Please elaborate. Give me a few of the "real issues." — Relativist

The excessive military presence around the world.
A burgeoning police-state. The corporate corruption of the political process. The gradual erosion of constitutional rights.

I'm not concerned with racism, xenophobia, self-righteousness, pettiness, and intolerance. Those are mere symptoms based in the frustration over the seeming futility of enacting true change. They will resolve themselves when the deeper issues are dealt with.

I think of our predicament like an animal trapped in a cage trying to break free, doing whatever it can to break free. But it cannot find the bars of the cage, so it creates an imaginary cage with imaginary bars that can be readily found, thus it can have something to potentially break free of.

Cultural appropriation? — frank

:rofl: it is cultural appropriation

I fail to see the humor in the destruction of the planet and possibilities of human life. But that's me. — Xtrix

It's only humorous if you keep the irony in view. Otherwise it is just pitiable.

Could you be just a tad more racist please? — frank

Really??? Well, in my opinion, whiteness is unbecoming of a black president.

What is achieved by shaking shit up? — Relativist

If someone with the authority and influence of the US president was merely to shine light on the real issues that are never included on the ballot, I imagine the system would quake, and possibly open the door to real systemic change.

You take pride in defeatism and fatalism? You're welcome. — Xtrix

More so in the irony and humor. Thanks

The global economy was on the verge of collapse on his first day in office. Cut him some slack. — frank

Yeah, but he had 8 years to turn into the angry black man that he should have become to really shake shit up. But he didn't. I actually think he got whiter during those eight years. What a shame.

Well, that's your business. — Xtrix

And I own it with pride

I care about the policies that are enacted. And many of Biden's policies, thanks to the Sanders' wing, are the most progressive yet. — Xtrix

Obama had some of the greatest policies ever advertised to the populous. But then he got elected.

That is why I have no faith in an establishment politician who's greatest draw is that he probably won't seem as bad as Trump.

I guess it's speculation that the sun will rise tomorrow, then. Fine. — Xtrix

Very good, I think you understand. And don't worry, it's not a bad word, everybody does it.

True, we can believe Trump is perhaps visited by 3 ghosts this Christmas and changes his entire personality and attitude towards the world. But let's try to be serious about it. — Xtrix

I'm just saying, Biden will change very little that matters. Fucks sake, Obama was infinitely better than Biden has ever been or ever could be. If he turned out to be a lackey of the status quo, what do you think will happen with Biden?

Well if you're right, we're completely screwed. So we can give up now, or we can give ourselves some hope, however minor it might be. I don't see an alternative. — Xtrix

I prefer to abandon all hope, and talk shit as the free world eats itself alive.

It's not speculation -- there's four years of it. It WILL continue for the next four more years -- there's no reason to believe the opposite. — Xtrix

Technically, yes it is speculation. Anything that is predicted to happen but has not yet become an actuality is speculation.

So, I'm not insinuating that Trump will suddenly stop being a piece of shit, he is a piece of shit through and through. Everything he touches turns to shit. But, I can also guarantee that Biden is an equal and opposite piece of shit to Trump, and his apparrent shift farther to the left is a mere a ploy to attract votes. Once elected, he will carry on with the status quo, and everything will continue to get more fucked.

Yeah if you don’t care about how the political differences affect other people, you’re a selfish jerk. — Saphsin

The point of democratic voting is to choose who best represents your own interests, not another's. It is inherently a selfish system of government (which is one reason both Socrates and Nietzsche considered it the most inferior mode of governance). What kind of retard votes for another person's interests, let alone a stranger's?

But you are right about one thing, I am a selfish jerk!

It's about being complict. — StreetlightX

I don't think many voters think of it that way, but that is exactly how it is.

One example, the Democrats, as horrid as they are, have been trying to push keeping $600 a week unemployment benefits during COVID as well as a stimulus package, which the Republicans have blocked. Trump completely dismantled pandemic programs that was set up by the previous administration. If you want this to continue onto next year, and you think the Democrats are no different, you’re not anymore informed about basic political facts than those who are taken in by establishment serving corporate propaganda. — Saphsin

I haven't paid attention, but I can surmise well enough.

Well if you were using that to convince me, it was counterproductive. I work for a living, and I am ineligible for unemployment benefits because I recieve a regular paycheck. Why would I desire unemployment benefits? So I can pay more taxes out of my already measly income?

And pandemic programs? Fuck pandemic programs. This Covid bullshit is enough for me to be eternally radical on that issue.

So then, I guess I should vote for Trump.

I was referring to my case of voting for a Labour MP over a Conservative MP. — Michael

Oh sorry, you know how we Americans are...no one else in the world but us. But their job is to represent their electorate, legislation is merely the political means of representation.

