Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 12:31:50 GMT -5
It's hard to get a sense of how broad and deep the stupidity and insanity is. If I browse some hell-scape like Twitter, I see videos of people saying and doing things that make me think it would be better if a giant asteroid just wiped out humanity. Or at least that I should retreat to a mountain house and stock up on ammo and supplies.
But I think it's also a problem with these politicians and media constantly pushing the images of the worst of the worst in order to scare their voters into voting, or keep people consuming the media and advertisements.
I'm not a big Trump fan, but I also find it a bizarre over-reaction to compare him, as some of his opponents do, to the worst murderous dictators in history. In one telling moment a couple years back, Trump called some Central American gang members "animals". (They had committed extremely violent homicides.) Pelosi went on TV and said that called *immigrants* animals. When you look at true evil in history, do you really need to lie and misquote it, in order to make it look bad? They've done that to him repeatedly, and it prompts me to defend him, even though I don't really like a lot of his behavior either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2020 13:21:29 GMT -5
It's hard to get a sense of how broad and deep the stupidity and insanity is. If I browse some hell-scape like Twitter, I see videos of people saying and doing things that make me think it would be better if a giant asteroid just wiped out humanity. Or at least that I should retreat to a mountain house and stock up on ammo and supplies. But I think it's also a problem with these politicians and media constantly pushing the images of the worst of the worst in order to scare their voters into voting, or keep people consuming the media and advertisements. I'm not a big Trump fan, but I also find it a bizarre over-reaction to compare him, as some of his opponents do, to the worst murderous dictators in history. In one telling moment a couple years back, Trump called some Central American gang members "animals". (They had committed extremely violent homicides.) Pelosi went on TV and said that called *immigrants* animals. When you look at true evil in history, do you really need to lie and misquote it, in order to make it look bad? They've done that to him repeatedly, and it prompts me to defend him, even though I don't really like a lot of his behavior either. Yes, I think it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. And I actually do think that people are interested in the truth and in a true cause but that this kind of genuine interest gets diverted and subverted all the time by very skilled players in the game. And so when you factor in what people are exposed to all day coming from all sides plus that people are more inclined to react to whatever happens in front of their noses than making an effort to focus on what they really want (instead of what other people want them to want), it's not a surprise that we see what we are seeing right now. So be careful where you put your attention these days. There are currently a lot of attention grabbing things happening that may lead you down a path you don't really want to end up on. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 21, 2020 14:04:39 GMT -5
To me this is all about what sources of information you have access to. And that varies from person to person, and so their political opinions vary accordingly. In that sense, a question worth pondering for Joe Average is this: If it isn't announced in the 6 o'clock news and won't be be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen? Or conversely - since we are living in the age of fake news - maybe we should rather ask: If it is announced in the 6 o'clock news and will be printed in the New York Times, did it really happen?  .. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??"  I believe that many deluded people believe they know / tell the truth. Is it a mitigating factor? Unfortunately it is, people aren't held accountable (don't get a proportional feedback), hence they never learn. Eventually they will, but in a more painful way, because of the accumulated potential. For the news consumer, the working hypothesis should be that they can't know the truth, and even if they knew it (hypothesizing that there is a truth, not just an interpretation), then it is likely that they wouldn't be competent enough to make good use of it. Hence somebody invented representative democracy, which was supposed to delegate the decision responsibility to somebody competent and trustworthy. Unfortunately people aren't able even to elect those representatives, because they elect those who claim to think like the voters. Solution? Don't worry, be happy and confident! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 14:06:32 GMT -5
