Philosophy Discussion Forums

Yes, once Trump installs himself as dictator, the populace, including Trumps rabble, will be disarmed.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 6:13 pm Yes, once Trump installs himself as dictator, the populace, including Trumps rabble, will be disarmed.

That is simplistic fear mongering based on misinformation from the mainstream media.

Ideally, people will come to understand that neither mainstream nor social media are to be considered reliable. They sensationalise and misrepresent all the time, always making us feel like this is The End - because triggering people's negativity biases has been good for business for centuries. Yet people never seem to learn ...

Mo_reese wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 4:21 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 13th, 2024, 6:44 pm

The US cannot become a fascist dictatorship due to the high levels of gun ownership. The greater risk looks to be civil war, given the extreme polarisation.

I disagree. The "high level of gun ownership" are in the hands of those on the Right that seem to support a strong authoritarian leadership like Trump. Who do you see as the two sides in a civil war? The Left is a small minority with no guns and they are the ones that the Right will most apt to attack. Those that seem to worship the Democratic Elite will hide under their beds at the first sign of trouble. The Right will go on a rampage like they did on Jan 6 and attack anyone left of themselves. When their usefulness runs out, the militarized police, National Guard and/or military will disarm the Right Wingers. Just like what the SS did to Hitler's Brown Shirts.

You are not referring to reality here. This is a dark fantasy fuelled by a fear-mongering media, who makes money from people's concerns. I also note that a second assassination attempt was made on Trump yesterday, yet there have been no assassination attempts on Biden or Harris. Hmm, it seems that the Brown Shirts are from the far left; they are certainly the most anti-Semitic. Having had relatives gassed by Hitler's actual Brown Shirts, I am rather sensitive to these dynamics.

The left is extremely well-resourced, better resourced that the right - check out the levels of campaign donations. I argue that a civil war in the US would certainly be a hard contest and, more importantly, it would be utterly disastrous for all. Even China, the US's main competitor, would suffer.

Sy Borg, you have a particular view of things. Others have theirs. Others can reasonably disagree with you analysis.

Given who controls almost all of the traditional media and all of social media and given who funds the right in the USA, I think it is a bit rich to say the left is better resourced than the right. Do you think Murdoch leans left? And on social media, take Musk, for example, who proclaims himself a free-speech absolutist, but most of whose pronouncements lean hard to the right, providing little space for alternative views. The rest of the technofeudalists who control social media are the same. In the traditional media there are only very few remaining outlets like the Guaridan who lean left.

Thank goodness there are some remaining who are brave enough to challenge the hegemony of the right.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 7:26 pm Sy Borg, you have a particular view of things. Others have theirs. Others can reasonably disagree with you analysis.

Given who controls almost all of the traditional media and all of social media and given who funds the right in the USA, I think it is a bit rich to say the left is better resourced than the right. Do you think Murdoch leans left? And on social media, take Musk, for example, who proclaims himself a free-speech absolutist, but most of whose pronouncements lean hard to the right, providing little space for alternative views. The rest of the technofeudalists who control social media are the same. In the traditional media there are only very few remaining outlets like the Guaridan who lean left.

Thank goodness there are some remaining who are brave enough to challenge the hegemony of the right.

Mine is only particular in that it is based on reality, not political bias. The Guardian is miles left, Fox's mirror image. What brand of toilet paper do you prefer?

I find it disappointing to see the rabid left wing preferences on this forum and your assessment of media makes clear how far left you lean: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart (and that chart, too, has issues, eg. the BBC is not centrist, but left, and The Hill tends right).

IMO, adopting a political side is the antithesis of philosophy. It is anti-philosophical. I see the purpose of philosophical thinking is to understand what is - not to blindly follow manipulative media outlets or academic ideologues. The idea is to understand reality.

It is difficult today, after many years of leftist indoctrination in educational institutions, to be a centrist. Lefties today see centrism as "far right", fascist.

I have no time for shallow, short term solutions, eg. a certain group is poor, let's throw money at them a la Venezuela. There is no logic in perpetuating welfare traps and cycles, just as there is no sense in bailing out failing corporations. Each encourages parasitism.

But, Sy Borg, adopting a political side is exactly what you do. If doing that is "anti-philosophy" then why do you do it?

Mine is not a shallow solution. It is a deep, if almost impossible one. But it is good and, IMO, it is what is needed. And it is worth struggling for. It is not about throwing money at the poor but creating a more even playing field so that everyone gets a fair go. You call that parasitism. I, and many others, call it reasonable, just and good.

I do not believe life has to a zero-sum game with the last man left standing. We are not automatons. We can allow a voice to the better angels of our nature and we can modify our behaviour towards each other. We do it within families, communities, nations and, to some extent, we could do it globally as a world community of free nations in friendly competition, with mutual assistance when needed.

Human life does not have to be a zero sum game. We are not spiders, snakes or scorpions but primates who got where they are through in-group cooperation and out-group hostility. However, the world has changed and is now too small and our numbers too great and our technology to powerful for such out-group hostility. We need to control ourselves. We can pursue democracy and foster greater equality and nurture the planet if that's what we want. It is not decreed by evoution or by fate that we must trash the joint and destroy each other.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 10:00 pm But, Sy Borg, adopting a political side is exactly what you do.

Wrong. What side have I adopted?

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 10:00 pmMine is not a shallow solution. It is a deep, if almost impossible one. But it is good and, IMO, it is what is needed. And it is worth struggling for. It is not about throwing money at the poor but creating a more even playing field so that everyone gets a fair go. You call that parasitism. I, and many others, call it reasonable, just and good.

