exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You are right: I should have said "who don't".
Insulting one's allies - to what end?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
And So It Goes: The Specatle Is the Distraction Is the Point
The thread apparently fell quiet on page eight into nine after running astray, when, somewhere around page two or three?
To recap and recount:
What it's not is that they feel defeated; what it's not is that this is flying miles over their heads. The danger of presuming people intelligent↑, as such, is its own discussion. Nonetheless, that's just part of what gets washed out in the noise.
I don't know, are we there, yet?
It's hard to explain what has happened to good faith, in recent years, but it's kind of like other requisite simplification. The thread was about particular behavior, and if that discussion seems pretty much washed out in the noise, not all of the noise is the same.
For some, the spectacle is the distraction is the point. The thread falters under the weight of distraction, but for these, the spectacle and distraction are their good faith.
It's all they've got. But this is also part of the answer in re Trump's behavior and purpose: The spectacle Trump's behavior creates is the distraction is the point.
The thread apparently fell quiet on page eight into nine after running astray, when, somewhere around page two or three?
To recap and recount:
• Someone, a columnist or analyst or some such, once framed the Trump/Putin affair as a dispute between liberal democracy and a revival of the old authoritarianism from which it emerges. That's pretty much what Trump and his team are after, and if it's harder to understand why, remember, that part doesn't need to make sense. Whether Trump thinks he's hiding from prison, or expects to get rich, or is just a Puti-poodle barking on cue, the reason why he or anyone else thinks this is a good idea is entirely internal, as such has no obligation to make sense to anybody, and likely will not make any logical sense. (#23↑)
• Think of Trump like a businessman long enough to ask why any business would do this or that, and it becomes apparent that we should not assess his behavior in that way. Trying to calculate politics according to any similar logic will similarly fail. His team is sympathetic to their mascot, as such, because they think they're going to get what they want, but even if they do, they are harmed. If we discount that reality according to some superstition that nobody would do that to themselves on purpose, we're doing it wrong. (ibid.)
• There is a certain degree to which describing the movement as a cult is insufficient; inasmuch as we might look at Trumpism as a religion, we have a rough sketch of its components. The real question is in how long this lasts compared to, quite literally, the rest of Trump's life. How much will the creed formalize, code standardize, and cult regularize? … While it's easy enough to consider fundamentalism in the Christian nationalist↗ context, Riesebrodt's typology might reasonably also describe the rest of Trumpism; their identical authenticity, as such, would seem to be experiential. (ibid.)
• Think of Trump like a businessman long enough to ask why any business would do this or that, and it becomes apparent that we should not assess his behavior in that way. Trying to calculate politics according to any similar logic will similarly fail. His team is sympathetic to their mascot, as such, because they think they're going to get what they want, but even if they do, they are harmed. If we discount that reality according to some superstition that nobody would do that to themselves on purpose, we're doing it wrong. (ibid.)
• There is a certain degree to which describing the movement as a cult is insufficient; inasmuch as we might look at Trumpism as a religion, we have a rough sketch of its components. The real question is in how long this lasts compared to, quite literally, the rest of Trump's life. How much will the creed formalize, code standardize, and cult regularize? … While it's easy enough to consider fundamentalism in the Christian nationalist↗ context, Riesebrodt's typology might reasonably also describe the rest of Trumpism; their identical authenticity, as such, would seem to be experiential. (ibid.)
What it's not is that they feel defeated; what it's not is that this is flying miles over their heads. The danger of presuming people intelligent↑, as such, is its own discussion. Nonetheless, that's just part of what gets washed out in the noise.
• A question you might wonder about, then: "Why skip the obvious course in order to threaten?" Because that, in turn, ties back to the thread about what Donald Trump and his people are thinking. On some level, he knows his argument is wrong and can only lash out in hopes of silencing a discussion he thinks he can't answer. This sort of authoritarianism is not only symbolically and historically familiar, it's also unsurprising in its way. (#54↑)
• Microcosmic particularities will always seem more particular than macrocosmic generalizations, but it's a similar framework to why Trump would insult allies. To what end? Well, it's about perception and empowerment: The behavior reflects the individual's perspective, and seeks an ephemeral sensation of infliction; if the common value in such disputes is empowerment, these behaviors reflect arguments seeking people's perceptions of their empowerment to inflict against others. (ibid.)
• Think back to Kansas and creationism, Texas and history, the transpartisan PMRC, Pledge of Allegiance, Commandments in classrooms, tolerance of terrorism; these days its Florida and Texas, Christian nationalists, any number of industrialists, and even Harry Potter fan fiction. (ibid.)
• One need not be explicitly religious to be a terf or pilled masculinist, but if there's one belief terfs, masculinists, and Christian nationalists (and even actual Nazis) all share, it's the proper place of a woman. (ibid.)
• Another commonality among those and other beliefs is that at some point, they require redefinition of words in order to maintain their argument. (ibid.)
• One need need not be explicitly religious to arbitrarily believe such things, nor to appreciate the conservative book-banning argument↗ of telling us what other people think and mean. (ibid.)
• When the science starts to inform differently than the superstitions of the prevailing societal narrative, then we have a problem. (ibid.)