I know that they don't. But whether or not they give a fuck about me or my interests isn't the point. The point is that their opponent will legislate in ways that I strongly disagree with, either for ethical reasons or because they will damage some aspect of my life, and so my primary concern is to avoid that outcome.

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and we can't always get what we want. If you want act on principle and refuse to contribute, or to contribute in a way that has almost no chance of affecting the outcome, then you're free to do so. But I'm more pragmatic than that and would choose to aim for the least bad option. People's actual well-beings are at stake here. — Michael

People's actual well-beings are at stake here. That is Goddamn absolutely on point. I'll tell you this, regardless of who gets elected this season, people's well-being is going to get fucked.

I'll also tell you this...If any candidate you ever vote for is anything close to a shit-sack like Trump or a Biden, he/she will definitely, I guarantee, damage some aspect of your life.

Well, you can go ahead and play with your broken machine, and pretend it will somehow, magically, and miraculously begin to work right. I will continue pointing out how lame it all is.

It may be hopeless, but I'm trying anyway (that's literally my motto and the core of my entire philosophical system), and buying time gives more opportunity to try. — Pfhorrest

Nice point, I can't argue.

I wrote a whole post about the differences. And you would know what the differences are if you just read the news and weren’t in denial. — Saphsin

Can't even give me one ?

And I don't know if you know, but Trump and Biden have much more in common with each other, than they have in common with you or me.

Slow death buys time to escape death. — Pfhorrest

That is to assume there is a means of escape available. That's why I used "death", because of its inevtability, the futility of any attemp at escape.

I don't care about "theory", and I care much less about how I personally feel about the theory. I care about what voting actually does to impact the chain of events. Because that's what politics is about, the real world, not this self-fulfilled narrative in your head. — Saphsin

Then let's dispense with the fantasy, and talk "real world". We have a very particular and real case of voting, it exists in the present world at this period in history, right before our living eyes. Biden and Trump are the candidates in the 2020 us election.

We already can speculate on all the fucked up shit Trump will do if reelected, he has a definitive track record. So tell me, what chain of events will become impacted if Biden is elected?

Tell me, are you aware of the function elected officials are meant to serve?
— Merkwurdichliebe

To legislate. And if the choice is between the candidate of a party that will legislate in ways I strongly disagree with and the candidate of a party that will legislate in ways I somewhat disagree with then I will vote for the candidate of the second party because I don't want the candidate of the first party to win and to subsequently legislate in ways I strongly disagree with. — Michael

Actually, it is to represent the electorate. Presidents don't typically legislate, that is predominantly the job of Congress.

You are simply giving your "go ahead" to people that you disagree with less. But don't mistake it, they don't give a fuck about you or your interests either. It is apparent that you prefer "slow death".

You're missing the point. Yeah I find it much more preferable to spend the next 4 years against Biden than Trump, those are the physical consequences. It doesn't mean I symbolically support Biden. — Saphsin

In theory, one votes for the candidate that represents his interests. A vote for someone means that you recognize that a candidate will represent you, almost as if you were there yourself. It is a show of support, not so much for the candidate, but for what the candidate believes in, and for the electorate which he represents.

But, in my lifetime, there has neen not one president who has genuinely represented any real interests of the average American citizen.

It's just to prefer one or the other as President.

I voted for a Labour MP, not because I support him, but because I didn't want his Conservative opponent to win (and these were the only likely winners). — Michael

Voting has a little more significance than simply being a preference.

And that's a real great reason to vote for someone, because you want the opponent to lose. Tell me, are you aware of the function elected officials are meant to serve?

Yeah if you put that much emotional and symbolic attachment to the act of pushing a button at the voting booth (or by mail), which I find quite bizarre and pathetic really. — Saphsin

Are you aware of the function elected officials are meant to serve? It is not an immediate matter of pushing a button. It is actually quite significant, in theory.

If you feel shameful for voting, you’re putting waaaay too much emotional and symbolic significance into that one act. Practically contradictory with simultaneously saying voting has no impact. Anyways, real politics is about making actions that make a difference on human lives who feel the impact between different policies (that includes me and my unemployment benefits by the way so fuck anyone can’t read the news and thinks it doesn’t, and it’s incomparably worse for many others), it’s not about your personal pride, so using the word shame shouldn’t even arise. — Saphsin

To vote for someone like Trump or Biden is to vouch for them. And there are few acts more self degrading than giving your approval and your voice to a sack of shit like those two. Anybody with the smallest sliver of self respect would and should cringe with personal shame any time they even think about voting for a sack-of-shit.

Simple fact: the political machine is FUBAR, and we have a thick skulled populous that is too dense to understand that an irreparably broken machine will never work, but they keep trying to make it work. How retarded!

