Trump said "they get it [data] very easily"

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, dedo said:

Maybe you didn't read all my posts as I outlined several possibilities from "DT fulfills hopes of voters" to "Civil war" with other possible scenarios including agreeing with possible JFK'd scenario, since two attempts made already, false flag,

I think I have been unclear, my apologies. What I was referring to is not the range of potential outcomes, but the false equivalency of the outlined outcomes. I.e. in an earlier post you have placed a variety of outcomes with vastly different likelihoods next to each other. So continuing the grab of power seemed, in your argument, just as likely as stopping and then suddenly do all the good things (or at least what his voters want).

Or that voters despite already having voted him in once and then giving him an even stronger mandate the second time around, despite him and his group outlining all the stuff they want to do being so shocked that they will give Dems enough power for impeachment. Or now false flag operations (where the more likely targets would be folks he withdrew security details from...). Again, probably they are all non-zero likelihoods given how crazy things are going. However, the most likely scenario is a continuation of things he only has been started to do.
In my mind, it does not make sense to make up all possible scenarios and treat them as roughly equivalent, especially as it would ignore the ramifications of ongoing events. There is a non-zero chance that he dies from a stroke in a few weeks. But clearly that is less likely than the ongoing dismantling of American institutions.

I also have no idea what your idea of a psychopathology is. What is wrong with this government is fairly simple, they want to amass power in few hands. That is not a mental illness. But a threat to democracy and the power of the people. Where is the need to reframe it to something more abstract? Why be vague when we have specifics?

 

[iNow]

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Where is the need to reframe it to something more abstract? Why be vague when we have specifics?

It's a handy way to deflect from the actual threat and distract into less relevant ethereal subjects where action cannot be taken. Whataboutism in another form...

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, dedo said:

Charon said that my answer was dichotomous, when I believe I mentioned ~5 possible futures for current events (there are probably more).  This whole thread is about "something is wrong" with this current administration, meaning psychopathology.  You mentioned issues in Europe.  So if someone wants to explore it somewhere else, that could be interesting.  Personally think the pathology is an external influence on behavior (in social norms), more than primary mental illness.  Something in society is moving people to follow their autocrat of choice.  Whatever that is, it threatens our survival.  Artists often hint at it first, Elvis Costello (Two Little Hitlers) about relationships but it hints at autocracy & conflict which intersects a political theory of preventing conflict called "Democratic Peace Theory" meaning democracies rarely fight one another.  However, something in society can turn a democracy into an autocracy which is what this thread is about.  (Intersection of art or other disciplines with science could be another interesting thread.)

Thanks for the clarification. However I don't see why you interpret something being wrong with the administration as meaning psychopathology - unless you are referring to Trump himself as the thing that is wrong. Is that what you mean?

There does seem to be a body of opinion that Trump may indeed be a psychopath. I gather he seems to have the classic attributes of one. But Project 2025 and the people behind that do not seem to be mentally ill - far from it. Trump is their front man -  their useful idiot - but not the ideological guiding spirit. His mind does not appear able to focus on anything other than himself. In spite of that, or perhaps harnessing it, it does look as if Project 2025 is being executed, with speed, as I indicated in my earlier post.  

I'm sure you touch on something important when you observe that  "something in society is moving people to follow their autocrat of choice." I am actually not sure if that is a correct inference. As an external observer from across the Atlantic, I am not clear at all whether or not US citizens have actively embraced autocracy (or the risk of it), by electing Trump a second time, in spite of awareness that he tried to overturn an election result. On the face of it, It looks as if they have, but that may be being too rational. From our own recent election choices (and the referendum on EC membership) it seems a fair portion of the electorate simply does not join the dots in a rational way. They seem motivated by single issues of concern to them, or by emotional "feel" about the candidates.

Perhaps you would be right to suggest there may be a collective psychopathy at work in society, in which hatred has been stoked to the point that people voted for Trump, emotionally, in order to "own the libs", heedless of where it could take the country. For instance there is a MAGA man on another forum who is beside himself with glee at how the "libs" will now be crushed. It's pure hatred, not any product of reasoning.  

