Sounds like he wanted to be banned. Probably because of the shame he felt always losing arguments with me. He’ll be missed.

All who claim knowledge of what's important are crystal clear about what's important to them(at the time of speaking). I see no reason whatsoever to deny that simply because a person is a Trump supporter. — creativesoul

StreetlightX made the claim, not any Trump supporters that I know of.

There is no hierarchical authority in Buddhism that I know of. If there were, I would be able to see such authority here in this largely Buddhist country. There are certainly monks but there is no organization beyond the practical management of a single temple. These temples do not report to a higher authority. They were built by collecting donations. Some local elders manage the premises. — alcontali

Elders > monks > laymen & laywomen? With the Buddha being the ultimate authority, of course.

Nothing I’ve written in this topic contradicts any of that, or rather, conflicts with their definition of religion.

To reiterate, I claim:

1) Buddha is the ultimate authority in Buddhism and Buddhism has a social hierarchy.

2) Buddhism is meaningful.

3) Buddhism is unifying.

If Buddhism didn’t have an ultimate authority or social hierarchy, and it was meaningless and un-unifying, it would not be a religion.

Platonism is in some ways a religious philosophy or at least values the same kinds of ethics as do many religions. — Wayfarer

I don’t know what this means. I’m not religious but I could say that I value the same kinds of ethics that many religions do.

Plato could certainly be called an authority in philosophy. Significantly, however, no philosopher could exist that is considered THE authority or the ultimate authority.

Anyone is free to accept or reject Platonism, as well as freely question or critique any part of it. There are no heretical Platonists, at least not in anything but a metaphorical sense.

The Buddhist attitude of ‘take it or leave it’ leaves no room for questioning, critique, or least of all, reform. This only underscores the essential aspect of its hierarchical authority structure and places it squarely in the category of religion.

That is not to say that the Buddha is not regarded as an authority, as he most definitely is and was. — Wayfarer

Is it that you don’t believe your own words?

This passage is often quoted as a kind of mandate for rejection of religious authority in Buddhism, — Wayfarer

A mandate (necessarily authoritative) to accept or reject that authority. Is this not superfluous? What religion exists that anyone is not free to accept or reject it?

It could only be meaningfully non-hierarchical and rejecting of authority if practitioners were able to not merely accept or reject but to freely criticize or revise as they saw fit, such as with philosophy. Naturally, all religions, including Buddhism, are highly resistant to critique or reform.

The mandate to accept or reject is a mandate which limits you to exactly that. You cannot question. Philosophy questions everything.

It’s just words, don’t be such a snowflake.

I think you deserve to make sensible claims, and thinking through your senselessness is a good first step to getting what you deserve.

Religion, and this absolutely includes Buddhism, has a hierarchical authority structure and is primarily concerned with meaning and social cohesion.

The general claim that I object to is that Trump supporters are crystal clear about what’s important.

Could the typical Trump supporter reasonably explain why small government is more beneficial than a larger one? Or why fossil fuel is a better investment than renewable? Or how the benefits of spending tens of billions on a boarder wall outweighs the cost? Etc.

I think that to a large degree it amounts to sheer tribalism. And I doubt they even realize how important the tribe is to them.

That's too broad a brush. — creativesoul

The broader the better, and clearly facts don’t get in the way.

Trump supporters believe that ‘big government’ is bad (don’t ask them why), so any move towards privatization or deregulation is good.

An example: earlier StreetlightX suggested it was a good thing that the Right was demonizing (Venezuela, anyone?) progress proposals like the Green New Deal. As I see it, this is fuel for further entrenching their beliefs and attitudes. It’s not changing their attitudes. Are they pretending to be manipulated or are they actually being manipulated?

If nothing else, you lack imagination.

I would ask why you believe an uncooperative society is preferable but... that would require an explanation.

The Republican narrative has been very cohesive — creativesoul

Right, I was trying to suggest that it’s cohesive by nature, and therefore resistant to alteration.