I don't know; I don't think it should matter. As soon as politics revolves around personalities and individuals, it's over. Any system that could lead to a Trump being installed there, and a Biden being the alternative, is rotten to the core. The cult of personality that follows presidents - any president - is toxic in and of itself. A basic rule of thumb for treating anyone with any sort of power is with suspicion and contempt, unless they prove, consistently, otherwise. Practically every US president in living memory has been a sack of shit. I have every expectation that every other one will be as well. — StreetlightX

I don't know; I don't think it should matter. As soon as politics revolves around personalities and individuals, it's over. Any system that could lead to a Trump being installed there, and a Biden being the alternative, is rotten to the core. The cult of personality that follows presidents - any president - is toxic in and of itself. A basic rule of thumb for treating anyone with any sort of power is with suspicion and contempt, unless they prove, consistently, otherwise. Practically every US president in living memory has been a sack of shit. I have every expectation that every other one will be as well. — StreetlightX

I don't know; I don't think it should matter. As soon as politics revolves around personalities and individuals, it's over. Any system that could lead to a Trump being installed there, and a Biden being the alternative, is rotten to the core. The cult of personality that follows presidents - any president - is toxic in and of itself. A basic rule of thumb for treating anyone with any sort of power is with suspicion and contempt, unless they prove, consistently, otherwise. Practically every US president in living memory has been a sack of shit. I have every expectation that every other one will be as well. — StreetlightX

This deserves to be triple quoted! And read thrice!

I have a problem with that notion! The consequences of our actions will be the same no matter who takes the action. Hum, are we judging the action or the person taking the action? — Athena

Even if the consequences of an action (example: stealing) will be the the same despite the particular player involved, for the nonbeliever, anyone who steals cannot and will not be judged the same in every case. For the believer, there is one standard by which everyone is measured, and the judgement that he incurrs, his personal judgment that he can never avoid, is of the utmost importance to himself.

Whatever the nonbeliever can get away with is fair game. — Merkwurdichliebe

Not true at all, because if the action is not right the effect will be harmful. That is how we determine if something is right or wrong by the effect, and sacrificing animals, offering the gods human hearts, rituals and prayers will not change the effect of what we have done. — Athena

I'm not saying all nonbelievers try to get away with shit, I'm saying if one does get away with shit, there will be no greater consequences for him. If getting away with something is thought to be the right thing to do, and it is done, then it does not matter the slightest if it harms another. Of course, if the perpetrator gets caught, then it probably won't seem so right to him anymore. Hence the relativism of morality for the nonbeliever.

That is a lovely thought. Therefore, blindly following Hitler would not be moral because blindly obeying authority does involve thinking about it. People, who obey without thought, are being reactionary and may do horribly immoral things, even if they believe it is the will of God, right? — Athena

Yes, a believer may be reactionary, and may do horribly immoral things because he believes it is the will of god, but to him it would be the right thing to do, and there would be no question about it - this would be an example of the teleological suspension of the ethical. Without this teleological suspension, to behave immorally as such would be self-condemnation for the believer.

But, the nonbeliever may also be reactionary, and may do horribly immoral things because he thinks it is the right thing based on what he knows. He may think it is the right thing to do at the time, and later come to realize that it was the wrong thing to do, or maybe not. It really doesn't matter either way, right and wrong are fluid, and simply a matter of perception. Ultimately, all that matter is how other people (especially others with authority) percieve one's ethical decisions. The Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing, and none of it was compelled by a belief in God.

I hold a moral is a matter of cause and effect, so it is not exactly up to the individual alone. Our judgment must include the effect of what we say or do and the more expanded our consciousness is the better our judgment will be. — Athena

For the nonbeliever, this does not hold because he lacks the requisite level of dogmatism. The nonbeliever needs proof, and the proof can only be acquired after the fact. This is because the belief of the nonbeliever is only based in factual knowledge. In a world where factual knowledge determines what should or should not be believed, we are left with a high degree of uncertainty --- all knowledge becomes merely an approximation of actual truth, and the ability to predict the outcome of a decision is a matter of probability at best.

Our consideration of right and wrong, need include everyone's understanding of it, not just our own.

I disagree. For a person who bases his morality on principle, it must be universal. If we include everyone's understanding of morality as relevant, we are left with relativistic morality, and principled morality becomes irrational.

Furthermore, the believer is being judged for his morality at each and every moment of decisiveness, whereas the nonbeliever is only being judged when under inspection by a relevant authority. So for the believer, his ethical existence is much more important to himself at a critically personal level, because in the end, no matter what anyone does, he is responsible for himself.

Does democracy, reasoning, and science work as the base for decisions on principle? — Athena

If one's belief in these things is properly dogmatic, then it is a religious belief, and there is a rational justification for basing one's morality on principle.