 

[dedo]

39 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Thanks for the clarification. However I don't see why you interpret something being wrong with the administration as meaning psychopathology

By psychopathology, I meant that there is something wrong with behavior.  Behavior pathology does not have to be from mental illness, it can also be from biology including genetics, difficult birth, or external influences on behavior from toxins, trauma, drugs, or to some sort of indoctrination added to life experiences.

I believe the issues people are concerned about in this thread fall into the latter category, meaning external influences including indoctrination and life experiences.  

One criminologist proposed that criminal violence is caused by 4 specific cumulative life experiences including violent coaching or indoctrination discussed in the book "Why They Kill . . ." by Rhodes.    Much less is known or proposed about what specific life experiences causes violent autocrats to emerge, and for people to follow them.  

What people are concerned about here, may be the same process that creates autocrats around the world and in different periods of history.  What we don't know is how far it will go this time.  I believe it is a good idea to try to figure it out, before we find out.   That is because, if like criminal violence, it comes from a cumulative process then we either defuse the process that causes the pathology, or at some point it becomes fulminant and explodes.

[dedo]

6 hours ago, CharonY said:

So continuing the grab of power seemed, in your argument, just as likely as stopping and then suddenly do all the good things (or at least what his voters want).

Sorry, did not mean to imply probability weighting which is beyond my expertise.  A wild guess would be we are heading for a Constitutional crisis possibly resolved by the Congress, or a false flag issue.  Someone yesterday on X claimed there was a hit team in the US or coming with shoulder fired missiles.  Of course, believing anything on X is a stretch.  So your guess is as good as mine regarding the outcome of where we are now, and I believe I am as concerned as you.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

From our own recent election choices (and the referendum on EC membership) it seems a fair portion of the electorate simply does not join the dots in a rational way. They seem motivated by single issues of concern to them, or by emotional "feel" about the candidates.

Yep.  As I read this thread, I am reminded of Hanlon's Razor.  A variant on that might be, Never attribute to psychopathology what can be explained by stupidity.  And the current handmaidens of American stupidity seem to be inattention, civic ignorance, declining literacy, and...okay, there might be something there (especially as regards the toxic effects of social media) that could be framed as a pathology.  A social pathology, perhaps.  And the fundamental symptom might be shortened attention span.  Understanding complex issues, and why single issue obsessions cannot reliably guide a sound choice of governance, require sustained attention and critical thought.  The erosion of that is a sort of pathology in the body politic.

 

[exchemist]

10 hours ago, dedo said:

By psychopathology, I meant that there is something wrong with behavior.  Behavior pathology does not have to be from mental illness, it can also be from biology including genetics, difficult birth, or external influences on behavior from toxins, trauma, drugs, or to some sort of indoctrination added to life experiences.

I believe the issues people are concerned about in this thread fall into the latter category, meaning external influences including indoctrination and life experiences.  

One criminologist proposed that criminal violence is caused by 4 specific cumulative life experiences including violent coaching or indoctrination discussed in the book "Why They Kill . . ." by Rhodes.    Much less is known or proposed about what specific life experiences causes violent autocrats to emerge, and for people to follow them.  

What people are concerned about here, may be the same process that creates autocrats around the world and in different periods of history.  What we don't know is how far it will go this time.  I believe it is a good idea to try to figure it out, before we find out.   That is because, if like criminal violence, it comes from a cumulative process then we either defuse the process that causes the pathology, or at some point it becomes fulminant and explodes.

Behaviour of whom? That is what I am unclear about, from your posts so far. 

Are you talking about Trump as an individual? Or Musk, or others in Trump's administration? Or US society as a whole? Or some other group? 

[dedo]

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Behaviour of whom? That is what I am unclear about, from your posts so far. 

Are you talking about Trump as an individual? Or Musk, or others in Trump's administration? Or US society as a whole? Or some other group? 

I am talking about the rise of autocracy, those that do it, and those that follow them in all its versions.  So no, I am not talking just about this administration.  Autocracy is seen on both the extreme right, and the extreme left.  Those are the actors that invade, commit genocide, etc. which is where autocracy can lead.  It is not a black & white, good & evil, or right only, phenomenon but a continuum where some are worse than others.                          

