Having just glanced through some of Brett’s discussions I would guess that his issues with the forum stemmed more from his apparent lack of appreciation of science than differences in political ideologies. Just a casual guess but maybe something to keep in mind when dealing with other likeminded folk.

I don’t understand, how did he publish that video? I thought the radical left muzzled the mad king.

No iron clad argument for voter fraud is complete without hearing from Alex Jones.

And likely you'll see it tomorrow how Trump behaves in Texas. — ssu

Alamo, Texas.

Could have been pride, his wife's boobys are sensational.

All kinds of people burnout or whatever and essentially ban themselves. Just indicates some lack of self-control, I guess.

What the media never showed was Trump’s explicit desire to do it legally and according to the constitution, which is his right, and which many have done before him. Perhaps if they did, there would be no such violence. — NOS4A2

Trump may be unique among American presidents in his flagrant propaganda based on lies, such as 'the election was stolen and everyone knows it'. He repeated the lie relentlessly for months until his weak minded followers believed it with a passion. All politicians use propaganda of course, but it takes a special kind of sociopath to so readily use propaganda techniques like the so called big lie. Having a strong penchant for propaganda yourself, even you won't stoop that low, and also seem to possess the moral conscious to brand yourself an evil bloodsucking parasite to help alleviate any cognitive dissonance caused by having a conscious.

he's a master brander — frank

Trump brand equity is shrinking by the minute so obviously not a master.

I suppose that a post I made in his ‘Suggestions’ topic yesterday may have had something to do with it.

I was considering starting a topic on it in the hope of putting it out of its misery and did some research, starting with a forum search for "nature of thought." Turns out that I appear to have discussed the topic with you more that I thought. You are Jake, right? a guy that was banned a couple of years ago for posting a picture of your wife's boobies. — praxis

It felt kinda shitty to out him like this but I couldn’t resist the temptation to see how he’d handle it. I bet he wouldn’t have been banned if he just ignored it. Anyway, ultimately his ‘Suggestions’ topic proved to be successful in improving the quality of the forum so he can put a feather in his cap for that.

And yes, Jake, I realize that banning me would improve the quality of the forum also.

Why am I me and not someone else?

I don't believe that you believe that none can understand your ideas about the nature of thought.
— praxis

Whether readers can understand is largely unknown here. It does seem true that this topic routinely fails to engage. That used to frustrate me, but lately I'm learning not to worry about it too much. — Hippyhead

I was considering starting a topic on it in the hope of putting it out of its misery and started a bit of research, starting with a forum search for "nature of thought." Turns out that I appear to have discussed the topic with you more that I thought. You are Jake, right? a guy that was banned a couple of years ago for posting a picture of your wife's boobies.

I looked at the comment section of Breitbart's story on the 'armed protests' and the amusing thing is that from the comments it appears that Breitbart is closely moderating the comments. Apparently so many terms trigger an automatic review before publishing that most if not practically all comments require a review. Don't want Trumpers to appear hungry for violence, I guess.

ANY change is typically unwelcome. — Hippyhead

Moving the shoutbox to the registered section was an unwelcome change for many. It does not seem to have had the intended result of raising the quality of the forum.

Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for.

I think I understand now why people move to the right. — Brett

No flair for drama?

Just condemn them. Go on. — Baden

He cannot because he is not worth the dust on the feet of those you have hanged!

Orwellian? It couldn't be more capitalistic for a publisher to not want to be associated with sedition. What a whinny bitch.

In my opinion, this is beyond the pale...

As for Trump, maybe banning him from twitter won't help to legitimize the 'radical left authoritarianism' fear that they've been promoting.

Isn’t it reasonable to think that if we can’t explain something that we don’t understand it well?
— praxis

It's also reasonable to consider that the audience may not be capable of understanding a particular topic and there's not really anything the author, perhaps any author, can do about that. The limitations can exist on all sides of the conversation. Sometimes such limitations must just be cheerfully accepted. — Hippyhead

I don't believe that you believe that none can understand your ideas about that nature of thought.

I’m interested in the subject and I think other views and understandings may help me understand it better.
— praxis

Yes, my point exactly, other views may help us understand the topic better. There are many people all over the world who write on such topics, and I'm sure many of them do so better than myself and others on the forum addressing such topics.

Without some organized effort to attract quality new members then all of us are basically stuck reading the same people saying pretty much the same things over and over again for years. It might be fun to take on the challenge of addressing this limitation of our experience here. Or, it might simply be too threatening a process of change to survive here. — Hippyhead

Having just read the OP, unless I've misunderstood it seems that all you're suggesting is to make the FORUM link on the top menu only visible to registered users and to publish rejected articles to the forum. Anyone can scout out and invite new members as it is.

My guess is that it would only decrease new membership because many would be put-off by having to register before seeing the forum. You may notice that there's only one article published to date and the forum has existed for something like six years.

Anti-Trump lackey’s would not be limited to the left-wing. There are plenty on the right as well. — NOS4A2

Who are they the lackey’s of?

All the anti-Trump lackeys are cheering it on. — NOS4A2

I was trying to think of left-wing anti-Trump lackeys (meaning Biden lackeys?) that were comparable to Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Judge Jeanine, Shapiro, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc. and came up with a video from The Young Turks.



They do indeed celebrate it and are unconcerned about a slippery slope.

I'll never doubt the slippery slope again. — NOS4A2

There you have it, all the Trumpian media lackeys are saying it.

I've already written on the nature of thought about a hundred times. At least the way I discuss it, the subject appears to not be of much interest. But that's ok. Perhaps I suck at explaining it, that could very well be the case. — Hippyhead

Isn’t it reasonable to think that if we can’t explain something that we don’t understand it well? Discussing it in a new topic may help you better understand it, and perhaps spare the forum from ‘the way you discuss it’ in the future.