Yes, I think it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. And I actually do think that people are interested in the truth and in a true cause but that this kind of genuine interest gets diverted and subverted all the time by very skilled players in the game. And so when you factor in what people are exposed to all day coming from all sides plus that people are more inclined to react to whatever happens in front of their noses than making an effort to focus on what they really want (instead of what other people want them to want), it's not a surprise that we see what we are seeing right now. So be careful where you put your attention these days. There are currently a lot of attention grabbing things happening that may lead you down a path you don't really want to end up on. I like your way of putting that about "attention". I always think about "consciousness" or "awareness" and these words are commonly discussed on this forum. I haven't paid as much ... attention ... to "attention". Like you said we want to be careful where we put it. But another thing... what the heck is it? It's like a spotlight or direction of consciousness, seemingly affected by will. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2020 16:28:48 GMT -5
We are going to see the swing of the pendulum. Politics didn't use to be all-dirty, as it has become. I hope Mitch McConnell loses in his state. I think present POTUS is done, way done, the pendulum will swing with a vengeance. Trump is what's called a Hasnamuss. But he will squeeze out the last ounce of the swing, there will be a 6-3 court, and Chief Justice Roberts will not be able to maintain his balancing act. Vote, safely. bepresentfirst.com/the-rise-of-the-hasnamuss-in-contemporary-politics/ The whole article is good, but after reading the first paragraph you can skip down to the paragraph above 2. "The emotional center, when it works with its own energy, is an organ of perception, and the hasnamuss, who has only negative emotions, loses his ability to perceive from the emotional center. Part of what this means is that he has no conscience, no empathy and no shame. In many important ways, it is exactly this that gives him his power over other people and his apparent strength. Since he has no conscience, he is not troubled by his lies or by his actions that create suffering for other people. It's also his lack of shame that makes him attractive to a certain type of person. Many ordinary people are frustrated by the burden of conscience; shame and guilt and inner considering keep these people from acting on their most base impulses and the hasnamuss, when he leaves a position of power, gives them permission to manifest their prejudice, their hatred, and their violent desires. Here we come to another characteristic of the hasnamuss: he appeals to the lowest in his followers, and in doing so destroys whatever higher possibilities they have". written January 2020. Read some history. To the extent that we were lucky enough to live in times of placid transitions (80's-'10's), it can be noted that those were the times of a ballooning public debt and a steady increase and increase in the rate of that increase of income and wealth disparity, where the differences between the people at the apex of the two-party system were essentially negligible: everyone at the top got what they wanted, at the expense of everyone else. It was similar in terms of wealth disparity, but not public debt, to the period of the 1880's to the 1930's. As far as the potential for change now .. well .. I've got no interest in trying to change your opinion of Trump, and this, in conjunction with my disagreement with it, should tell you something. What do you think, that something, might be?  I've voted Republican in every presidential election since 1972, except I voted for Jimmy Carter v Ford, Carter v Reagan (I was afraid Reagan would make the economy worse, if that were possible. Seems it took about 25 years (28) for his [trickle down] monetary policy to wreck the economy. Alan Greenspan basically said, after 2008, I didn't understand how stupid people could be). I voted for Trump in 2016 on the basis of anybody but Trump, but Hillary. I will vote on that same basis in 2020 (anybody but Trump). I am glad we will have a 6-3 Supreme Court. (Partial birth abortions and 3rd trimester abortions are murder. If a foetus has the possibility of living outside the womb, and is aborted, that's murder). But all that doesn't change the fact Trump is a despicable man. Yes I got fooled by Nixon. I was for Nixon until he resigned. I later found out how despicable Nixon was. So I understand how Trump has 40% of voters in his pocket. RBG dying is probably the worst thing that could happen for Trump at this time (as far as the election is concerned). I don't think Trump has a chance of winning. He threaded the needle as a hatchet man and marketing genius in 2015-16, he won't do it again. I have no idea what the something is you are trying to tell me. Trump is nothing but a sophist.