 I also don't think it is confined just to political parties or to people of "low intelligence", people who are belligerent etc.  Academics & scholars can also be controlled by ideology or tribalism & have autocratic tendencies effecting their judgement.  Examples include Lyme Wars where patients were initially denied treatment for tick born illness.  Allegations made about the origin of covid & contributions to gain of function research by US scientists, unproven but alarming, could be another example.  

Once I had a conversation with a very polite psychiatrist on a forum about Hitler's pathology & its cause.  He was very nice but gave a "definitive" answer that firstly contradicted everything I read from other analysts, and secondly showed he had not researched the issue at all.  When I gave a list of references he stopped responding.  It was a bizarre encounter with someone obsessed with being some kind of proctor.  A similar conversation with a maga activist just repeating her ideology on an issue of police violence also took a bizarre turn.  She was making statements about wrestling submissions from my comment on a citizen's cause of death & it was clear she had never even seen a match, much less participated in the sport.  The issue was about the difference between a choke & asphyxia.  Activists were trying to accuse someone of attempted murder from starting a choke, never completed, when it was clear the citizen died from asphyxia, or being held down with pressure on the chest, both attacks I personally experienced in training. 

So the process of extreme tribalism (spouting ideology)& a desire to be some kind of autocrat, from my POV is not confined to maga but may be a common process with widespread implications.  Common processes are behind many diseases and pathologies including atherosclerosis, coronary disease, and criminal violence where a researcher claimed 4 specific life experiences accumulate to produce violent criminals discussed in "Why They Kill . . ." by Rhodes.  It is a pathology that is easy to see in actors actively committing or exhorting genocide, but more difficult to see in the process that got groups to that point.  This thread is about the early process in my opinion for the extreme right.  How far it goes is unknown & your guess is as good as mine.

Edited February 11 by dedo

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, dedo said:

I am talking about the rise of autocracy, those that do it, and those that follow them in all its versions.  So no, I am not talking just about this administration.  Autocracy is seen on both the extreme right, and the extreme left.  Those are the actors that invade, commit genocide, etc. which is where autocracy can lead.  It is not a black & white, good & evil, or right only, phenomenon but a continuum where some are worse than others.                          

 I also don't think it is confined just to political parties or to people of "low intelligence", people who are belligerent etc.  Academics & scholars can also be controlled by ideology or tribalism & have autocratic tendencies effecting their judgement.  Examples include Lyme Wars where patients were initially denied treatment for tick born illness.  Allegations made about the origin of covid & contributions to gain of function research by US scientists, unproven but alarming, could be another example.  

Once I had a conversation with a very polite psychiatrist on a forum about Hitler's pathology & its cause.  He was very nice but gave a "definitive" answer that firstly contradicted everything I read from other analysts, and secondly showed he had not researched the issue at all.  When I gave a list of references he stopped responding.  It was a bizarre encounter with someone obsessed with being some kind of proctor.  A similar conversation with a maga activist just repeating her ideology on an issue of police violence also took a bizarre turn.  She was making statements about wrestling submissions from my comment on a citizen's cause of death & it was clear she had never even seen a match, much less participated in the sport.  The issue was about the difference between a choke & asphyxia.  Activists were trying to accuse someone of attempted murder from starting a choke, never completed, when it was clear the citizen died from asphyxia, or being held down with pressure on the chest, both attacks I personally experienced in training. 

So the process of extreme tribalism (spouting ideology)& a desire to be some kind of autocrat, from my POV is not confined to maga but may be a common process with widespread implications.  Common processes are behind many diseases and pathologies including atherosclerosis, coronary disease, and criminal violence where a researcher claimed 4 specific life experiences accumulate to produce violent criminals discussed in "Why They Kill . . ." by Rhodes.  It is a pathology that is easy to see in actors actively committing or exhorting genocide, but more difficult to see in the process that got groups to that point.  This thread is about the early process in my opinion for the extreme right.  How far it goes is unknown & your guess is as good as mine.

You continue to introduce more medical terminology. To be honest I do not think this sheds any light on what is going on in the USA just now.

