You and nos4 defend Trump seemingly in favor of him and at the expense of everything else. — tim wood

wat

It’ll always appear as downplaying. Take a look at January 6th. What’s that, exactly? I myself don’t think it’s what the democrats make it out to be — but it’s also not what the republicans try to spin it as.

If Trump supporters were burning Teslas, I wouldn’t like it. I don’t like it now. But I would be pushing back against those that spin it. In this case I see much exaggeration. I don’t see that many people in power — or on philosophy forums — coming out in defense of it. — Mikie

Yeah, I think that's fair enough.

At the same time, amid a poisoned political climate, these somewhat low-key events are no longer so innocent.

The spin should be recognized for what it is, but simply dismissing it as 'business as usual, nothing to see here' whenever it's convenient (aka: when it's directed at one's political opponents) is the other side of the extreme, and that's what prompted my initial reaction.

Whether this trend will continue after Trump's presidency remains to be seen. I'm not convinced that it will.

It's also a question of whether the picture the media is trying to sketch corresponds with reality and the views of the average American.

Your inability to tell the difference between vandalism by angry people and the storming of a parliamentary hearing buttressed by right wing activists waving confederate flags and other seccessionist movements, where the new President would be inaugurated is telling. — Benkei

It has nothing to do with that.

I'm pointing towards a political climate that has already resulted in two assassination attempts on Trump that we know of, which is part of the context in which these recent events must be viewed.

It's simply disingenuous to hand-wave lesser forms of political unrest as though this context doesn't exist.

It's not a what if. January 6th happened. — ssu

Well, exactly. And look how they marketed that as a full blown attempt at a coup d'etat.

Now those same people are getting up in arms about this Tesla thing being seen in its proper political context. The same people, mind you, who were in such a rush to quickly forget two assassination attempts on the leader of the opposition.

It's perfectly appropriate to see this in the context of political violence/intimidation, but of course "the other side" is categorically unable to acknowledge their own wrongs.

It's partisan through and through.

Do note that the political context includes the vilification of Trump, among various other caricatures likening him to Hitler and a fascist, in what is a blatant attempt to get some useful idiot to make an attempt on his life - something that has already happened twice and people were very quick to ignore or downplay in the fear it would increase his chance of being elected.

This is an old political trick, one that has been used to great success in my own (shameful) home country where Pim Fortuyn was murdered under very similar circumstances.

Why are you projecting US partisanship on a European? It doesn't make sense. — Benkei

Europeans are being influenced by anti-Trump messaging just like Americans. Haven't you noticed?

It does appear to me as downplaying - at least, when we consider the probable reaction if the opposite had happened. People would have undoubtedly jumped on the opportunity to prophesize the return of fascism, drawn parallels to the rise of Hitler, etc.

In that context, it's not so strange people are overreacting to what outside of the political context would indeed merely be an act of vandalism.

Pretending that political context doesn't exist does indeed smell of partisanship. Why would a European be partisan over US politics? You tell me, but that's pretty common these days.

What if it were Trump supporters doing something like this? Would you think the same way?

A national constitution for the most part pertains to how governments must behave towards their citizens. International law is mainly about how states behave towards each other.

In the end, it is based on a 'gentleman's agreement' between states, in that there is no monopoly on violence that facilitates the enforcement of international law.

Reciprocity, trust, credibility and the threat of armed conflict are important factors in why states choose to behave according to international law.

It's definitely not useless, but it also does not function in the same way national laws do, and it is much more dependent on mutual agreement than coercion.

That last bit is something that seems to have gotten lost on many people during the so-called 'unipolar moment', during which the United States was so powerful that in practical terms it could assume the role of 'world's policeman'. We see now that this was a historical anomaly.

People make choices based on such things as what type of ice cream they like.

But then you insert the unquantifiable idea of a 'state of you', which includes much more than just conscious deliberation. This is where it starts to get vague.

I sort of get where you're going with this, but it'd be a stretch to say people experience their every day decisions in that way.

