Statement about Solway and Trump

[Kevin Solway]

What does it mean to invoke numbers, Kevin?

It means democracy. Democracy works by numbers.

How is this not an ad numerum fallacy?

I'm not saying that something is true because of the number of people who vote for it, that's how.

Saying that Trump was democratically elected says nothing about who he really is or his (and his cabinet's) agenda.

Correct.

Such an observation is literally meaningless.

It's not meaningless unless you think democracy is meaningless.

That Trump was democratically elected in no way legitimises him.

It legitimises his presidency.

Trump no more represents the actual concerns of the Americans that voted for him (the rich excepted) than One Nation does here.

You state that as though you know the absolute truth about these matters, when in reality these are just your personal opinions. Are they not?

If you knew the absolute truth about these matters then we could safely dispense with democracy and just believe whatever you say.

[Dan Rowden]

Trump no more represents the actual concerns of the Americans that voted for him (the rich excepted) than One Nation does here.

You state that as though you know the absolute truth about these matters, when in reality these are just your personal opinions. Are they not?

If you knew the absolute truth about these matters then we could safely dispense with democracy and just believe whatever you say.

Just to clarify, are you saying that wherein no absolute quality adheres to a proposition that any opinion on such is as valid and valuable as another?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Kevin, great to see you, it was slightly weird to discuss this without having either you or Trump participating. David did mention in this first post that he alerted you to the existence of his post so you could defend it. But I assume that message never arrived?

What is the "alt-right"?

Also, what do you mean by "linked"?

If you can tell me what you mean by "alt-right" and "linked" then I can tell you whether I am "linked" to it.

It was in response to the opening post mostly, which mentioned "the Breitbart site and other far-right and alt-right communities". Although I wanted to link to wikipedia for a definition, they inserted "supremacist Richard Spencer" and "white nationalism" on the second line already, which does not seem to be very realistic although it's then implied the term might have originated, amongst other things, to Spencer's website "Alternative Right".

Skipping the mainstream rants, a slightly better description seems to be attempted by the Know your Memesite . Personally I'm unsure about lumping it with "white nationalism" perhaps because I just link it to resurgent nationalist and/or anti-establishment parties here in Europe, which although often anti-Islam or anti-immigration, do not have any history of racism attached, while it might attract a few colourful characters on occasion.

If this topic explores the nature of logical fallacies it will be more interesting than exploring politics.

Indeed. My interest is also to understand the urgency David and Dan felt to raise the topic this way. The difference in opinion I can understand but that linkage to wisdom or rational choices seems very hard to substantiate. Most arguments become just a form of support of a status quo or advocating some belief that the way the government is developing the last decades would be in any way acceptable. While that's something to discuss when hard evidence in terms of certainty becomes rather scarce. What's left are principles but it seems that sharing the same ground principles can still lead to very different ideas on what's good and what's bad.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hitler was democratically elected by people who thought he was representing them.

Not entirely true. First he attempted an aggressive coup which failed. But people still massively voted him in later after his prison term. Then he made changes to the laws increasing his power, broadly supported by a majority. And then there were other steps all of which technically not possible in modern democracies because of added safe guards. Of course a coup can still be done and is an instrument used in various countries like Ukraine, Egypt and Turkey, which do seem to had some support or encouragement from the "democratic" West, so it doesn't not seem to be excluded by principle by the very people upholding the Western democracies.

[Dan Rowden]

Hitler was democratically elected by people who thought he was representing them.

Not entirely true. First he attempted an aggressive coup which failed. But people still massively voted him in later after his prison term. Then he made changes to the laws increasing his power, broadly supported by a majority. And then there were other steps all of which technically not possible in modern democracies because of added safe guards.

You mean the sort of safeguards that can be removed with an Executive Order or an act of Congress? Those sorts of safeguards? The sorts of safeguards that this Administration doesn't actually believe in? I mean, I take your point but I also don't think those safeguards are quite as safe as you imagine. And of course, this White House knows best regarding how bad the courts are, and you know, ethical stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2q0negHzrs

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hitler was democratically elected by people who thought he was representing them.