We could certainly have a thread on the appeal of autocracies in general and what makes people turn to them - or how they come to be otherwise imposed . That would involve revisiting the histories of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain and Portugal, discussion of incitement to hatred of "out" groups, the turbocharging and exploitation of perceived grievances nowadays by the internet, etc. (I think we could have that discussion without medical terminology, as it happens.) 

But I do not think that is what this thread is about, which is concerned with the outrageous actions of Trump's administration, day by day.    

 

 

Edited February 11 by exchemist

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

We could certainly have a thread on the appeal of autocracies in general and what makes people turn to them - or how they come to be otherwise imposed . That would involve revisiting the histories of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain and Portugal, discussion of incitement to hatred of "out" groups, the turbocharging and exploitation of perceived grievances nowadays by the internet, etc. (I think we could have that discussion without medical terminology, as it happens.) 

Exactly, we have historic precedence and much of it is appealing to base human nature. If folks are afraid and feel that they are victims of something, you can make them to do virtually anything. Up and an including genocide. There are many, many books on fascism and other authoritarian systems and one can use those as a framework to describe the current situations. It is certainly not new. The only thing that really changes is the various mechanisms (e.g., social media). But the dismantling of protective (democratic) structures is very similar- erosion of power separation (Gleichschaltung) control of public narratives and so on.

The issue is mixing up terminologies and methodologies from other areas really just obfuscate matters. And where things go is fairly simple, either the structures hold up and resist further erosion, or it doesn't. We have seen that cruelty is really only relevant to a minority of Americans at this point (and to be fair, same can be said in Europe, potentially Canada, too). So rather than thinking we are in unprecedented territory with only guesswork available to us, I would argue that we are stepping in very precedented territory and can draw hypotheses from there.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

There are many, many books on fascism and other authoritarian systems and one can use those as a framework to describe the current situations. It is certainly not new. The only thing that really changes is the various mechanisms (e.g., social media).

Katastrophenpolitik....

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/hitler-oligarchs-hugenberg-nazi/681584/

free link here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/hitler-oligarchs-hugenberg-nazi/681584/?gift=43H6YzEv1tnFbOn4MRsWYgtVAaRco4y6FVJIrz5a_hU&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

(quote)

To this end, Hugenberg practiced what he called Katastrophenpolitk, “the politics of catastrophe,” by which he sought to polarize public opinion and the political parties with incendiary news stories, some of them Fabrikationen—entirely fabricated articles intended to cause confusion and outrage. According to one such story, the government was enslaving German teenagers and selling them to its allies in order to service its war debt. Hugenberg calculated that by hollowing out the political center, political consensus would become impossible and the democratic system would collapse.   (end quote)

[CharonY]

Hugenberg's party (DNVP) has been discussed a lot also as an enabler of the NSDAP. The DNVP was a monarchist, national-conservative party which eventually tried to mellow up right before Hugenberg took over. He moved the party more to the right (closer to its origins) and advocated rule via non-parliamentary means. He did supported the NSDAP personally as they saw them as a means to combat the left parties and to make more inroads with the working class. At a range of events they enabled Hitler to be considered a respectable figure after his failed coup.

I mean, where could one possible see any parallels to current events?

[dedo]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

We could certainly have a thread on the appeal of autocracies in general and what makes people turn to them - or how they come to be otherwise imposed . That would involve revisiting the histories of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain and Portugal, discussion of incitement to hatred of "out" groups, the turbocharging and exploitation of perceived grievances nowadays by the internet, etc. (I think we could have that discussion without medical terminology, as it happens.)

Good idea.  A recent easy to read book on the rise of autocracy in the US, that seems to target the current admin. & may appeal to those concerned in this thread is Snyder's "On Tyranny".  I wish this was required reading for everyone in Congress so they might think a little before confirming people with potential to harm institutions for party ideology.

A recent article about the rise of autocracy in general:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2024-02-16/indonesia-election-result-comes-amid-global-rise-of-autocracies

This article, notes that the rise of autocracy is aided by liberal policies that many in the public object to which is my main problem with those policies, discussed in another thread.  I believe it is the same process, & that could be debated, disproven, or improved, on the thread you suggest.