When you do that in the context of a 'libertarian free will vs. determinism'-type debate, I'm obviously going to be quite critical of the leaps you're taking.

Where were you taking that paragraph then? Because so far it's a somewhat convoluted way of describing how people make everyday choices.

So far, so good. But what you've said earlier suggests that you're intent on taking this argument to an extreme where people have no meaningful choice at all.

It's a stretch to say that's what people experience. I certainly don't.

You're essentially saying people experience determinism.

Yeah, exactly, so in a choice there's no randomess, the choice follows naturally from the preceding state of everything (which of course includes the state of you), which is what you experience. — flannel jesus

Hang on, do you perceive a total state of everything, including the state of you, whenever you act or make a choice?

If you made a choice at t2, determinism just means that choice was necessarily going to follow from the state of your world, and the state of you, at t1. — flannel jesus

The outcome was already determined, therefore the sense of choice was merely an illusion.

However, that's is not what we experience.

But for determinism to not be the case, something must be random. — flannel jesus

How so?

The possibility of multiple outcomes preceding a choice doesn't have to imply randomness, but the weighing of the options by the will - which is what we experience.

Of course, many people seem to disagree. — flannel jesus

Vastly more people seem to agree, though. Every person I ever met acts as though free will exists. Societies are structured around the notion of a free will.

The only exception I can think of of people acting as though free will doesn't exist, are the mentally ill.

Of course, some people may say they disagree with notions of free will, but they continue acting in every way as though they do believe in free will.

"already decided beforehand"... mmm... kinda yes kinda no. Not "decided". Not "beforehand". Not necessarily. It just means that the outcome follows from the preceding conditions. It's not like Zeus is sitting up there in the heavens writing what he wants to happen, and then observing it happen, which is what "decided beforehand" feels like. — flannel jesus

Determinism implies we never have a choice. Is that a better way of putting it?

But we certainly experience having a choice.

Or how would you put it in plain English?

But my decisions don't seem random. — flannel jesus

As far as I know, the libertarian idea of free will doesn't imply that they would have to be.

Determinism implies the outcome of our choice was already decided beforehand, agreed?

But that is not what we experience; we experience agency in that very moment, where our 'free will' seems to make the difference.

Is it not a fair assessment that the libertarian idea of free will corresponds with an almost universal human experience?

Doesn't our experience of free will oppose itself to determinism?

Whether we choose to have a glass of water or a cup of coffee, it feels like we make a choice that could have gone both ways.

You find this a strong argument against free will, in face of a shared experience between countless human beings throughout the ages, who all experience(d) free will on a daily basis?

Does the thought experiment of the two Bobs provide a strong argument against free will, or does it only show that there is no definitive argument in favor of free will?

Because if it's the latter, then on a philosophy forum it should come to no one's surprise that definitive arguments are hard to come by.

A clever mind can come up with an objection to literally anything.

Note that you're making the argument that democratic societies are exceptional in this regard.

If you were to point to Greece, I could point to Egypt, Persia, India or China as contemporary counter-examples to Greece being exceptional.

The general weakness of Eastern-type civilization is that the science and technology developed more slowly there, than in Western-type civilizations. — Linkey

I don't think that's a true for most of history, honestly. "The West" being the leading force of innovation seems very particular to the Age of Enlightenment (and Renaissance, to a somewhat lesser degree), much of which was triggered by an influx of (Middle-)Eastern scholars fleeing invading nomadic conquerors.

Before that, the Islamic world had a golden age, but China especially had been a center of innovation for centuries, since before the birth of Christ.

China's centralized imperial structure would directly contradict your thesis.

As I understand it, in the early Middle Ages, the Vikings had a military democracy, while in the late Middle Ages, a regular monarchy reigned in Scandinavia. Is it possible to draw a parallel here with the fact that in the early Middle Ages the Vikings could terrorize Europeans, but after 1064 they lost this advantage? — Linkey

The Fall of Western Roman Empire in 476 ushered in the 'Dark Ages' for Europe, at which point it's entire centralized power structure was overturned by invading barbarians. This was an earth-shattering catastrophe for the people living there at the time, and it made Europe vulnerable to threats from all sides including the Vikings.