I was talking about American politics. Politicians used to be able to do battle during the day but be friends after hours. I'm just saying even that is gone today. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2020 20:24:09 GMT -5
We are going to see the swing of the pendulum. Politics didn't use to be all-dirty, as it has become. I hope Mitch McConnell loses in his state. I think present POTUS is done, way done, the pendulum will swing with a vengeance. Trump is what's called a Hasnamuss. But he will squeeze out the last ounce of the swing, there will be a 6-3 court, and Chief Justice Roberts will not be able to maintain his balancing act. Vote, safely. bepresentfirst.com/the-rise-of-the-hasnamuss-in-contemporary-politics/ The whole article is good, but after reading the first paragraph you can skip down to the paragraph above 2. "The emotional center, when it works with its own energy, is an organ of perception, and the hasnamuss, who has only negative emotions, loses his ability to perceive from the emotional center. Part of what this means is that he has no conscience, no empathy and no shame. In many important ways, it is exactly this that gives him his power over other people and his apparent strength. Since he has no conscience, he is not troubled by his lies or by his actions that create suffering for other people. It's also his lack of shame that makes him attractive to a certain type of person. Many ordinary people are frustrated by the burden of conscience; shame and guilt and inner considering keep these people from acting on their most base impulses and the hasnamuss, when he leaves a position of power, gives them permission to manifest their prejudice, their hatred, and their violent desires. Here we come to another characteristic of the hasnamuss: he appeals to the lowest in his followers, and in doing so destroys whatever higher possibilities they have". written January 2020. I've got no interest in trying to change your opinion of Trump, and this, in conjunction with my disagreement with it, should tell you something. What do you think, that something, might be? Today President Trump tweeted he wanted his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the election because the Supreme Court will most likely have to decide who will win the presidential election, because of all of the cheating that will be going on. (My paraphrase, but he was very clear). Is that not the height of corruption?  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 21, 2020 20:55:11 GMT -5
I've got no interest in trying to change your opinion of Trump, and this, in conjunction with my disagreement with it, should tell you something. What do you think, that something, might be? Today President Trump tweeted he wanted his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the election because the Supreme Court will most likely have to decide who will win the presidential election, because of all of the cheating that will be going on. (My paraphrase, but he was very clear). Is that not the height of corruption? . Following the Constitution is the right thing to do. You have to have 9 Supreme Court Justices for it to function as it was designed to work. Where is the corruption? Following the Constitution? It just happened that unexpectedly an 87.5 year old woman, riddled with illness for years passed on, 3.5 months before the next legislature takes effect. Put the country on hold? It doesn't make sense. Should the Reps be more civilized than the Dems were for the last almost 4 years? Why? Because they're more Christian and JC said so? It seems even good Christians pick and choose  What bothers me is how is it possible that honest Justices, using the same laws (and it is / was quite a good set of laws), to apply them so differently, based on their political affiliation? Those cases they ponder aren't tv dramas, with fictional characters, those are real lives in balance. The problem is that it is acceptable for judges to be activist judges, one hand or the other; it is acceptable for journalists to be activists one hand or the other, it is acceptable to lie and not be held accountable, it is acceptable to think your opinions mater more because you're smarter (in your own opinion; let's test everybody ...). Subjectivism is the law of the land. That exacerbates anger, hate, fear, that manifest and avalanche into more of the such, until blows up socially, naturally, wherever the weakest point is. There were elections, and some didn't want to accept the result. What good to have new elections then? Like here: why one's spiritual experience is more valid than another's? Why disrespect those of another opinion? Human nature. By the way, Trump wants ... So what? There is a Constitution. He is free to want (why doesn't he have the right to want?), as his haters are free to want the opposite. Apply the law! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2020 10:11:40 GMT -5
