There is no way to wipe out the "self", or the ego, or individualism. It is here to stay.

In my discussions with leftists, one of the main arguments, in the philosophy fora where I spent most of my time, put forth by the left, is that there is no "I", that there is no "self".

The best way to control the masses is to convince people that their ideas of selfhood and their sense of free will and autonomy are delusional, to try and convince them that the "I", the "self", are "illusions". I have argued with one scientist for years who loves to proclaim that consciousness itself is an illusion. He's one of the most ardent progressive liberals I know, and he's also a classist. Everything comes down to class for him, and he loves to talk about the "great unwashed", who are people without university degrees, who, in his warped mind, are not qualified to have opinions about the things that impact their lives.

The 99 percent need to be protected, of course, by the liberal progressives who have only their best interests in mind. Um, yeah, sure.

There are literally hundreds of videos that can be seen on Youtube and elsewhere, interviewing university students on the subject of free speech. There was one young student, very fervent and emotional, who danced around the question until she finally came to say, and I paraphrase:

"Free speech advocates are themselves suspect. Free speech enables hate speech."

Yes, free speech enables hate speech. Hate speech is offensive and it's sad that we have a world full of hateful people. But to shut down free speech in an effort to protect people from being offended cannot and will not have good results.

Being told that your racist or in otherwise jackass political ravings are not welcome on a school campus is not a threat to a healthy public sphere in my opinion. It is probably a bad strategy that only draws attention to said jackassery. It is not evidence of an equation with progressives as fascists. It is based in a recognition that there is a historical correlation between fomenting that sort of fear of "the Others" and the rise in actual racial violence. Reading the about the early developments of genocidal states in the last century of human history I think it is hard to argue with the fury that takes never again seriously enough to refuse to trust in the quiet majority to safeguard targeted minorities. I believe that a website devoted to arguing has a fair share of brittle fools saying all sorts of things in the name of the Left. I just don't find the viable working groups that I think represent actual progressive actions to be that open to that sort of fool. Less so now than in decades past. I stand by my belief that Horowitz is a the sort of former true believer that makes the best inquisitor. Just as Hitchen's view of religion was based in his own inability to conceive of a more subtle spirituality and his own attraction to ideological rigidity so is Horowitz's left a sign of his own former restricted imagination. Like creationist's quoting physicists or molecular biologists that they really don't understand he quotes thinkers like Berdyaev who would turn in their graves at his agenda.

I find it difficult to take Horowitz seriously. Here is a link to some debates that he has been involved in. If you find an area of these debates where you think he is shows some persuasive and important thinking that shines in contrast to either Wise or Albert (neither of whom are very important to me at any kind of partisan level) I would be interested to see it.


The reference to self in the word idiot is about prioritization as against the needs of the commons. I have no interest in doing away with the self and have no interest in ideas that do. The psychology that I find the most useful us deeply invested in concepts of the self and the individual. On the other hand, denying that the general sickness at the heart of our culture is selfishness and the denial of our interdependence with all life is untenable.

I agree that the ancient Greek term idiotes contrasts the individual with the polis. This is true in modern French, where the word idiotisme means a term used by a single individual.

Update: A tactful PM taught me that idiotes means a private individual or layman (I was partly right), and reminded me that idiotisme means idiom (I was plain wrong, and i should know better). If a single person used an expression, language students would just avoid that person. :-)
So, my bad. I don't want to put any falsehoods out here.

I agree! In part. I agree with calling a racist a racist, but I don't agree that people with conservative opinions ought to be kept from speaking on campuses. The more exposure to ideas, the better, unless you believe that we should cultivate groupthink? I don't think you'd argue that that's the way to go.

There are indeed racist jackasses who deserve to be called racists, just as there are people like Eric Clanton who deserve to be called out and embarrassed for absurd, dangerous behavior. The last I heard, Professor Clanton has admitted to feeling guilty about his actions, and has admitted that his bicycle-lock bashing of a Trump supporter (could be that guy was being a dangerous jackass too, I don't know) mirrored the very fascist behavior he is committed to opposing.

I saw an antifa banner that read: The only good fascist is a dead one!

Well, while I fervently oppose fascism, I still would defend a person's right to espouse whatever political orientation they decided was right for them. What I would not defend, however, and this is a crucial point here - what I would NOT defend is an act of violence on any person who is merely exercising their right to march and speak and protest. I don't advocate violence in any form, except in self defense, or in defense of an innocent who is being physically assaulted.