It took Europe centuries to recover, which is why they're commonly referred to as the Dark Ages.

In other words, the fact that their civilization collapsed probably had more to do with it than the form of their government.

In your opinion. We haven't nearly reached rock bottom there mostly because of course we don't have the logistics to project military power. But the idea that inconsistent application of principles means we have no credibility is simply nonsense; there's no instance where any EU member invaded another country. — Benkei

Like good little schoolboys to the US, we supported invading and wrecking a whole bunch of countries - entire regions of the world even. We supported overtly genocidal regimes, and are still doing so to this day.

The idea that we have any credibility in this regard is, I'm sorry to say, laughable. The EU isn't taken seriously anywhere.

Don't confuse the US with the EU. The EU is committed to that order, especially within what it considers its sphere of influence. — Benkei

I don't see any sign of commitment. Why aren't we slapping sanctions on Israel, which is guilty of the most black and white case of systemic, large-scale human rights violations and has been for decades?

We're just selectively applying our "ideals" whenever it suits us.

When it suits us, we will "take a stand" by letting some other country fight our battles for us. But when it comes to our "allies" we are content to cry foul and angrily shake our fist, if even that.

International law of course is important, but applying it too rigidly is unrealistic and will have the opposite effect of making the world safer - it will make countries dismiss the idea of a shared rules-based order of international law altogether.
That's a process the West itself set in motion with its finger-wagging "rules-based order" while operating on a principle of 'rules for thee, but not for me' - synonymous for the exact 'might makes right' we're supposedly trying to avoid. The West has ZERO credibility in that regard.


Also, you've been educated on international law, so surely you have also been taught that it doesn't function in the same way a system of national law does.

Idealism that is not balanced by realism is dangerous, and leads to the very conclusions you seem to be putting forward: Ukraine must continue on the path of its own destruction, to save a 'rules-based order' which we ourselves never were sincerely committed to, and still aren't.
In fact, you seem to believe we must double down and get directly involved ourselves, risking WW3 over this 'rules-based order' we never believed in - anything short of that would be 'appeasement' and 'rewarding aggression'.

My answer to that would be: let's not.

If you're serious about this whole "making a stand" thing, I expect you'll be leading from the front?

The problem with that line of argument is that the Russian demands have been almost exactly the same since the start of the war, and even before that.

In March/April 2022 we said "no negotiations, let's fight it out on the battlefield", and they did. Ukraine lost, and of course that's going to have a cost.

But what "free stuff" are you talking about? Aren't you aware we're fighting a bitter war over there - that it's the Ukrainians who are dying to impose a cost on Russia so we can tell ourselves some sort of fairy tale that "aggression wasn't rewarded"? This is the ego talking here, not the brain.

The Russians actually chose to accept the proposal:

Putin's heavily caveated support for the U.S. ceasefire proposal looked designed to signal goodwill to Washington and to open the door to further talks with U.S. President Donald Trump. Such talks could offer a real chance to end the biggest conflict in Europe since World War Two given Ukraine has already agreed to the proposal.

"We agree with the proposals to cease hostilities," Putin told reporters at a news conference in the Kremlin following talks with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. "The idea itself is correct, and we certainly support it."

"But we proceed from the fact that this cessation should be such that it would lead to long-term peace and would eliminate the original causes of this crisis." — Reuters

Signaling goodwill while emphasizing the need for a long-term peace - typical imperialist shit.

Obviously giving the Russians what they want, long-term peace, would be nothing short of appeasement.

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement.

Hmmm... :chin:

Ask yourself, if there is reasonable suspicion of people being overpaid and it is a wide-spread problem, should the state focus on solidifying the system or should it be given all sorts of extra powers to go on witch hunts through people's bank accounts in search of evidence that confirms their suspicions?

Which of the two is more dangerous you think?