For five minutes until the system breaks down. You can only throw money around for so long before it runs out.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 10:00 pm I do not believe life has to a zero-sum game with the last man left standing. We are not automatons. We can allow a voice to the better angels of our nature and we can modify our behaviour towards each other. We do it within families, communities, nations and, to some extent, we could do it globally as a world community of free nations in friendly competition, with mutual assistance when needed.

You seem to live in Shangri-La. To imagine a global situation where no one ever takes advantage of another's good nature ignores history annd human/animal nature - completely. Thus, it's out of touch with reality. A global state is a totalitarian state. It seems that totalitarian masquerading as "good" is what you seek.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 10:00 pmHuman life does not have to be a zero sum game. We are not spiders, snakes or scorpions but primates who got where they are through in-group cooperation and out-group hostility. However, the world has changed and is now too small and our numbers too great and our technology to powerful for such out-group hostility. We need to control ourselves. We can pursue democracy and foster greater equality and nurture the planet if that's what we want. It is not decreed by evoution or by fate that we must trash the joint and destroy each other.

You clearly do not live on planet Earth. Nor do you pay attention to what I say. You seem to read "zero sum", have an emotional reaction, and then ignore all else that I say - and you absolutely ignore any reference to the way human life requires the sacrifice of animal and plant life.

Life is necessarily a zero sum game. You talk about choosing democracy when most of the world abhors democracy and even many in democratic nations don't believe in it. Again, you seem democracy imposed in a totalitarian manner, because the world is not moving towards democracy but away from it - and at a rapid clip. More people have been convicted of "wrong speech" and "wrong thought" in the UK than is Russia. But that's ok to you because the "wrong" kinds of people are being convicted, those who must be crushed and destroyed so that you can usher in a glorious new era of righteousness.

There was a time when the left was on the side of the working class, now "champagne socialists" abhor them for objecting to the globalist push for massive immigration of Arabs and Africans. The working class are the ones being sacrificed - who have to compete with the new arrivals for jobs, housing, medical care, etc, not to mention rape of "white" women https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ro ... 61831.html

Now, you might say - according to my own arguments - that the working class have not competed effectively and deserve what's coming to them, so they have no right to complain when their local areas are flooded with migrants who do not respect the local culture. If you did, I could respect the honesty (if not the decency) rather than being disingenuous and manipulative, which seems to be the usual approach in the "left's" vilification of working class and their concerns.

You also appear not to understand the concept of a zero sum game, as if it's a fight to the death until there are zero survivors. It doesn't mean "trash[ing] the joint and destroy[ing] each other" - that's your straw man. A ZSG means that gains are achieved at the expense of someone else - very often the animals and plants who seemingly do not figure on your ledger of winners and losers. When your society thrives, someone else is being exploited. Chances are that some of your clothes and electronics came from slave labour, without which you would not be able to afford them.

Further, your replies suggest that you see other life forms as mere resources for us important apes, as you repeatedly fail to address them when considering the zero sum equation. Yet these are beings with their own interests, interests that are destroyed by self-serving apes who convince themselves that they are agents of goodness because they form societies.

I don't say that we should not prioritise ourselves, but let's not close our eyes to the costs in terms of death and suffering. It's a rough world and Shangri-La thinking that ignores the costs only serves to make it rougher.

Epithets and accusations. Others should not should be intimidated by them. It is possible to disagree respectfully. And I do.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 16th, 2024, 1:35 am Epithets and accusations. Others should not should be intimidated by them. It is possible to disagree respectfully. And I do.

You disagreed disrespectfully eg. "we are not spiders ..." and I responded in kind.

It seems you are refusing to address the various points that I spent a long time writing - which is also disrespectful.

You have the option of admitting that I was correct but ...

If you took my mention of spiders, scorpions and snakes as a reference to yourself then you are mistaken. I just reread the entire post and I don't see how you could have innocently made that mistake.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 16th, 2024, 2:10 am If you took my mention of spiders, scorpions and snakes as a reference to yourself then you are mistaken. I just reread the entire post and I don't see how you could have innocently made that mistake.

No, you were claiming that I was so naive that I thought humans functioned like invertebrates - that I would not have considered that humans are a social species that band together (to out-compete other groups).

Now, can you address the substantive points of my post? Can you see that any claim that life is not zero sum is anthropocentric, not to mention out of touch with all of human history?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 7:07 pm Hmm, it seems that the Brown Shirts are from the far left; they are certainly the most anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism is not a feature of left- or right-wing politics, I don't think. It's a different issue than is being discussed here, yes?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 7:07 pm The left is extremely well-resourced, better resourced that the right - check out the levels of campaign donations.

In what country is this so? In the USA, one could make the argument that there is no left-wing politics at all, but only (two) flavours of the same aspirations and aims. As for their resources, it would appear that the right-wing, that favours the rich and powerful, offer the greatest resources? Perhaps there are other countries where this is not obviously so? It doesn't apply to the US or the UK, nor to any of the Western European 'democracies', as far as I can see...?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 15th, 2024, 9:07 pm Mine is only particular in that it is based on reality, not political bias. The Guardian is miles left, Fox's mirror image.

I know such things are a matter of personal perspective, but seeing the Guardian as "miles left" is a surprising view to me. The Manchester Guardian is considered centre-left by most in the UK. Left, but not extremely so. Of course, other views will differ. Yours, for example.

In what way do you think this might happen.
By what mechanism would greed end the "American Empire" and what do you think that is, exactly?