I'm going to start another thread, using a Dave Rubin interview as a starting point, since we are hi-jacking Mike's thread here.

I would strongly encourage anyone who feels like discussing these sensitive issues in a rational manner to join the thread...

"Our tests have determined that the President is...an idiot."

"Doctor, what does that mean? Is it terminal?"

"Well...we... it is more of a syndrome than a specific disease. We know it has something to do with what used to be called the Id, and that there is a focus on self involved in a deeply ingrained sort of ignorance. Left unchecked for seven decades...we have never seen a cure. Cheer up though. He seems to like it."

Who do you hope to impress, and/or, what do you think is accomplished, by calling someone an idiot?

It does nothing, Andrew. Nothing, except make you feel better.

**Edited in: It also demeans real, actual, literal idiots - the unfortunate individuals whose intelligence is exceptionally low, through no fault of their own, by equating them with someone whose behavior is idiotic, on purpose.

Who would I be trying to impress. It isn't some jaw dropping analysis here. This guy's moral and intellectual bankruptcy is elementary.

I use the word idiot in the common sense as a total pejorative. I don't look down on the neuro-atypical or even the childlike. I find those mental states to be gifts and ways to learn from. But some chest thumping filth ripping off everyone around him, bragging about sexual assault and his own caustic ignorance while using racism and misogyny to leverage his own megalomania? Idiot. And enemy. Any nonviolent thing that will contribute to him finally meeting his deserts...bring it. Seriously, if you can't see what this guy is I really don't think we will find a common language on this subject. We can't be in the same world.

Sadly, I think you're right about that.

Andrew, did you notice that I said (indirectly) that Trump's behavior was "idiotic, on purpose" ? If you did, why do you suggest that I "can't see what this guy is"?

Have you seen, in any of my posts anywhere, anything that speaks kindly of DT? Have you failed to notice that I've repeatedly said I do not support him and that I did not vote for him? This is the kind of thing that makes political discussion so difficult.

'X is an idiot', isn't an argument. It does nothing, even if it's true!

With all due respect, I think you both are barking up the wrong tree.

In my view Trump is conducting himself like a CEO of a privately owned company that has just made the acquisition of a lifetime. It's what he does. He's seventy years-old. He has no intention of changing. It's all he knows how to do. He's never held (or even ran for) an elected office. He's never been a public servant. Ha! Imagine that! The Donald a public servant! Republicans who enable him should be ashamed of themselves.

The fact is he has displayed time and time again, during the campaign and now in office, that he is woefully deficient in his knowledge of the workings of government and the history and current affairs of US/world politics. Only mega doses of arrogance and narcissism can overcome those facts. What he knows how to do for better or for worse is run a business empire (though he has run that into the ground/bankruptcy several times). Only in that regard is he anything close to being an idiot.

Of course, he isn't CEO and the USA is not a business, much less a privately held business. We the people are CEO and shareholders. He is a public servant beholden to us. It is the antithesis of what he knows how to do and what he wants to be -- only now he knows. He thought he could be CEO. He can't. He lies in bed at night thinking how he can get us to bend to his will. It will not happen.

Ok, he's an idiot.

But it's far worse than being an idiot, I'm afraid. A good-hearted, well-meaning idiot could possibly do a reasonable job as president, but Trump is a mean-spirited, narcissistic, corrupt, greedy, impulsive, uncaring, sociopathic, divorced-from-reality, thuggish, lying and vengeful idiot who is quite possibly at the early stages of dementia. And I'm not just playfully hurling around insults. I thought about and meant every adjective.

This post has been edited by Conversations With William, Inc.

:D

What Roger said. I am not pretending to accomplish anything. I just hate the schmuck and all the schmucklings who make him possible. I am at ease with this hatred. It keeps me warm. I am at peace with my word choice. I think that is all I can muster on this topic.

You win, Andrew.

What Roger and Andrew said. Roger's list of adjectives is particularly important, because - as he indicates - it isn't just a list of put-downs. It's heartfelt. And accurate. And, unfortunately, Trump has brought this country to a point where being pleasant and thoughtful and repressing your hatred doesn't work. He is an ignorant, greedy, corrupt, and evil man - and a disgrace to America - and the more often we say it, and the louder we say it, and the more people who say it, the better our chances of fighting back.