Not entirely true. First he attempted an aggressive coup which failed. But people still massively voted him in later after his prison term. Then he made changes to the laws increasing his power, broadly supported by a majority. And then there were other steps all of which technically not possible in modern democracies because of added safe guards.

You mean the sort of safeguards that can be removed with an Executive Order or an act of Congress? Those sorts of safeguards? The sorts of safeguards that this Administration doesn't actually believe in? I mean, I take your point but I also don't think those safeguards are quite as safe as you imagine.

Well, nothing is entirely safe when it seems that intelligence agencies and various "leaks" can determine the political or professional fate of people. Which is how police states tend to work. Then again, I do support whistle blowers as one of the checks and balances available in modern times. And yet they'd disappear in prison never to be heard of if you ask the "establishment" these days.

[Dan Rowden]

I don't think you'd ever see a Republican 'establishment' doing anything like instituting the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-con ... l/743/text

[Kevin Solway]

Are you saying that wherein no absolute quality adheres to a proposition that any opinion on such is as valid and valuable as another?

No. Personal opinions on such matters have value insofar as they are supported by evidence. However, it is exceedingly difficult to know what other people want in their deepest soul, and equally difficult to know with certainty that some particular individual can accurately represent those needs. So I think its unwise to use absolutist language in matters that are exceedingly uncertain, and about which one might be entirely wrong.

For example, I think it would be unwise for a person to say "I know for certain that Trump is literally Hitler and that he wants to militarily overrun the entire world", regardless of what supporting evidence they can muster (unless of course it is genetically proven that he is Hitler, and he does militarily overrun the entire world).

[Kevin Solway]

David did mention in this first post that he alerted you to the existence of his post so you could defend it. But I assume that message never arrived?

I've just found the email in my inbox, but I missed it at the time as I was camping on the remote King and Flinders Islands.

It was in response to the opening post mostly, which mentioned "the Breitbart site and other far-right and alt-right communities".

David's assertion seems to be that Breitbart is "far-right" and "alt-right". David's making this assertion doesn't mean that he is correct. He can be entirely wrong. And since David doesn't define what "alt-right" is, then I have no idea what he means by the term. If "alt-right" simply means "alternative right" - as in, alternative to the Republican party - then I don't see anything wrong with it, but I think David attributes something far more sinister to it. I know that the term "alt-right" has meant many different things to different people, at different times.

Although I wanted to link to wikipedia for a definition . . .

Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable regarding political and social issues since it holds the mainstream media and social science academics to be the final authority on these issues. You're not allowed to contribute anything to Wikipedia which goes against these people otherwise you will be banned. I'm speaking from personal experience.

"white nationalism"

From what I've seen, I don't believe that Breitbart is a white nationalist website. Many of their writers are not white. If David is implying that Breitbart is white nationalist, then I think he's wrong.

As for "far right", I think he's wrong about that as well. Some of the writers at Breitbart, such as Allum Bokhari, like myself, identify as Left-leaning.

But regardless of what labels can be put on Breitbart, the only thing that concerns me is whether Breitbart speaks the truth, and in my experience, and compared to the mainstream media, it does so.

What's left are principles but it seems that sharing the same ground principles can still lead to very different ideas on what's good and what's bad.

I think it's because people are not perfect, and nor are they the same. Small differences can quickly escalate to large differences of opinion on particular issues - especially where guesswork is required, as it is in politics.

[Dan Rowden]

But regardless of what labels can be put on Breitbart, the only thing that concerns me is whether Breitbart speaks the truth, and in my experience, and compared to the mainstream media, it does so.

You mean it's expressing opinions that you concur with, there being no 'truth' to be spoken.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hitler was democratically elected by people who thought he was representing them.

Not entirely true. First he attempted an aggressive coup which failed. But people still massively voted him in later after his prison term. Then he made changes to the laws increasing his power, broadly supported by a majority. And then there were other steps all of which technically not possible in modern democracies because of added safe guards.

You mean the sort of safeguards that can be removed with an Executive Order or an act of Congress? Those sorts of safeguards? The sorts of safeguards that this Administration doesn't actually believe in? I mean, I take your point but I also don't think those safeguards are quite as safe as you imagine.

