I am hearing in you a hatred of the liberal establishment, that the system is irredeemably broken, that everyone is a hypocrite and a con-man, etc, etc.DQ: I don’t share the fatalism and cynicism that you and Diebert have. I still like to think that there are enough intelligent, sensible people in the world who are motivated enough to want to take control and steer the ship through these rocky waters.
J: I'm not a fatalist; certainly not on a philosophical level. Fatalism is essentially the intellectualisation of boredom - indifferentism - disconnect from reality. How are my views indicative of those things? Are you equating my refusal to support any side of the nonsensical, fantasy-filled political dialogue taking place the world over, with indifference and giving up on life?
Which of his policies do you support?The New York Times can (for the time being) afford to employ good writers, but no longer good *journalists*. Their coverage of the US election proves this beyond a doubt (as I have briefly demonstrated above), as does their coverage of issues like the Ukrainian revolution, Putin and the state of the US and global economy.
They are making many legitimate points, because, you know, it's as easy as fuck to do that, but there is so much whiny-arsed, butt-hurt nonsense and unfettered anger that it becomes quite unsettling - to paraphrase Dan Rowden's post.
Their bias against him and his policies adds to rather than palliates the confusion surrounding him.
Thanks, I’ll explore these sites. I’m familiar with the Wall Street Journal. I won't bother with Breitart, as I've already explored their particular brand of mental illness.here are some news/blog sites I read regularly/semi-regularly:
_zerohedge.com/
_peakprosperity.com/
_breitbart.com/
_wsj.com/
_counterpunch.org/
_kunstler.com/
It goes without saying that I distrust everything I read. It is part and parcel of being a thinker. The reason why I haven’t strayed too far from the mainstream is that I haven’t yet come across an “alternative” site that has impressed me. They all seem like amateurish exercises in bile to me. But maybe the sites you have listed will be different.DQ: You act as though anyone who doesn’t completely reject the mainstream media out of hand is automatically deluded. This is a very extreme and nonsensical position to have, and it can only lead to nonsensical conclusions, like the one above.
J: I said "distrust" not "reject". It's possible to pay attention to what someone is saying without believing them. They *may* be telling you the truth, but since you distrust them you will also listen to others. That's what I suggest you do instead of obsessing over Trump.
I wonder how long it will be before the “alternative” in alternative media loses its meaning. It can’t be that far away. I mean, the alternative media is very much the in-thing these days. It seems every man and his dog has converted over to it. It’s almost mainstream.
That is certainly what Trump wants us to think.DQ: Trump is trying to pretend there is no difference between Putin’s regime and normal US governing because he aims to turn America into a Putin-like state.
J: The ills of the US government pointed out by Trump aren't lies or pretense. This doesn't mean that Trump is wise and good. Trump is a hypocrite, but so are his opponents.
“Obongo”. There is that hatred again.The cleverness of Trump lies not in what he is criticising but in what he *isn't*. And frankly it isn't even that clever because politicians have always criticised only those problems that make them look relevant while ignoring those that don't.
If you want to forecast what Trump's or any other politician's regime will look like, concentrate on the issues he ignores. For example, Trump changed his tune about the stock market being a bubble the moment he assumed office. Indeed, that Trump is taking credit for the stock market bubble proves beyond a doubt how incompetent and stupid he is. When the stock market goes down, everyone will be tearfully remembering the awesome stock market Obongo left behind and which Trump ruined.
This is a good example of what I would call your cynicism/fatalism.DQ; So we should ditch the whole idea that a leader should be rational, mentally stable, connected to reality, and motivated to rule for the common good?
J: Sorry to disappoint you, but there aren't any such leaders at the moment. Pretending that the alternatives to Trump are any better than him isn't a good outcome for anyone. Neither is pretending that the support for Trump and others like him around the globe is anything more than a misguided and all too overdue reaction to the character and deeds of those same alternatives.
I don’t know if anyone is arguing that. Clearly, the Trump phenomenon is just the tip of a very large iceberg. He is the latest link of a long and very complex chain of events that stretches back for decades, if not centuries. We have to go back, for example, to the many decades of Republican environmental denialism and the whole industry of fake news that has built up around that particular issue. Or even further back, to the denial of evolutionary theory in favour of the fake story of Christian creationism. More than a century of warring against rationality and facts by a large segment of the American population has now coalesced into a single person who is anti-fact and anti-truth personified. Trump has given these people permission to fully embrace their irrationality and they are reveling in it. This is the chortling we are all hearing from them at the moment.The political scene in the West has become an echo chamber of "tu quoque", and all those who believe that Trump is the sole or major cause of all the near term problems facing the West are guilty of causing those problems.
I am also seeing the whole Trump phenomenon as an re-enactment of the American scene in the 1800s. On the one hand, you have the lawlessness of the Wild West, the brothels, the gun fights, the lynchings, the strong Christian fundamentalism; and on the other, you have the pampered coastal elites, educated, cultured, who insist on coming in and imposing federal laws designed to protect the weak and unfortunate. The Wild West just happens to be in the ascendancy at the moment.
I had a look at those links that you gave to Dan and I didn’t see any instance of the New York Times insulting Trump or downplaying anything. To my mind, they were simply reporting the facts of the matter and the comments of the parties involved. You have to understand that those journalists were in a very difficult situation. On the one hand, they were fully aware that Trump was a vile, unstable person who was clearly unfit for office, and yet they had to write stories that were seen to be fair to him. It’s a very tricky line to follow. They have my sympathy.DQ: Your concept of the “MSM attacking Trump” is a very distorted one, for it ignores the reality that Trump is indeed a vile, unstable individual who is clearly unfit for office.
J: Your view is distorted. The press' function is to report facts about the world. It is not to slander and pour scorn on those they deem to be vile, unstable individuals, nor praise and express support for those they deem otherwise.
Trump's complaint (*months* before the media stunt you keep mentioning) about being denied the nomination despite winning the primaries was legitimate and the fact itself evinced *organic* corruption within the US political establishment. The New York Times *intentionally* downplayed it, choosing instead to insult him.
I don’t know what sites you read, but I certainly saw plenty of coverage of Clinton’s scandals. Far too much coverage, in my view. So much of it was over-blown. In just three weeks of his administration, Trump has vastly exceeded Clinton’s scandals in about twenty different ways. But apparently, those of us who have a problem with this are deluded.DQ: The MSM reflects this reality in their reporting because it is absolutely impossible not to. It is like trying to report on a major city earthquake without mentioning destruction and casualties. It can't be done.
J: And yet they did precisely that in their coverage of Clinton's campaign.
It's funny how easily our perception is distorted by our desires. When we are trying to be pure and rise above sex, all we see everywhere are pretty girls in short skirts. And then when we are aroused and want to oggle some girls, we can't seem to find them anywhere!
I’m still the same bloke. I think it is more the case that I am just not singing the song you want me to sing. I haven't bought into an "alternative" worldview. From what I have encountered so far, very little of it rings true.It baffles me that you of all people can be so obtuse and one-dimensional in your reasoning. In my early ventures into spiritual writings, I read the article/essay you wrote about how Jesus' teachings are at odds with the way Christians think and live. It was a wonderful example of flexible yet purposeful and intense thinking.
Whatever happened to *that* David? Perhaps he will resurrect when we switch to a more philosophical topic, but right now he is a happy halcyon myth. I feel like I'm arguing with a Berkeley protester. It's like Trump has *possessed* you or something. Is Meme Magic real?!