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.

Imagine that you use that USB flash drive to access a Paper you have composed. Now think about the memory itself, do you really see the Paper (the supposed information) inside the USB stick? No. You see exactly what you said, variations in electrical charge. But you don't see the Paper. The Paper is created at the moment of contact and transcription with the interpretant. But before, it did not exist. — JuanZu

Neither does a real written paper, it's basically just carbon atoms in different constellations. So is the entire universe. What we perceive as relevant information to us is that which we can interpret as relevant. Language invented to communicate creates the information as a means of our navigation of the world, but our writing on a wall is nothing but entropic forces creating a deterministic movement of matter.

To the universe, the information on the USB stick and its presentation to us remains the same. There's no difference between our perception of the computers interpretation of it based on how we designed it to follow the structure of something perceivable by us... and the very existence of that information.

To the universe, the state at which a paper is perceived on the screen and how it rests on the USB memory is only differentiated by two states of being of the same thing. But even so, the universe would not perceive it has being the same thing as that is to a creation from us.

When thinking about these things it's easy to fall into humanocentrism, in which we value our own relation to something as humans as being equal or more important than what a thing actually is. Seen from the perspective of "something" that does not operate or exist as us humans, the nature of the information on the screen (interpretable by us) and the electrical state of the memory on the USB card, is fundamentally the same thing, or rather a state of something seen from different angles of reality. An object in which one side of it is the screen with the text, and the other side of it is its shape and form of the electrical state on the USB stick.

How we humans relate to things is very specific, very narrow and very biased to our own perception of reality, influenced by many things making a true observation of something flawed.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa, in Stockholm today, draws parallels to Rodrigo Duterte and warns about how the slide into authoritarianism can happen faster than people realize. And without a proper political opposition that is clearly rallying an opposition within the people, it can soon and quickly backslide the democracy.

https://swedenherald.com/article/feels-like-a-replay-comparing-trump-to-duterte

I also just saw a new video by "Then & Now" on YouTube which goes into detail the parallels between populists of the past and populists right now. And made the argument that we should talk about these times for what they are and not just call it "fascist". That the era we live in is truly populistic, in the same way we've seen populists in history rise and fall, but today, at a much greater scale.

The augmentation of populists through the use of social media has skyrocket their rise in society and formed a new global political behavior. The authoritarianism we see is fundamentally populistic rather than fascist. This form of populism will probably stay with us for long, as long as social media helps rallying these movements in the corners of democracies.

We will never be able to dismantle it because it's an inherent consequence of democratic societies. But in our social media age, it has risen to become a far more influential percentage of power within a democratic government.

And since the US operates on a bipartisan system, if populists gain power in one of the parties, they have a much greater chance to fully overtake the government, and to do it fast.

It all depends on how willing the people are to let this happen. If the Democrats are unable to muster an opposition fast, they can't be turned to for a solution. And so it's up to the people to govern and save democracy in the US from the risk of this backslide escalating.

In what way? I'm not sure, but million people marches and demonstrations outside the White House would certainly be the first step. To put a pressure on the powers on a scale rarely seen and not easily ignored. On top of that, making sure to help any investigative journalists getting access to evidence of Trump abusing his power, rigging the markets, connections to other authoritarian leaders of the world etc.

As we've seen in the protests so far, they can gain in strength. And the pressure cooker is on, people are starting to wake up to what Trump is doing and I think the wind blows in the right direction at the moment.

I just hope the momentum is there to course correct this blunder of giving Trump the keys to the kingdom before things get harder to do so.

The Constitution allows the president to become a temporary dictator during a war. — frank

Which is probably why Trump uses "emergency laws" for stuff that's not in emergency. He essentially invents some emergency out of thin air and then do whatever he wants.

If Trump does that (and doesn't end up with a bullet in his head), the problem is that Congress would likely go along with it. That's what's unusual about this situation. — frank

Not really, if Trump installs loyalists all around and threaten the careers of people, he can intimidate the congress to just follow what he wants. This is how fascist dictators comes into power from a democracy. Lazy and cowards who drop down kissing his ass because they risk losing their position of power or career. Republicans are full of these kinds of fuckers.

There would likely be riots that people like Joshs would attend, but riots don't do anything. — frank

Depends on the scale. If the US stands on the brink of actual dictatorship and fascism, I would hope millions of people take those fuckers down before its too late.