It should be noted that after the failed coup, people still massively supported Hitler against what they saw as a broken system and supported all his reforms. So it depends if one thinks of democracy as a system of safeguards against the volatile, changing opinions of a voting mob, or as a system of representation which should change and reform when the population demands it for a longer period of time. The US constitution has several interesting safeguards against a short-lived will to flush everything down the toilet. Even the executive orders cannot overrule those that easily as there are strict limitation on that (but that's a rather technical discussion).

The nature of this discussion would be the question if democracy as a system of constitutional laws can adapt to the changes happening in our culture for the last few decades, especially inside sprawling organizations like the NSA and CIA, the immense network of international lobbying and the nature of the advertisement driven media landscape.

Although I don't claim to have the answer, it stands to reason that every rigid system will not be able to cope with fundamental changing landscapes. And as such it should be challenged and reviewed again and again. History learns that there's always a strong, conservative push back from what is called "establishment": professionals and other citizens who have invested all their life and beliefs in the old structure and see everything opposing it as some kind of threat. Which of course it is but the question is if it's avoidable or if it's ultimately that evil. Again, it's clearly the nature of humans to hold on, for centuries if needed, to a set of ideas which have lost all meaning and spirit. With that in mind, one should review the Trump phenomenon again. Or understand why so many people feel the system has gone corrupt. It's something that can be experienced in daily life when involved in the job market, cities, governance and simply the degree of nonsense being circulated through official channels. And even if those experiences are coloured, it's still an indication of a society not being able to handle all the fundamental changes. And not only society, also the current system of government in the West might need a rethink.

[Kevin Solway]

. . . there being no 'truth' to be spoken.

I don't believe the idea that there is no 'truth' to be spoken.

Ok, I've just this moment done a little experiment and visited the Breitbart website for probably the tenth time in my life, and I clicked on the first two links on the page, to find out whether they are "true" or not.

The first link was "Fake News Bonanza: Media shamed by president's tax return", which led to the article entitled "Epic Fail: Rachel Maddow Mocked After Dragging Out Trump Tax ‘Scoop’" and the second link was "Website of Trump tax return reporter crashes". Do these articles speak the "truth" or not? Since both articles provided what appear to be valid evidence for their claims, I am inclined to think these articles speak the truth. They're not the kind of articles I am particularly interested in reading - which is why I rarely visit the site - but they do appear to be speaking the truth.

So long as what Breitbart is saying isn't a total fantasy which they made up, then I believe they are immensely superior to the mainstream media.

[Dan Rowden]

. . . there being no 'truth' to be spoken.

I don't believe the idea that there is no 'truth' to be spoken.

Ok, I've just this moment done a little experiment and visited the Breitbart website for probably the tenth time in my life, and I clicked on the first two links on the page, to find out whether they are "true" or not.

The first link was "Fake News Bonanza: Media shamed by president's tax return", which led to the article entitled "Epic Fail: Rachel Maddow Mocked After Dragging Out Trump Tax ‘Scoop’" and the second link was "Website of Trump tax return reporter crashes". Do these articles speak the "truth" or not?

What do you mean by 'the truth'? The truth of what? Maddow received leaked tax return documents that the WH verified as real. That's true. I think it's also true to say she got a little too excited about the significance of it. However, that does not mean she said anything false about them. They do, in fact, raise a couple of interesting questions, one of which is who actually leaked them because it looks possible that Trump may have done so himself. The documents, though of little real import taken alone, point to a question being asked: is Trump's agenda to dump the AMT driven by pure financial self interest and that of his rich mates? There is also the ongoing fact that Trump is the first POTUS or VPOTUS in something like 40 years to refuse to supply his tax returns.

To be honest, I found those Brietbart pieces, themselves, entirely insubstantial and quite sophomoric.

[jimhaz]

They do, in fact, raise a couple of interesting questions, one of which is who actually leaked them because it looks possible that Trump may have done so himself

Amazing how quickly the White House was able to confirm and release it themselves.