The “conservative” party is by nature less receptive to change, is un-progressive, so how can it be that they appreciate “altering the landscape” better than progressives?

Cooperation for mutual benefit would not require force in a truly unified society, so all you appear to saying is that you either don’t believe such unity is possible or that you simply prefer divisiveness. If you prefer divisiveness, perhaps it’s because, like Trump, it’s an ingrained habit and you can’t live any other way.

Purple and red is a romantic color scheme.

Someone must be in love.

I would ask how Trumps divisiveness has proved to be a successful strategy, given the significant failures his administration has had, such as with healthcare, the midterms, border wall funding, etc, but you have a tendency to not substantiate your claims. Probably because they’re just trolls.

Any republican president could cut taxes for the wealthy, deregulate, slash public programs, and drive up the deficit.

Perhaps the Republican Party would be more successful with a different leader. Maybe Trump is more of a liability than an asset, and his best contribution was merely getting elected, allowing their agenda access to fulfillment.

This is now presidential by definition. — NOS4A2

The kettle calling the pot black is now officially presidential?

When Trump supporters are treated as dupes - again, a debilitating personalization of politics - and not as eagle-eyed clear about what they are doing, the only idiots here are aghast liberals who, in thinking themselves superior and immune to being hoodwinked, are the only clueless ones in the room. — StreetlightX

Of the little Raymond Geuss that I read today, the notion that there’s such a stark duality between being ‘eagle-eyed clear’ and being ‘hoodwinked’ seem entirely alien. I do believe that Trump, and those like him, know what they’re doing, in terms of attaining power. I don’t believe that Trump’s interests and the vast majority of his supporters interests ultimately align.

Turns out I’m the one without a sense of humor. Color me embarrassed.

Purple is red and blue combined, so you can't hate one more than the other. Identity and whatnot. — Pfhorrest

I was attempting to be funny. :confused:

But despite purple being the anti-green, it is also acceptably neutral, being equal parts warm and cold, while green is neither. Like a compromise where everyone is equally unhappy, in lieu of a collaborative solution that makes everyone happy. Though this particular purple is cooler than a true neutral magenta... but blue is better than red anyway so I'll allow it. — Pfhorrest

Purple and green are complementary colors, diametrically opposed on the color wheel. I suppose that 'anti' makes sense, in the sense that combining the two creates a neutral or gray.

My least favorite color is purple. I hate it more than red and blue combined.

Thanks. I've started reading some Geuss and like it a lot. So far, the gist seems to be that 'politics is not applied ethics' because there is no universal ethics that can be applied.

When you say, "When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think.," what I think you mean is that people who hold to a moral framework unquestioningly can be easily manipulated. Trump may be a good example of this. It doesn't appear to make sense, for example, that Trump has captured the amount of support from Evangelicals that he has, being the 'bad person' that he is. However, Trump supports issues that are important to Evangelicals, such as being anti-abortion. Does Trump actually care about abortion or is it merely a means to an end for him? Do Evangelicals actually care if he cares? I doubt it. So where is the true morality in any of this? Nowhere.

Liberals have their own sort of carrots and hypocrisies, of course.

Politics is about the exercise of power. Morality erases considerations of power. As one of my favourite writers put it - morality is dead politics. Morality elevated to political principle issues in injustice, always. This is not the place for this discussion though. — StreetlightX

This doesn’t help, and saying this isn’t the place is no excuse. Who’s the writer you mention? I’ll look it up myself. A search for “morality is dead politics” didn’t lead to an author.

The midterms proved to be a significant and effective opposition, and it even seemed reactive to the ‘personality’ of the Trump administration, with a record number of women elected, and a Muslim woman as well.
— praxis

The most effective 'reactions' to Trump to my mind have been precisely those who have not merely re-acted but acted to change the conversation entirely. Medicare for all, the green new deal, labour reform - substantial policy agendas which have shifted the conversation away from Trump's diva-nature and onto things that will actually have an effect on people's lives. — StreetlightX

Policy proposals “that will actually have an effect on people's lives.” Hmm, and more effectively than gaining a majority in the house, no less. Conservatives are using these proposals to motivate their party, you realize.