• Why others might play along is its own question and pathology, but it really does seem the common attraction is a perception of empowerment. It would thus seem an important circumstance to observe, that a narrative should require redefinition of the terminology. (ibid.)
• Somewhere between the armchair einsteins and the religio-pseudoscientists decoding scriptures in search of the real truth, some otherwise seemingly normal people will feel empowered by rarified definitions that cannot be applied consistently, but justify personal gratification. (ibid.)
• In matters of history or even jurisprudence, such redefinition erodes the integrity of the narrative. To the other, antisociality has no need for such integrity. (ibid.)
• The thing about insulting allies is that it feels, to his supporters, like empowerment, i.e., "their hot button grievance issue, whatever it may be"↗. That's the whole of Trump's attraction, the enduring appeal of infliction. (ibid.)
• And if they can't justify themselves, well, they don't really need to; that's not really what they're about. This is about the gratification of infliction against others, and what people are willing to say and do in order to justify themselves. (ibid.)
• Microcosmic particularities will always seem more particular than macrocosmic generalizations, but it's a similar framework to why Trump would insult allies. To what end? Well, it's about perception and empowerment: The behavior reflects the individual's perspective, and seeks an ephemeral sensation of infliction; if the common value in such disputes is empowerment, these behaviors reflect arguments seeking people's perceptions of their empowerment to inflict against others. (ibid.)
• Think back to Kansas and creationism, Texas and history, the transpartisan PMRC, Pledge of Allegiance, Commandments in classrooms, tolerance of terrorism; these days its Florida and Texas, Christian nationalists, any number of industrialists, and even Harry Potter fan fiction. (ibid.)
• One need not be explicitly religious to be a terf or pilled masculinist, but if there's one belief terfs, masculinists, and Christian nationalists (and even actual Nazis) all share, it's the proper place of a woman. (ibid.)
• Another commonality among those and other beliefs is that at some point, they require redefinition of words in order to maintain their argument. (ibid.)
• One need need not be explicitly religious to arbitrarily believe such things, nor to appreciate the conservative book-banning argument↗ of telling us what other people think and mean. (ibid.)
• When the science starts to inform differently than the superstitions of the prevailing societal narrative, then we have a problem. (ibid.)
• Why others might play along is its own question and pathology, but it really does seem the common attraction is a perception of empowerment. It would thus seem an important circumstance to observe, that a narrative should require redefinition of the terminology. (ibid.)
• Somewhere between the armchair einsteins and the religio-pseudoscientists decoding scriptures in search of the real truth, some otherwise seemingly normal people will feel empowered by rarified definitions that cannot be applied consistently, but justify personal gratification. (ibid.)
• In matters of history or even jurisprudence, such redefinition erodes the integrity of the narrative. To the other, antisociality has no need for such integrity. (ibid.)
• The thing about insulting allies is that it feels, to his supporters, like empowerment, i.e., "their hot button grievance issue, whatever it may be"↗. That's the whole of Trump's attraction, the enduring appeal of infliction. (ibid.)
• And if they can't justify themselves, well, they don't really need to; that's not really what they're about. This is about the gratification of infliction against others, and what people are willing to say and do in order to justify themselves. (ibid.)
I don't know, are we there, yet?
• What that part feels like, over time, is that people need things summed up in little bite-sized chunks that they can more easily argue with. That is, it's too hard to say something quick and easy in response. It's one thing to dumb it down for people, but there's a lot more to, say, historical discussion, than 「Xians r bad b/c there theists」. (#153↑)
• While simplistic formulations … might make it easier for someone to utter simplistic responses, such artificial constraints also preclude other, more subtle discussions. (ibid.)
• It seems to me that, to a certain degree, the spectacle is its own purpose, i.e., the distraction is the point. (ibid.)
• The more immediately revealing questions will have to do with science deviating from the superstitions of the prevailing narrative, because that is part of what is happening in American and British politics, right now. (ibid.)
• Like creationists, homophobes, and anti-abortionists before them, the anti-trans movement requires redefinition of terms, including medicine, before their arguments have merit. That's why on social media they're just screeching over and over and over again, in hopes of conditioning the audience. Now, repeat some version of that question for antivax, tariffs, inflation, immigration, cancel culture, health insurance, taxes, spending, and even the freaking "Holy Land" … It's too much to ask that they get a better argument for their issue, so we lower the bar in order to keep these fallacious arguments at the table. (ibid.)
• And since, over and over and over again, those arguments fail scrutiny, what they have left is to make sufficient spectacle as to distract from any substantial consideration of facts, evidence, or reality, i.e., evade scrutiny. (ibid.)
• This lowering of expectations can under certain circumstances, be enforced by sheer might. And in this way, there are two purposes to Trump's threatening bluster. First, the spectacle is the distraction is the point. Second, he is asserting a context of permission, just like the question of stochastic terrorism. (ibid.)
• While simplistic formulations … might make it easier for someone to utter simplistic responses, such artificial constraints also preclude other, more subtle discussions. (ibid.)
• It seems to me that, to a certain degree, the spectacle is its own purpose, i.e., the distraction is the point. (ibid.)