Michael, and the rest,

You make a good point. As I keep repeating, I don't support the man, didn't vote for him, and have gone out of my way, in fact, to criticize him, in several posts. But maybe y'all missed it?

What my point is, is simple: it's all well and good to be indignant and call the man whatever names may or may not apply to him, but that doesn't do a thing to improve civil discourse and will only make worse what is already a world-wide shit-slinging contest.

Dave Rubin, if I may drop his name here, since my thread went nowhere (as I knew would happen), is a good example of a contemporary liberal who is good at explaining not only what's wrong with the radical "regressive" left, but why shouting and screaming and blaming and name-calling doesn't do a damn thing to make anything better.

The video I linked to in my thread starts with seven minutes of Rubin discussing exactly what I'm trying to discuss here: that we need level-headed thinking, reasoned speech, and careful analysis of issues, with open minds, to fix the mess we're in, not more shit-slinging and screaming and yelling and smashing things.

Edited in: Hey, if you don't like Horowitz, fuck 'im. Turn it off once he starts talking, but at least watch the first seven minutes?

Donald Trump is not interested in "civil discourse", except as a sign of weakness in others. We've tried "level-headed thinking, reasoned speech, and careful analysis of issues, with open minds, to fix the mess we're in" and it hasn't worked. Do you see those people at the Republican town meetings, screaming at their representatives to make them realize we won't accept cutbacks in health care or tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - it's unfortunate, but that's what it takes. And hopefully we will win over enough of the representatives to make a difference - but it's going to be done by raising voices and pushing back frequently and strongly, not by reason. And while we will hopefully be loud enough and strong enough to win over (and cooperate with) enough Republicans, Trump is a cancer on the Presidency (I assume that sounds familiar), there is no way to trust or work with him, and all we can do is isolate and somehow destroy him and his shrinking cadre of loyalists. Keeping up the Russian investigation, demanding his taxes daily, and doing whatever we can do to inflame his ego, humiliate him, and force him into stupider and stupider public displays are not normal approaches - but they're what works with this POS.

[emphasis mine]

Did anyone listen to the first seven minutes of the Dave Rubin video I linked to in my thread here in GD?

It won't hurt you, promise.

Michael, I've got nothing against organized protests, as I've repeatedly said. Protesting is a GOOD thing. And sometimes people have to scream and yell. I get it. But if you throw Reason out the window, you got nuthin'.

***

...and...now... [for something completely different]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwY98217hFE

"Corruption is far better than communism". - Horowitz

OMG no!!!

“Corruption is the gangrene of a people”. Pope Francis

Yes.


“In economics, in business and in politics, what counts first and foremost is the human person and the environment in which he or she lives,” Pope Francis

How nice to have the Holy Father visit our Donald Trump thread!
The two are a study in contrast.

I don't see how "reason" is being thrown out the window just because we are vehement and insistent and loud when we reasonably point out that all the adjectives that I applied to Trump in post #90 are literally accurate. They do not become unreasonable just because they are unflattering and pejorative. It is reason and logic and reality that lead me to the conclusion that Trump is an unbalanced narcissistic lawless sociopath who has already confessed to several serious impeachable offenses (Emoluments Clause) and at least one felony (i.e., obstruction of justice by firing Comey for the admitted purpose of shutting down an investigation into his own campaign). Faced with Republican "leaders" who refuse to acknowledge the reality of this situation because they are hoping that the subversion of our Constitution might result in a lower marginal tax rate on the wealthy, it's reasonable to raise one's voice a bit.

Roger: "it's reasonable to raise one's voice a bit."

Sing it loud, sing it clear.

Drip, drip, drip
 

Bill, the opposition to Trump is the reasoned, principled position. He is the unreasonable, sometimes irrational, foe of reason and discourse. Have you not seen his tweets? Now is not the time to lecture those opposed to his open destruction of the American state about their manners. Republicans have made it clear that tax cuts for the only people they serve, the financial elite, is worth any price. That is the unreasonable and anti-American position. One can yell and scream and curse out reasonable things. You seem to want to discuss presentation when the crisis is foundational.

BTW, Horowitz is a psycho-fascist. I stopped listening or reading him or anything about him during the Clinton presidency. I'm also not interested in what anyone affiliated with him, conservative or liberal or anything else, has to say. To be associated with Horowitz means you are not a serious person.