I was talking about American politics. Politicians used to be able to do battle during the day but be friends after hours. I'm just saying even that is gone today. My guess is that Richard Nixon wasn't very friendly with anyone in DC after he left, and senator McCarthy's name has become a derogatory term for a witch hunt. Those are two extreme examples, but the point is, that sort of outlook isn't a simple affair: it's a luxury someone like, say GWB can afford because he had a charmed life regardless of outcome, and it fit his personality type. And if you look back in American history you have the Hamilton incident, and other's like it. "Politics ain't beanbag" is a saying, for a reason. You can look at the charmed periods of political affability during our lives as sort of similar to the unusual period of climate stability we've enjoyed over the past 10k years.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2020 10:17:17 GMT -5
.. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??" I believe that many deluded people believe they know / tell the truth. Is it a mitigating factor? Unfortunately it is, people aren't held accountable (don't get a proportional feedback), hence they never learn. Eventually they will, but in a more painful way, because of the accumulated potential. For the news consumer, the working hypothesis should be that they can't know the truth, and even if they knew it (hypothesizing that there is a truth, not just an interpretation), then it is likely that they wouldn't be competent enough to make good use of it. Hence somebody invented representative democracy, which was supposed to delegate the decision responsibility to somebody competent and trustworthy. Unfortunately people aren't able even to elect those representatives, because they elect those who claim to think like the voters. Solution? Don't worry, be happy and confident! From what I can tell, most people never direct much attention to the question of what it is that they think they know or can know for sure, much less apply the sense of perspective to it you suggest. As robertk has pointed out, the advent of social media seems to me to have put a spotlight on the consequences of those habits. I'd smile at this, but the humor in it has turned dark, of late. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2020 10:27:03 GMT -5
They all put their blind spots on display and it seems to me that the more insightful they get, the more pronounced the effect: they describe the darkest parts of themselves in their perceived enemies. So simple! No way to make this stuff up!  Looking at it from a Machiavellian angle, accusing others of what you've been doing yourself all along is pure strategic genius, even more so when you're able to control the narrative. Ahh, yes .. now, in Tolle's lingo, even deliberate projection is "unconscious". My theory is, if history wouldn't be so essential to our collective identities, no one would care what happened 10 years ago, let alone 100 years or 1000 years ago. Yeah, I get your point here. What I'm fond of repeating is that for as long as there are people peeps there will be laws, lawyers, cops, courts, licenses and registrations. Your vision is somewhat hypothetical, and seems to me to ultimately resolve to an abstraction that's the raw material for a koan: "is it necessary for the present or the future to depend on the past?". Time isn't what most people perceive it to be, but, as Jesus supposedly said, you "render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2020 10:36:23 GMT -5
I've got no interest in trying to change your opinion of Trump, and this, in conjunction with my disagreement with it, should tell you something. What do you think, that something, might be? Today President Trump tweeted he wanted his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the election because the Supreme Court will most likely have to decide who will win the presidential election, because of all of the cheating that will be going on. (My paraphrase, but he was very clear). Is that not the height of corruption? I can understand how you perceive it that way, but answer this: how many months ago would Trump moving to fill the seat not been an act of corruption? Couldn't acting on an interest in keeping the court an even number also be perceived as corrupt? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2020 12:50:29 GMT -5
Today President Trump tweeted he wanted his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the election because the Supreme Court will most likely have to decide who will win the presidential election, because of all of the cheating that will be going on. (My paraphrase, but he was very clear). Is that not the height of corruption? . Following the Constitution is the right thing to do. You have to have 9 Supreme Court Justices for it to function as it was designed to work. Where is the corruption? Following the Constitution? It just happened that unexpectedly an 87.5 year old woman, riddled with illness for years passed on, 3.5 months before the next legislature takes effect. Put the country on hold? It doesn't make sense. Should the Reps be more civilized than the Dems were for the last almost 4 years? Why? Because they're more Christian and JC said so? It seems even good Christians pick and choose What bothers me is how is it possible that honest Justices, using the same laws (and it is / was quite a good set of laws), to apply them so differently, based on their political affiliation? Those cases they ponder aren't tv dramas, with fictional characters, those are real lives in balance. The problem is that it is acceptable for judges to be activist judges, one hand or the other; it is acceptable for journalists to be activists one hand or the other, it is acceptable to lie and not be held accountable, it is acceptable