• The more immediately revealing questions will have to do with science deviating from the superstitions of the prevailing narrative, because that is part of what is happening in American and British politics, right now. (ibid.)
• Like creationists, homophobes, and anti-abortionists before them, the anti-trans movement requires redefinition of terms, including medicine, before their arguments have merit. That's why on social media they're just screeching over and over and over again, in hopes of conditioning the audience. Now, repeat some version of that question for antivax, tariffs, inflation, immigration, cancel culture, health insurance, taxes, spending, and even the freaking "Holy Land" … It's too much to ask that they get a better argument for their issue, so we lower the bar in order to keep these fallacious arguments at the table. (ibid.)
• And since, over and over and over again, those arguments fail scrutiny, what they have left is to make sufficient spectacle as to distract from any substantial consideration of facts, evidence, or reality, i.e., evade scrutiny. (ibid.)
• This lowering of expectations can under certain circumstances, be enforced by sheer might. And in this way, there are two purposes to Trump's threatening bluster. First, the spectacle is the distraction is the point. Second, he is asserting a context of permission, just like the question of stochastic terrorism. (ibid.)
• • •
It's hard to explain what has happened to good faith, in recent years, but it's kind of like other requisite simplification. The thread was about particular behavior, and if that discussion seems pretty much washed out in the noise, not all of the noise is the same.
For some, the spectacle is the distraction is the point. The thread falters under the weight of distraction, but for these, the spectacle and distraction are their good faith.
It's all they've got. But this is also part of the answer in re Trump's behavior and purpose: The spectacle Trump's behavior creates is the distraction is the point.
Beyond the Pale
What happens in Vegas threatens the world.
At some point, it's malice to the point that it's stupid to the point that it's malice to the point that it's stupid to the point that &c.
Anyway, Donald Trump, today in Las Vegas"
What happens in Vegas threatens the world.
At some point, it's malice to the point that it's stupid to the point that it's malice to the point that it's stupid to the point that &c.
Anyway, Donald Trump, today in Las Vegas"
The United States has the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we may be a very substantially enlarged country in the not too distant― Isn't it nice to see: You know, for years, for decades, we're the same size, tot he square foot; probably got smaller, actually, but we might be an enlarged country, pretty soon, and one of the things we're going to be doing is drill, baby, drill.
(via @Acyn↱)
(via @Acyn↱)
TheVat
Registered Senior Member
Yes there is something a bit unappealing about we are cutting your military support, proposing peace negotiations with you shut out of them and which throw your eastern provinces under the bus, shitcanning your NATO application, and demanding that Europe supply the money and warm bodies for the proposed border guard...so hey how about giving us half your most valuable natural resources instead of using them to fund your urgently needed infrastructure reconstruction?
I think Trump said something like wanting $500bn from Ukraine... even though the US have so far only committed to c.$300bn of support, and only around $130bn has actually been provided since 2014. That is less than the EU has provided thus far, btw. And clearly the US won't spend the remaining $170bn - at least not without some quid pro quo.
There was an agreement in principle, I believe, by Ukraine to use their resources to help get committed support from the US (it was part of Zelensky's "victory plan"), but the first draft from the US apparently didn't have any actual committment from them for ongoing support, without which I'm sure Ukraine will not agree to anything. The resources that Ukraine are sitting on are valued at around $12tn (that's oil, coal, and rare earth metals), so $0.5tn is a relatively small chunk, and the $500bn may include support for the rebuilding of the war-torn areas, as well as facilities to actually extract the stuff. But Ukraine won't agree to anything without the committed support. I've also read that the figure more likely to be agreed to is $200bn, but again, not sure what that covers in terms of ongoing/future support.
A fly in the ointment, however, is that there was (if memory serves) an agreement with the EU back in 2023 or so - not a "repay us or we stop funding" type deal but just an agreed partnership regrading their extraction and trade-deals in the future etc. And they also happen to mostly (just over 50%) be in the areas that Russia have currently annexed. Or did Trump think that Russia really invaded on ideological grounds?
there is no end. trump has no forethought no real plans. its just him acting on whim like a toddler
and this is why we are screwed as a species
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Canada, Mexico, Denmark, Greenland, UK, France, Ukraine....that list of people he is pissing off is growing.
Are they the right people?
Not Greenland. But the rest, we're returning the favor. Been a long time coming.
Folks you might preferentially align with have been making it possible.
Folks not preferentially aligned with you currently are in control.
Funny how such things work.
We're not all Lemmings, dude.
Folks you might preferentially align with have been making it possible.
Folks not preferentially aligned with you currently are in control.
Funny how such things work.
We're not all Lemmings, dude.
Even SciForums. It's a Party!!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It could be war in Europe as a result too. You book the clown I'll do the costumes.
A twofer!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I'm glad that someone is happy that the alliance that has stood since WW2, probably the strongest global security partnership, has been pretty much dismantled in a couple of weeks.
If that's what you believe how a country should be governed, then you're a complete fucking idiot.
That only serves to prove there are really stupid people who will lie, cheat and steal to get power only to not know what to do with it.