In other words, the fact that Vance is waiting to become president and we know he favors authoritarianism — frank

If so, then bullet to the head. Seriously, political violence is not a thing that should exist in democracies. But if democracy is dismantled and a nation is transformed into a proper dictatorship, then operation Valkyrie the way out of it. Preferably with success.

I mean, this is the core of my question. When will the people of the US do something? Like,at what point of a transition over to authoritarianism and a dictatorship is it appropriate to take action? And how do one know if it is going in that direction for certain?

We have the side of respecting democracy and protecting it even when someone we don't like has the power. And then we have nazi Germany. At what point in between do we know that "now is the time for another type of action to prevent nazi Germany"?

In my opinion, the time for action is already here. Trump has gone too far so many times that he should be dragged out of office and the nation initiates a re-election. It's better to do that now rather than risking it going so far that it's either too late or violence gets too real.

Exactly what is the negative aspect of doing a re-election demanding republicans to put forth a more proper candidate?

There are people who have been trying to ‘stop Trump’ since the first day of his calamitous rule. But as he’s won a democratic vote, there’s no obvious way to do it. Had he been convicted after either of his impeachments, it would have stopped him (damn you, McConnell!) Had the Supreme Court found that Article 19 or whatever it was disqualified him (which seemed obvious to everyone else) that might have stopped him. As it is, he’s been voted in, and the only apparent remedy is that he’s voted out, although whether he irredeemably damages the constitutional order in the meanwhile remains a possibility — Wayfarer

First, how can we know that Trump didn't work to oppose all of that behind the scenes? Second, it still shows the guardrails aren't working.

If he continues down the path of actual fascism, then it doesn't matter what the democratic process is as he has then dismantled it. Will people then still continue arguing that "he was elected" and "he wasn't voted out"?

My question is, at what point would people act outside of the normal procedurs to get rid of him? At what step, action or behavior from Trump and his followers, would the people say enough is enough and simply remove him by force.

Because we are witnessing something that could be at the very edge of a hostile takeover of power in the US. An installation of actual governmentally based true fascism. So I'm wondering, what would it take for people to act at the latest to stop something like that?

Or should it have been done already, by any notion of such behavior? Should a democracy tolerate things escalating to the very edge before taking actions to defend it? Or should it defend it sooner?

That returns to my questions... what should the public do about it. Or rather, how far will the US let Trump go before doing something?

If he's aiming to create a true dictatorship, changing institutions to the point he has absolute power, then why does the US population tolerate it? Why do people talk about this like it's ok because he was democratically elected? A democratically elected candidate who turns to demolish the democracy that created him, should be removed by force. Any notion that such action would be anti-democratic is simply delusional and ignorant of the problem with the tolerance paradox.

The US has the ability to stop this, but if he continues, and it gets worse, and people's rights are further being suppressed, they might not be able to. The whole point with comparisons to the third reich is to stop it before it happens. How many fantasies are there in fiction about stopping Hitler before he gained absolute power?

Even if Trump wouldn't go that far, the tendencies, the push to gather loyalists around him, to get rid of critics, to have power over institutions that should govern him, removing people in society and sending them away, are all showing a trend that shouldn't be tolerated in the US.

He's already crossed so many lines that agencies and the people should remove Trump and his loyalists. Brand them as a dangerous political fringe group and force republicans to get their shit together and exile any such people from their party.

Witnessing all of this from the outside, it's like that scene in the movie "Civil War" in which the journalists enter a small town where the owner of a store behaves ignorant of what is going on: "Oh, we don't really follow the news... there's so much negativity" is the gist of it.

When is it time to wake up for real? Less talk more action so to speak.

No one outside of Trump’s inner circle considers Miran’s ideas and plans to be coherent, credible, or realistic.

I know, but his inner circle are a bunch of conspiracy theorists and idiots like Kennedy. What normal people think about Miran's plan is not relevant to what Trump and his inner circle believes.

Trump himself isn’t following Miran’s roadmap. Instead of targeting specific trade imbalances or building pressure toward a coordinated currency adjustment, the administration’s tariff strategy in 2025 has been indiscriminate and poorly sequenced.

Because they are morons. Just look at the run through of how they came up with the tariff calculations. They essentially have a hand drawn blueprint to build a house and none of them has ever hold a hammer, that's how they're executing the plan.

Miran provides the blueprint of a modern Taj Mahal, Trump builds a treehouse with a blowtorch, and Republicans and their cheerleaders pretend it’s an architectural masterpiece. (Michael Barnard)

I actually wrote my answer before reading that segment so yes, exactly like that... except Miran didn't provide a blueprint of Taj Mahal, but a shopping mall with a roof that won't hold the coming winter snow.