It's said that an unborn child becomes familiar with the sound of it's own mother's voice. That familiarity is the result of correlations draw between it's own contentment/discontentment and the mother's voice. I see no reason to say that that unborn child has distinguished between it's own physiological and biological processes and the sound of it's mother's voice. — creativesoul

You see, you've proven my point. You are incapable of even speaking of any correlation between things without first making a distinction: viz. child and mother. The child may not be able to articulate it, but he definitely feels himself as distinct and separate from his mother. The correlations might (arguably) occur coincidentally with distinction, but they definitely do not precede it.

Perceiving different things is not the same as perceiving them as different things. — creativesoul

How is it possible to perceive different things without perceiving those different things as different things?

What if a person is not a believer in a humanized God such as Zeus or the God of Abraham? Might this person also have principles and be virtuous? — Athena

Yes, principles are rationally justified for any believer whose belief is religious in nature. The key is that religious belief is a conviction, impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning. This is to say, religious belief is self sustaining and absolute, the rules are set and moral principle is rationally justified to say the least

Does it matter which notion of God a person finds believable? How about logos and science, does that work? I think logos comes with abolute truth, but there is no holy book for it. — Athena

Religion is a vague idea. It seems to be predominantly defined through the nonbelievers examination of antiquated paradigms, many of which command massive followings. Of course, this does not add any clarity to what in the hell religion actually is. The are myriad paradigms for belief, and the so called systems which are commonly identified as religion have irreconcilable disparities in their doctrines. So what is that common thing that makes something religious, and another thing not religious? It is the capacity for doubt in the believer; that is, if a person does not test his belief with a necessary measure of doubt and examine it through an established criterion in order to determine its viability as actual knowledge, then that belief can be said to be religious.

In religion, the essential component is the individual believer's personal belief. As soon as one begins to relate his belief to another person, or to compare it with other beliefs, he is departing the religious and entering upon aesthetic matters. Religious belief that is made external to the believer (including all doctrine), is more art and poetry than science or knowledge. Of course art and poetry have a power that elludes scientific understanding - this is the way in which art speaks personally to the individual spectator, and leaves a unique and meaningful imprint upon his psyche.

Now, to answer you question, I don't think it matters which notion is believed, there is no reason why a person's beliief in science, logos &c. cannot be religious in the same way a person's belief in Jesus or Allah is. And there is no requirement in religion to draw one's belief from a doctrine.

Distinguishing between things seems to me to require quite a bit more than just drawing a correlation between things. The former takes note of and/or sets out the differences between things, whereas the latter does not. — creativesoul

Correlation is dependent on distinction. Before we can draw any correlation between one thing and another, we must distinguish one thing from another, otherwise there would be no content to correlate.

The reply name contains a link to the comment, which fulfills the same function without duplicating text :up: — darthbarracuda


But a direct quote really gives substance and respect to the source material, for example, like this:

Like, it's been four years. If people continue to be surprised that Trump is a total wanker, who, really, is the idiot?

People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.

And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX


See?
— Merkwurdichliebe

Oh yeah I see now. — darthbarracuda

Love it! :rofl:

The reply name contains a link to the comment, which fulfills the same function without duplicating text :up: — darthbarracuda

But a direct quote really gives substance and respect to the source material, for example, like this:

Like, it's been four years. If people continue to be surprised that Trump is a total wanker, who, really, is the idiot?

People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.

And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX

See?

You gotta direct quote gold like that, like this:

Like, it's been four years. If people continue to be surprised that Trump is a total wanker, who, really, is the idiot?

People act like - if only one can accumulate enough evidence that Trump is an idiot, people are bound to change their minds any second. Everytime Trump says or tweets or looks or does something stupid, liberals mobilize en masse to say: 'look, we finally got him! Don't you see it?'. And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more piece of evidence to their list that no one but them gives a shit about.

And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX

Yeah, it doesn't give one, but I think it takes the self-reports of people who say they believe in God as counting for the religious. — StreetlightX

Well, as a statistics guy, I must remark that that is rather unscientific. For starters, by what criterion do we determine that the self reports of "people who say they believe in God" counts as the religious. Without a definition with a reasonably justified criteria, I must declare philosophical anarchy.

right on!

And when no one gives a flying fuck because no one except liberals are playing that insular, suffocating game, they bunker down and wait for the next act of outrage before crawling out of their holes again to add yet one more peice of evidence to their list that nonone but them gives a shit about. — StreetlightX

And then, to top it off, they get incredulous like - why can't the hoi polloi see what we see? They must be dumb. We must be too smart for them! Didn't you see his Tweet??!?!? Wasn't it TeRrIbLE?? Like holy shit these people are the dumbest peices of shit on the planet and they think the situation is exactly the opposite. — StreetlightX

Fuckin A!!! So on point. I hate Trump sooooo much. But I hate the bullshit of the L's so goddamn much that I'm willing to pretend to be an R-tard just to piss them off. It's so fucked!