OMG, no, Jim. The quote does not suggest that corruption is a good thing, of course, but merely points out that corruption, which is virtually business as usual in politics, can be identified and rooted out, whereas communism is systemic, ie: it cannot be isolated as a single part and removed, but destroys completely, as history has shown.

The quote from Horowitz came from a discussion about Bill Clinton. Clinton wasn't a communist, but he was corrupt - for example getting a blow job in the oval office from someone who wasn't the First Lady. That kind of behavior can be damaging, but at least it can be "dealt with", in Horowitz's words. In other words, better a corrupt politician as President than a communist as President, which I agree with, since I regard communism as utterly corrupt itself, in theory and in practice.

Pope Francis's statement actually agrees with Howowitz in comparing corruption to gangrene, in that gangrene can be excised and eliminated without harm to the greater body, whereas communism is more like a malignant cancer that invades and corrupts the entire system, usually fatally.

The Pope Francis quote strikes me as being profoundly ironic, being that the Catholic church is one of the most historically corrupt institutions the world has ever known. But that's for a different thread.


To the others:

In case it was missed, I emphasized a bit of Michael Cantor's post #96:

- [emphasis mine]

See his entire post and mine for the complete context. In other words: I am not saying that a vehement resistance to the Trump administration is unreasoned: not hardly. I was responding directly to Michael's wording there: "not by reason". And I will repeat: you aren't going to do much of anything without reason. Perhaps I am taking Michael too literally. I seriously doubt he'd advocate abandoning reason in the course of waging a political resistance.

My entire point here is that ad hom based argumentation, even if well-deserved — and hey, I've called Trump the Orange Clown a few times myself and have ridiculed him here and elsewhere — really doesn't get anyone anywhere. That's just a fact. Deal with it or don't.


John Riley - you wrote:
Think what you may about Horowitz, but to call him a psycho-fascist is really just proving his point about his more emotional opponents - I assume you've read enough of him to know that he refers to himself as libel and slander-proof, after all these years of being called the very thing he adamantly opposes?

Anyone as hard on the regressive left as he is is out to protect people from fascism, not a fascist himself.

"To be associated with Horowitz means you are not a serious person." - That's absurd. I'd associate with him, despite his faults, and I'm a pretty damn serious person, unless you think I'm just fooling around?

No, dammit - I will say it again, Bill having again mentioned the "orange clown".

He isn't orange any more and his hair has been subtly adjusted to the silvery coiffure of an elderly American, albeit a little more bouffant than one might expect and still a bit over-the-collar.

Someone has persuaded him to change an image that had seemed ridiculously non-negotiable. If I had not known of his bizarre appearance hitherto, I would perhaps be giving him more credence than I do. He is being groomed; we are being gradually, subtly, deceived.

Not a political insight, just an observation. My coulrophobia persists, and although Auguste is becoming Pierrot, I fear the ringmaster.

But back to the firing... Regarding the root cause of why we ended up with a president like Trump, here’s the answer, plain and simple:

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video...9hkY0yPpzP.mp4


Editing back in to say the link above was not meant to be a joke (though it works in that way). It was a mistake. Here’s the link:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2...rig-mobile.cnn

Act V. The king is about to be finally deposed.

Things just keep gettin' curiouser and curiouser.

He will survive everything that has happened thus far. He's president and by constitutional definition he has wide-ranging powers and discretion.

I don't think he's actually broken any laws (so far) as president. But just the fallout alone of his bumbling and ineptitude will render him a presidential eunuch. I'll settle for that. In a warped way (and what isn't warped these days?) I would rather see him whither away in office for three years than be run out of office on a rail trailing tweets, ranting and raving. I know, warped. Although he could lead us into a nuclear holocaust............ In which case I'm wrong. And right.

Sally Yates. Sally Yates. Sally Yates.

No, I think we're at the end game now. He has very much broken laws if you believe Comey, as everyone does. It's the same thing that forced Nixon to resign. He's toast.

We'll see what we will see.

I remember the good old days back in 2016 when Trump's candidacy was most surely going to end with his outrageous statement that McCain was not a war hero. Since then we've been inundated with a barrage of slanderous lies and overwhelming stupidity. He has money and lawyers to do all his talking when it comes to protecting his world of dystopia.
But, of course, I hope you're right this time.

Bill: "Pope Francis's statement actually agrees with Howowitz in comparing corruption to gangrene, in that gangrene can be excised and eliminated without harm to the greater body, whereas communism is more like a malignant cancer that invades and corrupts the entire system, usually fatally."