This idea has been discussed. Most conclude
that Trump isn’t following the plan. — Joshs

So it doesn't matter if he isn't following the plan. People who've met Trump says that he acts all nice nice and shit in the room with them, but that he is totally clueless about most things overall. He has gathered loyalists around him and they all try to act out complex policies and orders on his behalf. They're the most incompetent cabal that's ever been.

Just because "there's a plan" doesn't mean anything is going well according to it, or that the plan was good to begin with, it just means that was the reasoning behind all of it.

If anything it hints as to when the dumpster fire might end as a failure to succeed with the end goal of the plan would be the reason to retreat from it. If the people doesn't demand Trump's blood, then the plan will surely be abandoned at some point.

In the end it doesn't change the fact that there are actual morons running the US. People usually say politicians are idiots, but that's mostly because they're failing something. This time... they are actual morons.

Has anyone considered that all of this is Stephen Miran's plan to devalue the dollar? His Mar-a-Lago accord spells out both increased tariffs and threatening to leave military collaborations, precisely what Trump has done.

https://www.nordea.com/en/news/mar-a-lago-accord-explained-a-new-era-for-the-dollar

Even if the tariffs won't increase more after the 90 days, I'm beginning to wonder what would happen if the EU goes in the other direction and lowers tariffs with other nations, even brining on free trade between the EU and nations outside the EU. Expanding free trade to Canada, Japan, Taiwan, India (get away from BRICS please), Australia, New Zeeland, maybe even Britain as well and many other nations who aren't among the BRICS.

Since the EU is behind on so many technological innovations and collaborations, this may be a golden opportunity to build bridges. Since the US was the largest competitor and they're beginning to alienate everyone, the EU could become a new superpower if playing the cards right.

And I rather have a superpower that's an alliance of diverse nations than a single nation as it's more robust against points of failure. It also incentivize nations to behave better to get closer to the EU as a true collaborator and ally, rather than having some toxic relationship with the US.

It would probably be the best course for the world really.

Did the thread spiral down into the lounge again?

If you go back to his videos from the 80s you'll find he was always a big believer in tariffs. I think he genuinely thinks they can be used to replace income taxes like in the 19th century, so we'll probably continue to see him trying to touch the stove like he did the last 2 times. — Mr Bee

Definitely, he's no better than any other believer who ignores actual research and knowledge. It's the main reason I am opposed all religions (though value the existential introspection they can help people with). Belief without anything else is never a path to anything but problems. And within politics, we separated the church and state for a reason, the US just didn't get the memo. Not only does it still operate on a religious belief similar to that of a king being appointed by God, the politicians operate on pure belief far more than on expertise, knowledge and wisdom.

We can probably count on one hand, no more, the number of people in US politics who performed their duties as representatives with wisdom, knowledge and listening to actual experts. It's rare in most nations, but more rare in the political halls of the US government. While authoritarian and broken states around the world either operate on authoritarian leaders urge for power, or they operate on being merely incompetent, the US is rather unique in that many politicians are actual idiots.

My jaw is on the floor most of the time when listening to politicians in the US. Seeing through the normal political jargon that any politician in the world keeps blabbering, there shines a void behind the words of a US politician and that's a deep lack of education, knowledge and wisdom.

You know, the memes of US tourists in other nations being absolute hollow heads to understand how to behave in another culture, that's how the rest of the world sees US politicians. Other nations has a few nutjobs, but the US government is so infested by them that it's a damn mystery the US has survived this long in the modern era of clown regimes.

But let's remember that now Trump has that trade war with China and still he has those tariffs with everybody at 10%. That 10% + China trade war will have an effect on the US economy. — ssu

As long as his followers suffer economically, but the economy doesn't crash, that's all good. The only way to get rid of him in a normal democracy is to hope fewer supports him, and with how bad people have it economically, and that his followers are mostly the people who are close to the bottom, it doesn't take much to make them suffer from their own vote.

Still, there was just a surge as stock market traders decided there were deals down in the valley that formed yesterday. — frank

The surge was because of the 90-day pause in tariffs.

I think he realized he fucked up, and that his advisor is even more stupid than he is. Maybe someone told him that the source of reasoning for why to install the tariffs comes from a crackpot who invented an expert for his book to look factual. That all of this is based on that non-existing person. And now that he knows this, he tries to back out in a way that doesn't paint him as a damn moron (more than usual).

:rofl: These fucking people.