When politics is confused with morality, people fucking die. Morality is for those who can't think. — StreetlightX

If you were to substitute “morality” with “religion” in this statement I could agree. Otherwise, it could use some explaining.

It's pretty clear that a great deal of Trump's opponents have been uniquely useless at actually opposing anything whatsoever, insofar as their efforts continue to centre upon utterly unpolitical - that is to say, unactionable - vectors of resistance. — StreetlightX

The midterms proved to be a significant and effective opposition, and it even seemed reactive to the ‘personality’ of the Trump administration, with a record number of women elected, and a Muslim woman as well.

Trump is stacking the courts and destorying the environment... — StreetlightX

The conservative agenda, which it could be argued has been largely successful despite Trump. Perhaps Trump cost them the midterms loss, as well as other things like failing to repeal and replace Obamacare, etc. Perhaps he is more of a liability to their agenda then an asset.

Sure, but something halfway reasonable must come to mind, no?

It’s relatively easy to modify the css code of your browser and override the color, should the red remain and be unpleasant for you, FYI.

Not saying none of this would have been implemented without the focus being on Trump — Janus

So you got nothing, in other words.

If Trump is impeached then Mike Pence will assume his office. Is he accusing the Vice President of a clandestine attempt to usurp the presidency?! Oh wait, I forgot that when your supporters have a keen instinct for what’s important you don’t need to make sense.

With all the focus on Trump's antics they can get away with murder. — Janus

What exactly does Trump uniquely allow them to get away with? Something that they couldn’t get away with when Bush was in office, for example.

We’re not lab rats. I demand more respect. :nerd:

The only thing worse than a Trump supporter is a Trump opponent whose political literacy extends as far as 'this is not normal'. They ought to be first against the wall when the shit hits the fan. At least Trump supporters have a keener instinct for things that actually matter. — StreetlightX

The more I look at this the more nonsensical it appears. You say that the shit's gonna hit the fan, presumably because of the Trump administration, yet you claim that Trump supporters have keener instincts for things that actually matter and that these keen instincts are better than someone lacking political literacy. What the hell??

at least Trump supporters have a keener instinct for things that actually matter. — StreetlightX

Would you care to substantiate this claim in some way?

To snobs, he is an embarrassment to the world. When he spoke at the UN a while back and those present let out a laugh, we were told “the world is laughing at Trump”, as if the political elite in the UN general assembly, some of whom are tinpot dictators, represented the world. It was routine snobbery. — NOS4A2

You don’t need to be a snob to laugh at buffoonery, and his level of buffoonery in not normal.

It’s a win win. If he survives, it will help make an informed choice for 2020. — 3017amen

If he survives and is re-elected, it might make impeachment much harder in his second term, and consequently allow for even more egregious transgressions. So perhaps more like a risky gamble than a win win.

Like, really, in anyone's hearts of hearts, does anybody give a fuck? — StreetlightX

It’s fucked up to be sure, but it doesn’t seem like nearly enough.

I suppose the evidence is that the disparaged counties are predominantly black and Norway is predominantly white. Do you know that it wasn’t a racist comment? If so, how do you know that?

I wasn’t the one making the accusation. — NOS4A2

I’m pointing out that you don’t know whether or not it was a racist comment. The impression that it was comes from the facts that I’ve already mentioned, and also, now that I think about it, the fact that individuals emigrate and not counties. People with college degrees might emigrate from one of the disparaged counties and criminals might emigrate from Norway. Given the ignorance he displays on a daily basis, it seems unlikely that Trumps comment was based on actual emigration data about the counties involved.

They claimed it was racist, without evidence. — NOS4A2

I suppose the evidence is that the disparaged counties are predominantly black and Norway is predominantly white. Do you know that it wasn’t a racist comment? If so, how do you know that?