The first reference is more relevant to the current thread.

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, dedo said:

This article, notes that the rise of autocracy is aided by liberal policies that many in the public object to which is my main problem with those policies, discussed in another thread.  I believe it is the same process, & that could be debated, disproven, or improved, on the thread you suggest.

Uhhh, it only mentions one aspect that could be a liberal policy and that would be

Quote

Secondly, in some places around the world there has been a negative reaction to sociopolitical change, such as increasing LGBTQ+ rights and rising immigration.

I mean, if trying to get folks equal rights results in autocracies, I would imagine that the democratic principles ain't that strong to begin with. Also I find it very interesting how that is phrased. Right-wing conservatives have worked very had to undermine democratic principles ranging from spreading blatant misinformation to incite culture and race wars, forming think tanks and societies that undermine checks and balances and putting anti-democratic forces into key positions, sowing mistrust into systems and also attempting the odd  coups. And yet it is somehow liberal policies that caused all that? I mean come on, at least try to find Ockham's razor here.

I will also note again that part of the autocratic playbook is to blame others for their actions. "Look what [they] make me do? Because of them I just had to overthrow democratic principles and build concentration camps. And taking away your rights is the only way to protect you from [them]."

This has been best explored in fascism, where fascination with victimhood served as justification for the committed atrocities (and it is a common element in the identification of the rather diffuse characteristics of fascism).

Also, how about I cite a few points from the book you mentioned and see if you can spot some overlap (BTW the book was published sometime around the first Trump administration):

Quote

“The most intelligent of the Nazis, the legal theorist Carl Schmitt, explained in clear language the essence of fascist governance. The way to destroy all rules, he explained, was to focus on the idea of the exception. A Nazi leader outmaneuvers his opponents by manufacturing a general conviction that the present moment is exceptional, and then transforming that state of exception into a permanent emergency. Citizens then trade real freedoms for false safety.”

Quote

“There is no doctrine called extremism. When tyrants speak of extremists, they just mean people who are not in the mainstream—as the tyrants themselves are defining that mainstream at that particular moment. Dissidents of the twentieth century, whether they were resisting fascism or communism, were called extremists. Modern authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, use laws on extremism to punish those who criticize their policies. In this way the notion of extremism comes to mean virtually everything except what is, in fact, extreme: tyranny.”

Quote

In the politics of eternity, the seduction by a mythicized past prevents us from
thinking about possible futures. The habit of dwelling on victimhood dulls the
impulse of self-correction. Since the nation is defined by its inherent virtue rather than by its future potential, politics becomes a discussion of good and evil rather than a discussion of possible solutions to real problems. Since the crisis is permanent, the sense of emergency is always present; planning for the future seems impossible or even disloyal. How can we even think of reform when the enemy is always at the gate?

Why do we have something as stupid as the culture wars? Because some kind of enemy had to be found. And in recent times our lives have to be become so comfortable that folks decided to make up enemies and/or revive old tropes, such as immigrants.

Again, there are no new ideas here.

[dedo]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

I mean, if trying to get folks equal rights results in autocracies, I would imagine that the democratic principles ain't that strong to begin with.

Equal rights are great.  Locking up abortion protesters is not equal rights and a great way to lose millions of voters from 52 million Catholics in the US.  Equal rights for different gender identities & sexual preferences is great, but some in that community transferred to proselytizing a lifestyle drawing the ire of conservative parents fearful about their children creating great opportunities for R wing campaigns.  Immigrants are definitely needed in the US, but to do it with an open border, while keeping legal immigration difficult created the perception that the sole purpose was to try to rig elections by altering voter demographics, another great gift to R wing campaigns.  

I could go on, but you put what I think is the solution in one of your quotes meaning to try and get to problem solving, instead of pushing ideology.  It is nearly impossible to convince someone of your ideology, but at the height of the Cold War the US & the Soviet Union cooperated to solve small pox, even with extremes of ideology.

So congrats on posting what may be part of the solution to save humanity.  Now the evidence in this thread posted so far is that the Rep may make the same mistake & offend so many people that Dems roar back.  Hopefully, at some point one of them will heed the "solution" you posted & solve problems.

