to protect itself, society and democracy, then we need parameters that operate on moral logic, rather than on any court of law. The conclusions of this moral logic... is what should define how courts of law operate.

What we see in society is people uprooting the moral definitions on the subject of free speech, transforming them into methods to radicalize people into corrupted interpretations of it. Rather than universalizing the concept to something that has a solid foundation for actual laws.

Free speech is mostly protected in constitutions in many nations, but many constitutions have bad and unclear paragraphs on how to protect free speech itself from self-corruption through the intolerance paradox.

In the most primitive form of the law, it should be illegal to argue for restrictions of free speech when the reasons for it is not for the purpose of protecting everyone's right to free speech. When someone is acting out hate speech, they're also calling out for restrictions on free speech for the groups they act that hate speech against.

Basically, if I criticize Islam as a religion I could argue that many islamic states are fascistic in their control of information and limits of free speech and that there are individuals who call out for limits to free speech because of these arbitrary religious reasons and hate of certain topics and people. This is not hate speech, but a criticism of a systemic problem that limits human rights. If I instead were to criticize muslims as a human group and argue that we should not let them say any religious things, regardless of message, because islamic nations also talk about limits to free speech and that they shouldn't be allowed to spread anything they say because of this genetic fallacy I'm making, then I'm actually arguing through similar hate speech patterns for a restriction of free speech not out of criticism of systemic problems that are legitime reasons, but from racism.

-The problem is that society seem unable to discern the difference between the two scenarios, and it can cause problems for how free speech is being used in hateful rhetoric, moving goal posts by extremists, and even influence how courts interpret laws.

No, I believe it is the contents of the message that needs to be looked at, you can be black, while, gay, straight, it doesn't matter, if what you are saying is deemed in a court of law to be an incitement of violence, defamatory, abusive etc. then I believe there needs to be consequences. — Samlw

Yes, but I don't think you're taking what I said to the logical conclusion. Any form of incitement that negates the rights of someone else without a reason that is able to be universalized, falls under the need for consequences that restrict that person's freedom of speech.

If someone calls out for violence onto someone else without a reason that is able to be universalized, then that person should be shut up and feel the consequences. If someone says that we should kill a person because of the socioeconomic background they come from, that is intolerant. If someone says we should kill the person who called out for that killing, that is calling out for a defense of others and can be universalized. Disregarding the morality of killing in this example, one act is more morally justified than the other as one is calling out for killing in the name of intolerance and personal preferences of who gets human rights, and the other is a call to protect tolerance and other people.

A court of law does not operate on universal laws, it's why we have philosophy and moral philosophy in the first place; to research and study morality for the purpose of producing laws that improve society. We cannot use the courts of law as the source, but find the logic in moral behavior to be the fundamentals of how we conclude things like this and then form laws based on it.

Free speech absolutism is a common tactic to shift goalposts and slowly adjust people to follow something that they wouldn't outright do. It's a commonly used tactic within neonazi groups for example.

You draw the line at free speech, you are for free speech, but those people on the other side are against free speech, so we need to oppose them and be against them and... limit their use of speech.

The ones proclaiming to be free speech absolutists are actually the ones who want to limit free speech. They're acting from the perspective of allowing THEIR speech, not free speech.

And because of this, free speech runs into the tolerance paradox. That if we tolerate everything, then we will tolerate the intolerable, and thus invite in the thing that will limit tolerance and free speech.

It is obvious that in order for anyone to benefit free speech it needs limitations in order to guardrail it from being corrupted by the corrupt.

Basically, using a Kantian perspective, to universalize the concept. If what you say communicates the will to restrict other's rights to speech, then it's not universal and should be restricted. If you say that a certain group in society doesn't have the same rights as you, then you are essentially advocating for restrictions of their right, including free speech. Now, are you saying that certain groups in society shouldn't have the same rights as you based on who they are, or based on what they, specifically have done or said? Because if they are the ones who've started out saying other's rights should be restricted, then you are in the right to restrict them since that's able to be universalized. It is universal to restrict those who want to restrict others as that will remove the intolerance. But restricting people based solely on which group they belong to is not universal as that could just as easily be turned around against yourself.

Many are :pray: for exactly that. — Wayfarer

…and what happens if it fails? What will the lazy, apathetic public do then?

Haven’t we already been here? He’s even been judged guilty before. It’s close to being true what he said about shooting someone and getting away with it. Until I see the laws and regulations actually remove him for real, I will consider the laws of the US to be irrelevant, because they doesn’t seem to apply. Even if something were under investigation, there would have been a freezing of his power until investigators are done. Otherwise he could actually do whatever he wants until the slow bureaucracy finds him unfit for office.

In any other nation, even the notion of crimes or breaking the laws would put the president in temporary isolation from power. The US is both corrupt and utterly broken to its core in a way that makes me question if it’s even possible for it to fight back against this abuse of power.

