Ok, understood. Its always more clear to explain what point youre making with quotations rather than just posting the quotes, especially considering you were speaking to my analogy rather than the point the analogy was meant to illustrate. Whats salient about my analogy isnt the bullying but rather the weakness of character required to act poorly ( bullying, lies, slander) towards an easy target.
Anyway, I never claimed anything about bullying, nor did I claim Trump was being bullied. Obviously you are not going to find any reasoning for claims I didnt make.
Also, I cant help but see you seem to be taking the “weak character” comment personally. Is that what you actually want to discuss? Whether or not I think you have weak character? I wasnt aiming that at anyone in particular, i was referencing a type of person not targeting any individual as being that type of person.

Lol, well I wouldn't say youre out of your element Donny. I used pronouns rather than names so I can see how it could be read that way.

Well no one could sensibly say Trump doesn't throw out childish insults, but I was specifically talking about something else and don’t see the relevance of your comment.
You don’t need to bring up the things Trump says and does anytime someone mentions some other bad act. We get it, eeeeeveryone gets it.

I think you’ve misunderstood that statement. I meant that TDS has people relegating Trump to the person no longer worthy of respect or fairness, that they view Trump as evil and therefore a guilt free punching bag. What does it matter if you arent fair or respectful to pure evil? Its like when you call someone Hitler (which some people think is a fair comparison to Trump, which it isnt.) and then justify poor or terrible treatment of that person because you’ve equated them with ine of the best examples of evil in history.
If you are talking about me saying “the weak of character”, yes that was directed commentary for certain people. Not everyone who criticises Trump is weak of character, but of those who criticise Trump some of them do so using the above justification and those specific people are showing weak character imo. They have a particular taste for abusing an easy target, like a bully who picks on the unpopular kid so he can satisfy his weak character while still maintaining social favour with the other kids.
So hopefully that clarifies what I meant.
Also, what am I claiming to take a stand against in your view?

What is it that you are referencing? What is “Trump Mania”, and why do you think I have a touch of it (at least)?

As long as there is new knowledge there will be new thoughts, so only by knowing all things would we start to run out of new thoughts. If its even possible to know all things, I would guess are pretty far off at this point and the foreseeable future.

Its about ethical choices sure, but not all choices are ethical unless you have some differing idea about ethics, hence asking you to define morality.
Im just curious about the original statement I responded to.

I dont follow how there being an alternative makes domething moral. How would you define morality?

Well it depends on where exactly the choice is being made I guess. I had in mind things beyond ones sphere of control, things like hunger or adversity that you get no decision about but of course you have decisions once you encounter the adversity. To me there are needs, wants, and things that matter outside the purview of morality, but your comment made me think you might have a different view, where morality can be connected to anything that matters.
So...how is what matters a moral choice?

Ya, it was the first thing I ran out of.
How is what matters a moral choice? Some things that matter aren’t even a choice at all.

Well he isnt pointing out your flawed grammar, rather your flawed logic.
It is contradictory for you to say nothing matters, then claim one thing (consciousness) matters more than another thing (eating chips).
How exactly is something not important and more important at the same time?

Ill defend him on certain things, the truth is more important to me than hating Trump. If you mean in general..ya I think Nos is the only one.

Defend Trump on what?

Im not familiar enough with the cases to talk about legal exoneration but it does seem hypocritical to treat the cases differently in this context. If you think one should or should not be dismissed, then you should think the other should or shouldn't be dismissed as well. If you think the accusation factors into job qualification for one, then you should think it for both. Whatever moral judgements made should be made for both etc etc.

I dont see why it should be treated any differently than any other criminal accusation. I recognise there are differences in crimes and unique damages from sex crimes but I do not think any of those justify special exception to legal procedure. Then again, its not the courts of law that so easily discard due process, its the court of public opinion. Thats where social pressure can result in job loss, destroyed reputation, financial ruin...things like “believe all women”. The fuck I will. I dont believe anybody all the time. Human beings are treacherous, dangerous animals.
Sorry, feeling a bit ranty I guess. None of that is meant towards you.