For me it is obvious, since we had a case in the Netherlands that touches on this exact subject, the end result of which was thousands of families being crushed by the government apparatus for wrongs they had not committed.

If you want to know the types of damage: evictions, suicides, children being taken away, children being never found again, etc. - people and families utterly ruined at the hands of the state.

There is literally no greater danger in this world than the incompetence (and occasional malice) of governments.

“More than a human can bear”: Israel's systematic use of sexual, reproductive and other forms of gender-based violence since 7 October 2023

The stuff of nightmares, and unfortunately only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Israel's long track record of human rights violations and crimes against humanity.

Note that this doesn't just cover the atrocities in Gaza, but also in the West Bank.

Pi = the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.

My mind tells me one of the main revelations of pi is the picture of the straight line of the diameter surrounded by the encircling circumference. This juxtaposition shows concisely that the rectilinearity (straight-lining) of science is only partially commensurable with the curvilinearity (curving) of nature.

The straight lines infinitesimal of the analysis of calculus can only approximate nature's reality.

Science is nature-adjacent rather than natural.

As technology diminishes and displaces nature, humanity rejiggers itself out of mysterious existence into self-reflection. The trick of AI and SAI is baking in a component of mystery and a component of error. Mystery and error support otherness, a component essential to forestalling the cognitive suffocation of an enclosing self-reflection.

Intentional mystery and error preserve the irrationality pictured by pi.

We must pull on and push against the idea our natural world is full mystery and error because some prior race of sentients understood the essential importance of forestalling cognitive suffocation. Having original sin in the mix is better than the damnation of perfection.

Against utopia! — ucarr

I'm unsure why this post hasn't gotten any replies, because this gets at the heart of the matter for why pi continues indefinitely.

A perfect circle simply doesn't exist. It can't be made by man, and not by machine. We can get close, but no matter how close we get, it will never be perfect, much like how a digital rendition of an analog signal can also never be perfect.

If we 'zoom in' one pixel (or one decimal) further, the imperfection shows.

If you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation. What is this cramped passive aggressiveness? :lol:

It's like you know, as none of us other contributors do, what 'masculine' human nature is beyond social and cultural influence, and everyone who disagrees is wrong and degenerate. No doubt you also then know, as I certainly don't, those circumstances if any, when violence is justified and virtuous. — unenlightened

No idea where you're getting this from. I haven't called you or anyone here degenerate. It was in relation to an example I myself gave of a trend which is overtly destructive. I've also no clue where you get the idea I'm about to espouse support for some kind of violence. You seem to be assuming all of this out of some personal dislike, is the sense I am getting.

Kids stabbing each other in the street over an argument is as black and white as it gets. If we cannot even agree on that much then I'm not sure what deep, dark hole of moral relativity you've wandered down into. Or maybe it's you who has trouble listening to opinions they disagree with?

If I had some problem with disagreeable opinions, I wouldn't be on this forum. I've also no problem with calling a spade a spade, nor with unapologetically criticizing bad ideas.

Tying it back to the matter at hand: such destructive fringe cultures, and not some kind of masculine original sin, is at the heart of violent trends in youths.

I'm sure you agree that 15 year olds stabbing each other with machetes is degenerate? That's a normalcy in the Netherlands, by the way. And if you want to know where they get these ideas: it's straight from an ultra-violent fringe of the rap scene, 'drill rap'.



It's degenerate. It's societal cancer, and I don't use the term lightly. There's nothing redeeming about this. It's not some healthy, youthful rebelliousness.

The same goes for various other parts of pop culture, though this one is probably some of the worst.

There is a spectrum, of course. But that spectrum also includes very masculine men and very feminine women. Aspects of this are currently being problematized for no reason. Just like we cannot bully feminine men into becoming masculine, we cannot bully masculine men into becoming feminine - not without denying them their fundamental humanity, that is.

There's nothing wrong with being masculine or even very masculine. Masculinity is not some dirty word, despite what some in this thread seem to suggest.