Lawrence O'Donnell & Rachel Maddow : Donald Trump's 2005 tax return

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLfYt6i3oDg

This bloke was the guest

David Cay Johnston

http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/david-cay ... -children/

Its 59 minutes, so I don't expect many would have the patience to listen to it.

Says he is a Republican not that interested in politics and is clearly a Christian. Note also the 5 reasons. "He Won a Pulitzer Prize for His Tax Reporting"

[Kevin Solway]

What do you mean by 'the truth'? The truth of what?

In this case, the reality of the physical world. Do the words reported by Breitbart match with what happened in the real world? I believe they do.

insubstantial and quite sophomoric

Agreed, but as I said, if they speak the truth then as far as I'm concerned they are superior to the mainstream media.

[Dan Rowden]

What do you mean by 'the truth'? The truth of what?

In this case, the reality of the physical world. Do the words reported by Breitbart match with what happened in the real world? I believe they do.

Can you specify which words match with what happened in the real world. i.e. words that do not merely reflect a value judgement about what happened.

[Dan Rowden]

They do, in fact, raise a couple of interesting questions, one of which is who actually leaked them because it looks possible that Trump may have done so himself

Amazing how quickly the White House was able to confirm and release it themselves.

Indeed. Events point strongly to their foreknowledge of what was coming all the way down to Trump Jnr's tweet about it and that the leaked pages were a “client copy.” My feeling is that the WH used Maddow's somewhat naive enthusiasm for a scoop to sucker punch her. Bannon certainly knows how to achieve these things.

And, in the meantime, while everyone's distracted, no-one bothers to note that Trump's original choice for WH Deputy Security Adviser under Michael Flynn, the famed plagiarist Monica Crowley, has just also registered herself as an agent for a Foreign Power. Probably innocent enough but damn these people have a lot of old Soviet connections ...

[Kevin Solway]

Can you specify which words match with what happened in the real world. i.e. words that do not merely reflect a value judgement about what happened.

As an example: "Website of trump tax return reporter crashes".

[Dan Rowden]

Why would I doubt that when the owner of the site apologised for the crash on twitter? What I will say is that it seems entirely irrelevant to anything remotely connected to anything that could possibly matter. I mean, why mention that at all? I found it quite odd.

[Kevin Solway]

Why would I doubt that when the owner of the site apologised for the crash on twitter?

Exactly. That's what I said. The evidence was provided in the report.

. . . why mention that at all?

You said:

. . . there being no 'truth' to be spoken.

I strongly disagreed with your contention that there is no 'truth' to be spoken, by providing examples of truth being spoken.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And, in the meantime, while everyone's distracted, no-one bothers to note that Trump's original choice for WH Deputy Security Adviser under Michael Flynn, the famed plagiarist Monica Crowley, has just also registered herself as an agent for a Foreign Power. Probably innocent enough but damn these people have a lot of old Soviet connections ...

Since the Ukrainian guy she's now consulting for has little to do with Russia or Putin but instead more linked to EU and the Clintons, it's unlikely that it's related to anything of late. But I do agree that it's likely Bannon performed a bait-and-switch with that tax return. But then again, it's presumably his job to play that kind of games.

[jupiviv]

So all this time, Kevin didn't even know this thread existed. There's a lesson to be learned from that, but I can't as of yet figure out what it is!

@Kevin, Trump wasn't elected democratically according to the technical definition of that term. From merriam-webster.com:

a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Only about 20% of the US population voted for him, marginally less than those who voted for Hillary if the vote counts are to be believed. He won because of the electoral college system, which isn't technically democratic. Besides that, the approval ratings for both candidates were historically low and yet they were the choices the people were given, which is also not democratic.

Since you've said that you support Trump because he is willing to curb the SJWs and feminists, what in your view has he actually done, or said he will do, about those people/movements since he assumed power? I mean coherent declarations of specific policies targeting the irrationality of SJWs and feminists.

[jupiviv]

Can you specify which words match with what happened in the real world. i.e. words that do not merely reflect a value judgement about what happened.

As an example: "Website of trump tax return reporter crashes".