That consideration would apply to both sides, many dems are ignoring Bidens sexual misconduct and focusing on Trumps. Biden being the creep/sexual misconduct type is more believable based on what ive seen and heard to be honest.

Ah. I see, youre a moron. No, you have no thesis and made no argument. You made two references, failed to connect them and then stated a conclusion with nothing to support it. Now you’re getting pissy with me, when its you who have failed on every level. I can forgive stupid, but not aggressive stupidity. Good day to you sir.

You don’t believe in what? Who do you think is a smart aleck, me?
Im being sincere, I want to hear your argument. What is it?

Your opinion about Banno is noted. How about that argument you have yet to make? Why should I accept Panpsychism is true?

Banno is right, you aren’t making an argument. Lets hear it.

Sure, Ive also heard people say things like Trump doesnt lie, that he’s a good christian etc, or even just case by case you can tell with some people that the facts are just not as important as the teams or narrative. I was just curious if you also had a name like anti-trump hysteria (or whatever) for pro Trump side. It appears you do not. Pro-Trump hysteria I guess?
Ive been using TDS to describe it on both sides, but apparently thats a trigger word for some. To avoid confusion, im leaning towards “the trump effect. The only drawback is it ruins phrases like “look, TDS in effect”. It would be “look, the Trump effect in...effect”.

Not in particular. Shouldnt be necessary unless someone wants to claim such a thing doesn't exist. It would be a spectrum of course, with varying degrees just like with the anti-Trump crowd.

What do you call pro trump people who have a similar “derangement”, who just aren't thinking clearly on the topic?

I see lol
Something in the name perhaps.
I wouldnt classify that as TDS actually, since I would say TDS only applies to OTHERWISE rational people. In the case of Frank A, I actually will go so far as to say he suffers from a real medical condition, likely an emotional disorder. (With the caveat that I have a limited data set from which to make my judgement of course).
I actually feel regret for how I dealt with him initially. That guys got something going on.

Im not sure what you mean by that. Im going to go have a look now though :wink:

I wasn't defending anyone, I was pointing out what I consider an annoying mistake: using a term differently from how it's used and then trying to justify it with personal anecdotes. — Benkei

Thats not what I did. I used a term that certain people have a different way of using, and when it was pointed out to me I acknowledged it and explained what I meant to clarify myself. How you described it, I would call “spin”. Trying to make something sound less savoury than it actually is. Thats dishonest.
Also, after your initial one line post you followed up with direct reference to the judgement I was making. The point being, you spent more time and words on the judgement i was making than the actual use of the term. So you spent more time on something you just claimed you weren’t doing and only a single line on what you claimed you were doing. Im awfully tempted to call that dishonest as well, but Im such a swell guy I try to use the principal of charity where I can so I will chalk it up to you just being a bit confused.
Anyway, you were trying to address something that annoyed you, I was trying to address a specific phenomenon I observed in various interactions between NOS and others in response to @Wolfman. Looks to me like we’ve done that so you are welcome to the last word but Ive had enough.

Oh I understand now. You were defending others, not yourself. My mistake.

Yes, it's not interesting to hear you think people are deranged. But hey, it isn't so bad, because you mean it in a non-medical way. Meanwhile, it's not clear at all what the substantive difference is between medical derangement and non-medical derangement. I suspect the only difference is that one is established by a medical professional but in the end the judgment is the same, but we can question yours more easily when you do it. Doesn't make the judgment a light hearted thing. — Benkei

I dont think it is a lighthearted thing, its rather serious. Its part of whats causing this political divide where people are going crazy (on both sides, and no I dont mean actually, medically “crazy”.). Its part of what got Trump elected and before this Covid 19 stuff, why he was going to be re-elected.
Anyway, I have already explained what I meant by TDS, and Ive acknowledged that some people here have a very different idea about what the teem means. Im just trying to communicate, sometimes that means being open to different senses or uses of words. Its generally not helpful to...I dont know, get your hackles up.
Also, Its not like I mentioned anyone by name and I specifically said it was SOME of his critics...so ask yourself why you are operating under the assumption I was talking about you when referencing TDS.