The promotion of senseless violence is a problem very particular to certain scenes - gangster culture and football hooliganism, for example. Both have been glorified by pop culture, even though the vast majority of society recognizes these scenes as degenerate.

But instead of asking some critical questions about how pop culture uploads all kinds of degeneracy into the brains of impressionable youth, we seemingly have taken to simply blaming 'Men' - no doubt some outgrowth of radical political theories.

I think there are public rejections of violence and aggression, which are seen as stereotypically masculine traits, but you do receive social sanctions if you don't behave enough like a man. If no one no longer needed or wanted, ie no longer enforced, the straitjacket of masculinity the expectation to behave that way would dissolve. — fdrake

I think it's society that is the straight-jacket here.

Men are going to be masculine no matter how hard society tries to mould them into something else. The degree to which this is a 'social construct' is very limited, though the ability of societies to beat people into behaving in ways that it finds desirable are nearly boundless.

But pointless violence and aggression haven't been seen as desirable traits for decades if not centuries - not by men, not by women, not by society at large. It has nothing to do with societal views of masculinity.

The only place I can think of where these ideas are openly promoted is pop culture / gangster culture / the rap scene, and impressionable and often disadvantaged youth is certainly susceptible to that messaging.

Speaking for my own country here, the link between the rap scene and youth violence is undeniable and obvious to anyone with eyes to see. As is the link between misogyny and mass immigration from Muslim countries.

Yet, no one speaks about that. It's easier to just blame 'Men', I suppose. They seem to take it in stride, while the various sacred cows can be left unquestioned.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that we're not just looking at some spiteful reversal of Christianity's tendency to blame everything on women.

Syria is going through all the motions of a country that is doomed, and I expect it will fall apart completely in the long-term, probably after large-scale crimes against humanity are perpetrated against minority communities there - we already see the beginnings of that.

But that's none of Iran's concern. Its involvement in the Levant is purely linked to countering Israeli influence. There's no better outcome for Iran than if Turkyie (or perhaps somewhere down the line, Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia) were to voluntarily take over that task.

Iran is in the driver's seat, enjoying strong alliances and a massive power vacuum in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which is all it needs to expand its power to that of regional hegemon.

Pretty much the only thing that can throw a wrench in the wheel is Israel (and the accompanying threat of a US invasion). If Israel is preoccupied with threats nearer to its borders, such as IS-like entities in Syria or an expanding Turkyie, Iran wins.

I think Iran is primarily concerned with keeping itself out of the crosshairs of the West. Israel has plenty of enemies already, and Iran's involvement is hardly required at this point in time. Iran can just sit and wait, project to the world that it is not the instigator of the Middle-East's many problems, etc.

It’s not simply relegated to buying things — though that may be its primary goal, the secondary psychological processes involved in achieving that goal, on philosophical outlook — on beliefs and values — is more insidious than often credited. — Mikie

And the things that are omitted, thus never taken seriously by the public at large, because if it was important, it would be on the news.

The scale of this problem is truly uncomfortable to think about.

If few want to control many, they have to control perception. And they certainly have us firmly by the perception.

I think discussions like these are largely a waste of time, and I explained why I believe that. I don't intend on expanding my participation much beyond that.

But who are these 'insidious women' you were talking about earlier?

Where to even start?

In threads such as these, the terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' just become a fig leaf used to slap the most ridiculous generalizations onto people.

The only distinction that is made is apparently whether they agree with you politically.

What I am pointing out is that the power grab of the far right can be considered as solely a result of a backlash of some sort of patriarchy against equal rights, but may be more fruitfully considered as both the result of anxious masculinity and other more insidious feminine forms of control through which the self image of masculinity is becoming perilous. — Tobias

What do you expect me to make of this?

Surely when you say 'anxious masculinity' and 'insidious femininity' you are simply talking about anxious men and 'insidious' women (whatever that means), and how they voted for the other candidate?

How dare they. There must be something wrong with them.

You accuse me of psychologizing, but what is your argument if not one giant exercise in psychologizing?