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, dedo said:

Equal rights are great.  Locking up abortion protesters is not equal rights and a great way to lose millions of voters from 52 million Catholics in the US.  Equal rights for different gender identities & sexual preferences is great, but some in that community transferred to proselytizing a lifestyle drawing the ire of conservative parents fearful about their children creating great opportunities for R wing campaigns.  Immigrants are definitely needed in the US, but to do it with an open border, while keeping legal immigration difficult created the perception that the sole purpose was to try to rig elections by altering voter demographics, another great gift to R wing campaigns.  

I could go on, but you put what I think is the solution in one of your quotes meaning to try and get to problem solving, instead of pushing ideology.  It is nearly impossible to convince someone of your ideology, but at the height of the Cold War the US & the Soviet Union cooperated to solve small pox, even with extremes of ideology.

So congrats on posting what may be part of the solution to save humanity.  Now the evidence in this thread posted so far is that the Rep may make the same mistake & offend so many people that Dems roar back.  Hopefully, at some point one of them will heed the "solution" you posted & solve problems.

Your last paragraph comfortably assumes that free and fair elections will continue, so that the will of the people can still express itself via secret ballot.

I do not think this is at all a safe assumption.  The lesson of the authoritarian takeovers of the c.20th history, of which we have plenty of examples, as discussed above, is that they get to work dismantling the institutions and structures that are required to support a functioning democracy. We can see this process taking place with frightening speed, week by week in Trump's USA.

The next logical step will be for the Executive to start disregarding the numerous restraining orders from the courts. This is already starting (Rhode Island judge John J McConnell vs. DOGE). The marshals who are responsible for enforcing compliance with court rulings are controlled by............... the Dept of Justice, now headed by Pam Bondi, a Trump appointee and vocal promoter of the "election steal" fiction in 2020. Will Bondi allow the marshals to do their job? Vance is on record as suggesting the courts are actually powerless to enforce their own rulings. 

If and when this defiance of the courts occurs, they will have achieved "authoritarian breakthrough". After that the electoral system itself will be up for grabs. 

 

Edited February 12 by exchemist

[dedo]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

Your last paragraph comfortably assumes that free and fair elections will continue, so that the will of the people can still express itself via secret ballot.

Definitely is a possibility.  But I think I addressed that in "possible futures" with civil war as a "possible future".

However, US could go full on fascist as well as a "possible future" since if there is a common process causing this, then no one is immune including EU nations.  So if US goes, EU is also at risk.  Except if there is a cumulative process behind the rise of authoritarianism, then some EU countries could have lower levels of the process in society just as Germany & Japan are clearly not the same now as they were in 1939.  Losing a war is the most common way for society to change ideology.  Hopefully, we can find a better way.

Edited February 12 by dedo

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, dedo said:

Locking up abortion protesters is not equal rights and a great way to lose millions of voters from 52 million Catholics in the US.  

AFAIK the only protestors being locked up were those breaking the law, e.g. trespass, vandalism, abusing clients of the clinic - do you have a citation to back up your claim that the laws are not being enforced equally at abortion clinics?

10 hours ago, dedo said:

Equal rights for different gender identities & sexual preferences is great, but some in that community transferred to proselytizing a lifestyle drawing the ire of conservative parents fearful about their children creating great opportunities for R wing campaigns.

Sounds like blaming the victim.  Do you have evidence to support your claim that LGBTQ people are "proselytizing a lifestyle"?  Or that actual such conduct is what generates this conservative ire you speak of?  Frankly, this sounds like a RW talking point from those who want to justify their bigotry and fear mongering.  

I generally am having trouble with your posts tossing off a plethora of unsupported opinions.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Do you have evidence to support your claim that LGBTQ people are "proselytizing a lifestyle"?

Of course not. This is parallel to another obscenely common assertion that LGBTQ people asking for equality is equivalent to "forcing your beliefs down my throat. keep your deviance away from my children, you human piece of garbage."

16 minutes ago, TheVat said:

bigotry and fear mongering

“The propagandist’s purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human.” – Aldous Huxley

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, dedo said:

Definitely is a possibility.  But I think I addressed that in "possible futures" with civil war as a "possible future".