to think your opinions mater more because you're smarter (in your own opinion; let's test everybody ...). Subjectivism is the law of the land. That exacerbates anger, hate, fear, that manifest and avalanche into more of the such, until blows up socially, naturally, wherever the weakest point is. There were elections, and some didn't want to accept the result. What good to have new elections then? Like here: why one's spiritual experience is more valid than another's? Why disrespect those of another opinion? Human nature. By the way, Trump wants ... So what? There is a Constitution. He is free to want (why doesn't he have the right to want?), as his haters are free to want the opposite. Apply the law! There's no reason not to wait for confirmation until after the election, but before January 1, if necessary. I think this is the route McConnell will go. It doesn't matter either way, if the election should go to the Supreme Court (similar to Bush v Gore), the new Judge will recuse herself from being involved, I'm quite sure. Although I'm sure Trump will ask for backing, from perspective nominees, quid pro quo. I think they will be wise enough not to give a direct answer to him. I see I will nominate you if you promise to watch my back, as corruption. I don't see the Supreme Court battles as Republican v Democrat. The battles are conservative v liberal. I agree, follow the law (see, A Man for All Seasons, great film). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2020 13:07:31 GMT -5
Today President Trump tweeted he wanted his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the election because the Supreme Court will most likely have to decide who will win the presidential election, because of all of the cheating that will be going on. (My paraphrase, but he was very clear). Is that not the height of corruption? I can understand how you perceive it that way, but answer this: how many months ago would Trump moving to fill the seat not been an act of corruption? Couldn't acting on an interest in keeping the court an even number also be perceived as corrupt? Same answer as I gave inavalan, it won't matter anyway. If the Supreme Court should have to decide upon election matters, similar to Bush vs Gore, the new Judge will recuse herself. I'm sure she will have more sense than Trump. This whole thing is probably going to be musical chairs, with a lit fuse, b_l_a_n_k hidden under a chair. Law of unintended consequences. Just saw Romney will vote to confirm, so that question is probably settled. And L Graham says it will happen before the election, so it probably will. But I don't think the election will be close enough to have to go to the Supreme Court....anyway... Next question. After loss will Trump resign so he can be (pre)pardoned by Pence? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2020 13:20:07 GMT -5
I believe that many deluded people believe they know / tell the truth. Is it a mitigating factor? Unfortunately it is, people aren't held accountable (don't get a proportional feedback), hence they never learn. Eventually they will, but in a more painful way, because of the accumulated potential. For the news consumer, the working hypothesis should be that they can't know the truth, and even if they knew it (hypothesizing that there is a truth, not just an interpretation), then it is likely that they wouldn't be competent enough to make good use of it. Hence somebody invented representative democracy, which was supposed to delegate the decision responsibility to somebody competent and trustworthy. Unfortunately people aren't able even to elect those representatives, because they elect those who claim to think like the voters. Solution? Don't worry, be happy and confident! much less apply the sense of perspective to it you suggest. As robertk has pointed out, the advent of social media seems to me to have put a spotlight on the consequences of those habits. I'd smile at this, but the humor in it has turned dark, of late. I agree with that. But this has basically been my "career"/"hobby" for some 50 years, so I'm not most people. It's almost funny, inavalan is sure he is right, Reefs same, Laughter same, E same, zd same, figgs same, Gopal same, etc. same. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2020 13:33:09 GMT -5
I offer Charles D$ckens (which I misspell because the silly filter changes it to penisens) to console the body/mind: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." 'z it occurred to me later just how applicable D!ckens is to the current moment. He's what is being referred to these days as a "classical liberal", and his ideas have stood the test of time. He disapproves of the terror, as you pointed out, but pulls no punches as to the suffering of French urban poor and peasants. He leads us to sympathize with Oliver, while shedding a grey light on the criminal disorder that followed from social rigidity and the callous neglect of the elites of the day. He guides us into a nightmare of bitter and destructive regret by the mind of Miss Havisham, but still promises us redemption for Ebeneezer. In this day and age, with our perspective, looking back, how can one find fault with his vision? |
|
.. but, sadly (and yes, I know there's a deeper implication in terms of the nature of "reality"), this issue is at the heart of the current contention : "who's telling the truth??" 