Does it? I can still see Russia from my backyard :D
I must give it some deeper thought, but from where I am now I see it the opposite of you. It's corruption that is malignant cancer. It's the 'ism's that are routinely excised and eliminated.

"The Pope Francis quote strikes me as being profoundly ironic, being that the Catholic church is one of the most historically corrupt institutions the world has ever known. But that's for a different thread."

Yes, different thread. But if every leader had to assume the mantle of the ones that came before him/her where would we be? The world would be a huddled mess of remorse (which is a very catholic thing to be, btw).

Pope Francis is a good man. Horowitz is an intellectual. I can relate to Pope Francis. I can't argue with Horowitz.

I'm a slow thinker. My mind is a hoarder. I must give it more thought.

To the various strings of adjectives posted by Roger and Michael, I will add (and have also done so elsewhere in the past): sadistic, vindictive, psychopathic, contemptuous, and predatory. Let's not forget violently sexist, racist, bigoted, and capricious; a creep who toadies up to evil and power in the knowledge that they have served him well in the past. What in any other context would be called a madman.

Well, corruption and communism are both rotten, but I don't think all "isms" are automatically bad.

I only know Horowitz from having read one of his books, which came out in 1998, but I have no disagreements with anything in the entire book. Matter of fact, I have virtually every page dog-eared or otherwise marked.

I have seen that he's gone much farther to the right since that book, so perhaps I should read one of his newer ones to get a better grip. As I keep saying, I find little to agree with in the far right or the far left.

I'm sorry I brought him up. I'm also sorry I get involved in these political threads on the Sphere, which used to have more voices from the right, or center, like Tim Murphy, Alan Sullivan, Jennifer Reeser, and Bill Carpenter. Not much of a balance of thought anymore, regrettably.

I'll be extremely happy when Trump is finally ousted, which should happen long before his first term is over. I see that Al Green has called for his impeachment.

Ann, I think you're right about his hair, which is too bad. It rather spoils the comparison with Custer.

No need to feel sorry for having entered into the quagmire. If anyone should stay away from these kinds of discussions it would be me, the "Low Informed". You do your homework. I wax stupidly about things I know little about. I would think that Horowitz is a good man, too. Just not Pope material :D

Bill: Well, corruption and communism are both rotten, but I don't think all "isms" are automatically bad.

I wasn't saying all isms are bad, just that they come and go. But corruption - now that's a different matter. It's the only aspect of the bible I fear. The apple tree. Forgive me for rambling. I'm a bundle of nerves these days. Here comes another big :D

Since Trump de-escalated himself into the race for president (we knew right then on the escalator ride we were descending into a Dante's Inferno) a nerve was struck and then poked and prodded over and over to the point of turning us all into nervous wrecks. Never underestimate the damage a narcissist can do. And the moral of the story? What moral? There is none.

You don't strike me as being low-informed in the least, Jim. Quite the contrary, and you do quite well in these discussions, whereas I usually wind up getting too defensive, which can never have good results.

What happened with David Horowitz over the years was he became so used to going on the defensive — having been lambasted by his peers, friends, and family for leaving the Left, where he'd been for forty years, being the son of "card-carrying communists" (his own words) — that he finally went on the offensive. And seems to have offended many.

Anyway, I see now that bringing his name up is a good way to start a shit-storm. Good thing I didn't mention Ayn Ra...oh nevermind, I better not. Here's a big one for you too: :D

And if he has to let Jared Kushner go as the latest part of the Russian scandal, I think there will be nothing left but obvious evil.

I'm convinced now that this whole thing from the beginning was about enriching the Trump family even further. "I am your voice" my ass.

Corrupt, idiotic, sure. You want "evil", type in "terrorist graphic photos" in any search engine. Gays are being caned in Indonesia, Venezuela is falling apart, and millions of people are suffering in China, etc, etc. There is real evil, all over the world.

Sure, he's a buffoon. When I saw the video of him pushing past Dusko Markovic, I was reminded of every big, bear-pawed bully I've faced up to in my life, including my own brother. Makes me sick. But let's keep things in perspective. He'll probably be impeached, or, short of that, he certainly won't be elected for a second term.

I don't like the guy, and I did not vote for him. I'm not defending him—I'm simply asking for perspective.


That might very well be true, unfortunately.