However, US could go full on fascist as well as a "possible future" since if there is a common process causing this, then no one is immune including EU nations.  So if US goes, EU is also at risk.  Except if there is a cumulative process behind the rise of authoritarianism, then some EU countries could have lower levels of the process in society just as Germany & Japan are clearly not the same now as they were in 1939.  Losing a war is the most common way for society to change ideology.  Hopefully, we can find a better way.

Hmm, I can’t help noticing that you seem to keep trying to draw attention away from the thread topic, by swerving into generalities, false equivalence and whataboutery.

This thread is about what is happening right now, in one specific country, and the dangers of where it can lead if it is not stopped. 

Edited February 12 by exchemist

[CharonY]

11 hours ago, dedo said:

Equal rights are great.  Locking up abortion protesters is not equal rights and a great way to lose millions of voters from 52 million Catholics in the US.  Equal rights for different gender identities & sexual preferences is great, but some in that community transferred to proselytizing a lifestyle drawing the ire of conservative parents fearful about their children creating great opportunities for R wing campaigns.  Immigrants are definitely needed in the US, but to do it with an open border, while keeping legal immigration difficult created the perception that the sole purpose was to try to rig elections by altering voter demographics, another great gift to R wing campaigns.  

This is a prime example of made up threats. None of the things you mentioned here are real. And because of that the threat perception can persist forever. You could point out that the only arrests made not for protesting, but e.g., for blocking access to clinics. You could even point out that they are able to legally form fake clinics where women are given misinformation. But none of it would change the idea of victimhood. Heck, even the pope criticizing Trump doesn't do much to move the needle.

As mentioned, merely existing and made visible seems to be proselytizing to some. And even worse, even when invisible, as they were before, they would just be attributed nefarious actions. After all, once invisible how would they be able to demonstrate that this not true?

Open borders are an outright lie just as the idea of demographic change is just a thinly veiled version of the great replacement. In fact, it is very telling as there is the underlying assumption that anything but being white is a threat to their position (especially considering that many immigrants are socially conservative). Why is that, I wonder?

You mentioned Snyder's book earlier. While I am not a big fan of such short reads I suggest you take a look at it, specifically:

Quote

To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no
one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do
so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays
for the most blinding lights.

Quote

You submit to tyranny when you renounce the difference between what you want to hear and what is actually the case. This renunciation of reality can feel natural and pleasant, but the result is your demise as an individual—and thus the collapse of any political system that depends upon individualism. As observers of totalitarianism such as Victor Klemperer noticed, truth dies in four modes, all of which we have just witnessed

Among the four modes there is:

- hostility to verifiable reality ("they are locking up abortion protestors")

- endless repetition or incantations ("open borders", "LGBTQ agenda")

Also from the Snyder:

Quote

Investigate.
Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles.
Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media.
Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you.
Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of
which come from abroad). Take responsibility for what you
communicate with others.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, dedo said:

However, US could go full on fascist as well as a "possible future" since if there is a common process causing this, then no one is immune including EU nations.  So if US goes, EU is also at risk.  Except if there is a cumulative process behind the rise of authoritarianism, then some EU countries could have lower levels of the process in society just as Germany & Japan are clearly not the same now as they were in 1939.  Losing a war is the most common way for society to change ideology.  Hopefully, we can find a better way.

Not sure what you are trying to do here. The right has organized across borders, ample help from social media. Of course Europe is at risk, has been for a while. Specifically the refugee crises has led to the demise of many establishment parties and the rise of more radical parties. Yet again, folks found a threat, heavily amplified by some facts and a lot of fiction. To change ideology you don't need a war. Being lied to works just as well.

[dedo]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Sounds like blaming the victim.  Do you have evidence to support your claim that LGBTQ people are "proselytizing a lifestyle"? 