From an article at the bottom of the breitbart.com main page entitled Sanctuary Cities List Grows to Nearly 500, Notes Report:

A Harvard-Harris Poll released in February revealed that about 80 percent of American voters disapprove of sanctuary cities, Breitbart Texas reported. More than 50 percent support President Trump’s executive order calling for stripping federal law enforcement funding from sanctuary cities. Harvard-Harris Co-Director Mark Penn said there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities. “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that’s very clear from the data.”

This paragraph, and the rest of the article, doesn't contain the author's personal opinions or value judgments about the phenomenon described. It also cites valid sources.

[Kevin Solway]

Trump wasn't elected democratically according to the technical definition of that term.

Agreed, but he was elected "democratically" according to the everyday usage of the term.

In Australia we have compulsory voting, so a lot of people who vote have no idea about politics.

Since you've said that you support Trump because he is willing to curb the SJWs and feminists . . .

I've said that I believe Trump is opposed to the SJWs, which will naturally work against the SJWs, and give hope to those who oppose the SJWs.

What in your view has he actually done, or said he will do, about those people/movements since he assumed power? I mean coherent declarations of specific policies targeting the irrationality of SJWs and feminists.

As far as I know, he's said and done nothing on this score. Hopefully he will do more in the future, if he can get the right people to work with. If I were him I would probably ban most of the reporters from the mainstream media from his press conferences, and only provide entry for people based on their merit as real journalists who report the facts. I would also organize a team of qualified people to completely reorganize and refresh the social science departments of all universities, and education generally. I would also organize a state-funded, televised, debating hall where people like Milo or myself can debate feminists and SJWs, to educate the public.

[Pam Seeback]

Pam Seeback wrote:
Diebert, perhaps spirituality for you, and perhaps all the men here goes not further than the discursive opining intellect, but for me spirituality uses the intellect to express an actual transformative experience from the world of opinion (relativism) to total realization of the absolute.

Diebert: You should not assume that others are using intellect in "lesser" lofty ways just because you are disagreeing or feel challenged or irritated by it.

Just as you shouldn't make the assumptions you make about the reasons posters say what they say, but assuming is all we have in this realm of words, is it not? Should I assume you assume for the same reasons you believe I assume, that you disagree or feel challenged or irritated by the thoughts of 'others?'

Note I did not claim absolute knowledge when I spoke of the possible limited use of the intellect by some poster's here, I used the assumptive concept "perhaps." I believe this goes to the heart of the crux of the challenge of human communication -- we find ourselves reasoning things as if they are absolute and of course, as the awakened person knows, they are not. Could there be an ultimate reason for the suffering that humans endure because of this relative-as-if-absolute dilemma? Perhaps a subject matter worth discussing, I'm hoping to post a thread on this topic in the near future.

Quote:
Pam: To reduce the reality of our worlds by putting them into pat little boxes of your choice speaks more to the limitations (and anger) of the 'masculine' reasoning intellect than anything else could.

Diebert: All words are pat little boxes of ones choice, Pam. There's no more or less "boxed reality" lurking in anyone's phrasing anywhere, no matter the style, anger or intention. Perhaps you should get more into touch with your own anger and indignation. That way you'll pick it up way less from others.

I believe everyone who is yet caught in the world of relativism (reasoning), even and perhaps especially those who have become aware of the absolute are angry. And not only do the awakened experience anger, but more than likely, also its shadow companion, depression (or dark night). I freely admit I am one of those 'caught souls' of the latter category. I also acknowledge that at times, I am angry that I am angry and am depressed than I am angry and angry that I am depressed. :-)

As I have come to see it, anger and depression are perfectly natural reactions to having been unconsciously subjected to delusion, therefore suffering. This is why I spoke of the limitations of 'masculine' reasoning -- it is my experience that its natural drive to seek for contrasts rather than to seek for ways to unify keeps the experience of anger and depression alive. This may not be your experience, feel free to enlighten. I have come to believe there is great value in the contrast-hunting experience, that it could even be said to be a necessity, but have also come to believe that if realization of the absolute is to be the ultimate goal that the will to unify must eventually supplant the will to contrast. I'll include thoughts on this as well in my future post.