I’m interested in the subject and I think other views and understandings may help me understand it better. If I were to start it I’d need to figure out a way to make it compelling enough to encourage engagement.

It's either that, or you can read me blab on about the "nature of thought" five thousand more times until you die of incurable boredom. — Hippyhead

Why not put an end to this and start a topic that explores your nature of thought, using the “magazine model” or whatever model you like.

Books that helped me understand the Trumpers at the beginning of his administration were works like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_in_Their_Own_Land

Some of the mob were armed, there were vehicles found with bombs and high-powered rifles in them. There are recordings of people trying to hunt down the Vice President and Speaker of the house, presumably to assassinate them. It was a watershed event. I had thought Twitter would suspend Trump's account on Jan 21 but he forced their hand. They had no choice. — Wayfarer

The downside is that it kind of confirms the fears that Trump and his media lackeys have been stoking for months, and just when the Democrats are setting up shop. It confirms their fear of authoritarianism.

He’s simply a conman who tells them what they want to hear and in a way that they enjoy hearing it. Not just anyone can do that. Have you ever watched him speak at one of his rallies? It’s just raw divisive nonsense that only a completely unprincipled narcissist could spew.

It feels more vindictive than cautionary to me, and a really bad idea considering how beat Trump was and the potential backfire.

I can show you evidence of Black Lies Matter riots, but I can't show you evidence of left wing media - not criticizing them, because - as surely, even the least philosophically educated should be aware, one cannot prove a negative. — counterpunch

Damn! I’ve been outfoxed again by your philosophical prowess. But seriously, your claim was: “Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage....”

we don't hear about it [BLM riot destruction] — counterpunch

You seem to have heard about it.

I could, I guess - but why should I? Because you demand it? — counterpunch

Nah, because philosophers support their claims and you’ve claimed to be a philosopher.

There are Republican members that are not treated as you’ve been treated, therefore you can’t conclude that it’s because of your political identity.

Again you’re not sounding centrist.

Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. ... I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason. — counterpunch

Fairness and impartiality are good. How about evidence? Can you post a link of any media outlet doing what you claim?

There are certainly critical distinctions between the Trumpers and the BLM protesters, but there is a similarity often overlooked, and that is that both comprise a marginalized underclass, even if the Trumpers don't realize the source of their anger and even if they are members of the majority race. — Hanover

Some believe that a part of the anger that Trump utilized was them becoming underclass and seeing minorities rising in status.

Philosophically speaking, given that your lot appeal to a subjectivism. how I appear to you says something about you, but it says nothing about me. For you, reality is subjectively constructed. You are responsible for how I appear, not me. So, what is alt-right? Is it like Viet Cong, or the Red Peril? Some menacing name conjured up to stereotype, and demonise anyone who opposes the left wing, politically correct cultural strangle hold? — counterpunch

Remarkable that you can stereotype and criticize stereotyping in the same breath. I merely mentioned that you appear alt-right, meaning that you reason and say the same sort of things that alt-right folks do. It's not a good sign simply because you've identified as a centrist. It indicates deception.

Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence? — counterpunch

Who was recently whining about StreetlightX's manner of expression?

It [recent insurrection at US capital] doesn't demonstrate anything about racial dominance - as far as I can tell. If you think it does, please explain in what way. I don't see it. — counterpunch

Basically, white conservatives forced access and ransacked the nation's capital. Imagine, if you will, ten thousand African American US citizens planning a protest at the capital, acquiring all appropriate licenses, and on the planned date protesting at the gates of the capital. Would they be able to force entry into the heart of our nation's democracy as easily and deeply as the white conservatives? Even if they were protesting the extinction of a species of butterfly it is very hard to imagine that they would. Of course this is speculative but I think shows a practical difference in racial dominance. One race litteraly has more access to a place than others.

Black Lies Matter — counterpunch

Trying to not be PC? It makes you appear alt-right.

Odd as it may sound, Trump claimed that there was fraud in 2016, just not to the extent of the last election. Preparing the way for any future loss, I guess. But you’re referring to claims of foreign interference? Intelligence agencies reported that it was true, and the Mueller report didn’t exonerate the prez of collusion as he claims it did.

That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. — counterpunch

Let’s hope it doesn’t take root then.

Who should be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence — counterpunch

News outlets are businesses that seek profit and consequently cater to their audiences. Some audiences want more factual information and others prefer a more opinionated (bias, as you say) presentation. Do they create news? Hopefully not. Trump is primarily responsible for continually chanting about voter fraud to his gullible base. If an authority figure repeats a lie enough times the weak minded will believe that it’s the truth. And boy did he repeat it. He claimed it as though it were fact rather than suspicion. News networks reported with whatever presentation suited their particular audiences. So by your reasoning it seems that the Divider-in-Chief should be ashamed.

Bias is exactly the same as opinion. Bias is a synonym for opinion. — counterpunch

I think it might be fruitless to argue with such a discerning mind.

I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people. — counterpunch

I’m surprised that he bothered to explicitly state that he does not want to do that, to those few who are unable to discern expression/content, or merely read.

I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race. — counterpunch

The other day a large group of predominantly white middle aged men stormed and ransacked our nations capital. Some of the security opened gates and took selfie’s with them. That demonstrates a dominant position.

The one Trumpist riot is panned as violent rebellion while a wide variety of euphemism is used to explain away the hundreds of BLM riots.

I just don’t get it. — NOS4A2

One difference is that BLM riots are based on actual faults in law enforcement whereas you’ve said yourself that you don’t believe that there was widespread voter fraud.