Wow, thanks for coming out. Thats not even what Im doing in the portion you quoted. Im explaining what I meant when I used it, as is evident by the rest of the post that you apparently skipped.
Yes, I know Im not the King of Words. Thanks.

It's only use on this forum, up until now, was rather frequently by someone called Nobeernolife. He was banned last month I believe. Check that thread for any reasons. — Monitor

Ok. Ive seen the term used elsewhere to mean what I described. Ive heard it directed at the media and various personalities, in youtube videos etc.
I can understand how my use of it would seem worse if that usage (as a medical condition, ridiculous) was the only one youve been exposed to...I feel like that was a hasty assumption but Nobeernolife was a pretty big fool so I get it.
Anyway, i think there is a phenomenon around Trump, where he so divides and triggers people that they stop thinking clearly. It causes otherwise good people to lie and sling mud the way Trump does, never noticing the hypocrisy. It makes it difficult to have productive political discussions. I do not think it is a dismissive number of people doing this, I cant even think of a media outlet that hasnt bullshited or straight up lied about Trump. Its in fashion, and Trump is such a reviled person no one cares.
But its works both ways too. I have a friend who is a Trump guy. He’ll go on and on about deep state and Trumps great and yadda yadda. (Its been difficult lol). Now, Ill give any point of view a fair shot, but my instincts told me to test the waters first. I asked him if there was anything Trump did that was wrong, or a mistake. His answer was “no”. That is deranged, in the non-medical, non formal sense of the word.
So thats what I mean when I say TDS.

My question did apply to you, it was directed at you and Monitor. Doesnt matter now.

Your question was about having a singular definition of of TBS? — Monitor

Yes, I honestly didnt know that any significant number of people claimed it was some kind if medical term. Is the description I gave not what people generally mean by TDS?

I cant disagree with any of that. He likes fucking with you guys.

Well thats not a very charitable way of putting it. You’ve never observed that sometimes people have particular blind spots? I would call the phenomenon I mentioned an extreme case of that.
You didnt answer my question either.



Rather than addressing what I said, you both made decidedly unhelpful responses instead.

You don’t understand what an Ad Hom is. You can address someones argument AND mock them. An Ad Hom is when you mock (or attack) the person rather than the argument.
You didn't answer my question.

I didnt realise that It was being posited as an actual medical condition. In my experience it was a term of mockery, illustrating a phenomenon where ordinarily rational people become irrational on the topic of Trump.
So you two are telling me I have an idiosyncratic definition of the term?

I don’t know what response you could possibly expect from me, given the see through attempt to manufacture something to mock about me in your posts.

No its not. An Ad Hom is when I attack the person instead of the argument. I wasnt addressing an argument.
Identifying when someone is allowing their views of Trump to cloud or impair their normal behaviour (TDS in a nutshell) is no more an Ad Hom than observing that the sniffles and cough mean someone has a cold. In fact, what you just did is closer to an Ad Hom than what I said, since you didnt actually address what I said. You just posted to throw shade on me (the Ad Hom accusation).
Note, TDS is not exclusive to Trump haters. I would say it also applies to people who are so pro Trump that they behave in abnormal ways as well.

I understand you might feel the need to chime in, luckily I wasnt talking to either of you so you can ignore me. Win win.

The political threads are rather rough and tumble anyway. The philosophical threads, we generally keep cleaner. I think that's the way it should be. Btw, schopenhauer1 has taken an enormous amount of stick for his philosophical hobby horse and @Gnostic Christian Bishop has been heavily criticized too. @Shawn (formerly Wallows) hasn't been pushed around by the community much but has been ban-threatened several times. It is possible to go too far with this and as I said the flag function can be used. Best I can do. — Baden

I would say the shit those folk have to take over their shenanigans is lesser in scope and frequency. There isnt the same venom, nor as many people onboard the hate train. Also, Im not suggesting mod involvement or anyone needs to be warned or reported. Rather its the kind of thing we hope people will hold themselves accountable for.