It seems that it is rather built on the idea of trust that there won’t be someone like Trump at the top, but that there’s actually no regulations and laws preventing demagogues from taking power. So there’s no department or part of the government who’s actually able to prevent an authoritarian figure to take power.

Now that the system is being tested, are people sure it will work to protect democracy? Or have the US been naive in their trust in the system to the point of being blind to the risks?

But Mr. Prada has not been heard from or seen. He is not on a list of 238 people who were deported to El Salvador that day. He does not appear in the photos and videos released by the authorities of shackled men with shaved heads.' Nobody now knows where he is. To all intents and purposes, he's dissappeared, like people do in Russia and China and Iran. But not, until now, in the USA. — Wayfarer

If people cared about this, they would now drag Trump out of the White House into the Hague court. As always, we can’t really blame the bad people doing bad shit, that’s consistent. I will continue to blame the apathetic, pathetic, lazy and mind numbed public who just continues with their lives without a care in their bones.

It’s the banality of evil and the evil of the ordinary man’s ignorance that I absolutely despise. No one cares until they see the gun barrels pointed at themselves.

This is why I hate the public more than politicians, at least they are consistent. The people, however, are disgusting in their ignorance and apathy.

He’s right in that the populist right is a result of failures of the left. I think the left has been wrapped in a “good guy” mantra, always positioning itself as the one standing for human rights and the goodness of people against the capitalist machine of the neoliberal right. And in doing so have become blind to actual issues in society which the right could exploit to gain power.

And it is interesting that there’s been this flip, in which the right acts with post modern methods directly taken from the left. While the left is becoming a rather conservative group in that it speaks of a decency of a welfare state in a conservative rhetoric.

That the left may become the form of politics which tries to hold on to some form of stability in the same way conservatives on the right spoke of stability, but now that the right is sliding into chaos it’s the left doing so instead.

However, the current right is formed on populist ideas, meaning they have no central vision. They gained power without a plan to use that power, other than imbue more power to the oligarchs around the central power figure, and enrich themselves as much as possible on the backs of the people.

This form of power is essentially doomed from the start. And the left still has a vision of economics and ideals, which might boom in a few years because it’s a vision that power can naturally form around in the long term.

Essentially, a post modern populist leader who tricks voters and followers, will eventually fall, they always do. And when they do, people will want a new ideal to follow. And with industries dying or being automated, the traditional voters sharing the ideals of the right-wing populists will die off as they won’t benefit from the right-wing leaders politics.

I think that the 2020-30s will be marked as a large tectonic shift in politics and world economics. How the world looks when we go into the 30s will be the defined state of the world for the most part of this century.

Is Team Trump, or someone in his vicinity, setting up (prerequisites for) authoritarianism, or is there nothing to worry about here? — jorndoe

When should society worry? After it's been installed or before it is installed or before even the risk of it?

I would argue that there shouldn't even be a risk for it. That even moving in that direction should be treated as a disqualification of the duty of office.

There is no deep state. — frank

Yes, the deep state narrative is a conspiracy theory. Such disinformation should not be taken seriously in any discussion.

That's when 'the base' might begin to turn. I'm expecting June-July. — Wayfarer

Yeah, I mentioned earlier that the real pain will come after the next quarter. Then people will feel it and the companies earnings will show it. Basically, it's gonna get calmer for a while and then a big collective "what the f...!?" from everyone who didn't understand how tariffs work.

and a fight that Trump must loose. — Wayfarer

How?

I'm seeing daily stuff everywhere on how he oversteps all over the place, but nothing is happening. How many months of this before the riots begin?

Two weeks of tariffs is like a mouse fart in terms of geopolitics. No idea why people are getting overly emotional about it. — Tzeentch

Are you ignoring that all nations are reshaping their trades right at this moment? And the fact that the economical consequences will not be seen or felt until at least in the next quarter. How the market reacts is irrelevant since it's just operating on trying to predict the future. The real consequences takes some time.

So this is the test case. Trump is basically challenging the Supreme Court's order: 'you gonna make me?!?' — Wayfarer

Testing what? If Trump can follow normal practice of power under the constitution of the US, or if the guardrails of US democracy actually works?

If Trump doesn't comply, then marshals should drag his fat ass out of office to face the consequences.

There's so much BS going on that all the previous crimes and shenanigans of previous presidents seem rather innocent and unremarkable.

Why isn't the guardrails even stronger? There should be a non-tolerance against stuff like this. Immediate cancellation of presidential power. Any other nation with proper political structures would remove someone like Trump in an instance and declare immediate re-election.

I really don't understand what's so hard here. Is the US too corrupt, too stupid, or too incompetent? Or all at once? Maybe it's just too fundamentalist as a Christian nation, viewing the leader as a divine figure and untouchable. It's rather pathetic actually.