Your post shows an inability to comprehend what will and will not offend massive swaths of voters in the US which is the whole problem in both liberal and conservative ideology which I believe comes from the exact same process / disease that produces:  1.  tribalism.  People in tribes can ignore almost any moral abomination in their tribe up to genocide depending on degree of infection and often accuse others of what they do.  2.  Patriarchy that can affect both sexes defined as an obsession with bullying or picking on those perceived as vulnerable.  Both conservative & liberal ideologies are infected.  Some can legitimately argue which side is worse which is what is happening on this thread.  However, saying or implying that it is only conservatives is complete nonsense & is exactly what brought the current US administration to power & may aid the rise of other extreme R wing groups in other countries.

How many voters do you think this display sent to Rep voting booths?

 How many voters do you think this will send to R wing politicians?

 Do you think the people in pride parades showing complete nudity or sexual acts were LGBTQ advocates, or R wing imposters because they helped bring Maga to power?  You can google articles on that.

People in tribes seem to just lack the ability to understand how people outside the tribe think which is part of the disease.  To say or imply that it only affects conservatives is nonsense and not consistent with a mountain of evidence.  Extreme left wing groups have done their share of genocides & autocracy genocide by "committee" or a Communist Party is still genocide.   

You can make a legit argument at any point in time which side is "worse" & I may agree with you.  However, "who is worse" changes at different points in history which is what you would expect from a cumulative process.  Arguing over who is worse is the how the Middle East ended up with the harmony they have.  It is a waste of time & is as fruitful as doctors in a trauma center giving a moral test to someone bleeding before rendering aid.  Diseases don't get solved by moralists, politicians, or political advocates on the right or left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12 by dedo

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, dedo said:

People in tribes seem to just lack the ability to understand how people outside the tribe think which is part of the disease.  To say or imply that it only affects conservatives is nonsense and not consistent with a mountain of evidence. 

You are missing the broader point, or perhaps approach the issue for a certain fixed position. The broader point is really why are folks so upset about certain things (outside of their tribe) as you mentioned?

Are these threats real? For example, do you think that nudity inevitably leads to autocratic leanings? All you are saying about tribalism is that folks do not follow logic and facts. That might be true to various degrees, and yet, we see a rise of right-wing autocracies across Europe and the US, yet very little in the area of left-wing autocracies. Why is that?

Just because voters might ignore facts, it doesn't meant that they don't matter.

[dedo]

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Are these threats real? For example, do you think that nudity inevitably leads to autocratic leanings? All you are saying about tribalism is that folks do not follow logic and facts

Real or not real is immaterial if it drives people into R wing parties and voting booths.  Insensitivity to other people's POV is part of tribalism & that is what I am saying.  Personally, I like much of liberal ideology excluding what was listed above.  I don't think I am the one here with a "fixed position" likely from training and living in an environment where personal skill alone was not enough to produce a low enough error rate so the opinion of others was actively sought.  Most people in tribes don't have that experience so I understand how they got that way.

As far as right vs left autocracies, I explained that regarding different periods in history.  Communism was the last to be proven a failure in many people's perception also aiding the rise of right.  However, earlier in the 20th C., it was much more popular.  

Ping ponging back and forth between right and left is just a race to the bottom & oblivion. Unlike most tribalist actors, I am not interested in convincing people of my ideology that is always looking to improve, just solving problems.  People who deal with risk consider the consequences of being wrong.  If there is a common cumulative process, & it is not addressed, the world explodes regardless of who is in power & where.   

Edited February 12 by dedo

[MigL]

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that while you guys ( CharonY, TheVat, Exchemist and INow ) are what I consider critical thinkers, a large swath of the American population is not.
The majority have become the 'useful idiots' of this group trying to dismantle American democracy.

Most Americans don't consider how tariffs will affect their costs or employment. They are told they are the greatest thing, and they believe it.
They are told immigrants are their problem, not thinking about how many jobs immigrants ( and not Americans ) are willing to do, and how the economy and their comfort will be affected.
They are told other people are taking unfair advantage of them, and the right to do so should be taken from them;  they don't think  and realize that the group preaching this is actually targeting them.

And not just Americans.
I have arguments most evenings, and even at work with otherwise intelligent people, Canadians who buy into this crap.

I can somewhat understand how this could happen a century ago, where a few influential people could sway people's minds, but I cannot understand how people are so easily swayed today given the wealth of information sources and viewpoints available.

Edited February 12 by MigL