Philosophy Now Forum

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 3:42 am These perspectives make the most sense to me.

The next year is going to be full of intensity and (I’d guess) strange surprises.

I haven't watched Carlson since he was fired from Fox.

Watching it now, good opening, good comments, so far so very good.

Folks say, what to do, we've heard enough and we're convinced. Well, it doesn't hurt to hear the truth.

Trump made mention quite awhile back about directly going after the civil service system that protects the Left that owns it, but nothing about that has been made public that I've seen, if he's mentioned it since then.

That is the key. That's what Lincoln did when he took office, got rid of all the old administration, not just the top guy. They were quick to fix that so it couldn't be done again. The deep state has been growing ever since.

Of course things have changed. The deep state is entrenched, the swamp is wide, the trough is deep. Any president R or D not approved by The Left, who is not going to rubber stamp the Left's agenda without a single veto to spending, will have their efforts undermined by the pencil pushers and keyboard tappers who live in the surrounding suburbs, the richest counties in the country.

Can't have some hillbilly coming in and upsetting all that gravy.

That's why they're busy turning the presidency into just another office worker, and not even the highest paid anymore.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 6:40 pm I haven't watched Carlson since he was fired from Fox.

Watching it now, good opening, good comments, so far so very good.

Folks say, what to do, we've heard enough and we're convinced. Well, it doesn't hurt to hear the truth.

Trump made mention quite awhile back about directly going after the civil service system that protects the Left that owns it, but nothing about that has been made public that I've seen, if he's mentioned it since then.

That is the key. That's what Lincoln did when he took office, got rid of all the old administration, not just the top guy. They were quick to fix that so it couldn't be done again. The deep state has been growing ever since.

Of course things have changed. The deep state is entrenched, the swamp is wide, the trough is deep. Any president R or D not approved by The Left, who is not going to rubber stamp the Left's agenda without a single veto to spending, will have their efforts undermined by the pencil pushers and keyboard tappers who live in the surrounding suburbs, the richest counties in the country.

Can't have some hillbilly coming in and upsetting all that gravy.

That's why they're busy turning the presidency into just another office worker, and not even the highest paid anymore.

This is fantasy! The left doesn't own the civil service system. Neither does the right. That's why the right has such a problem with it. God help America if the right destroys its bipartisan neutrality. And "the deep state" isn't left either.

And as for Trump upsetting the gravy! Trump doesn't want to spill any gravy—he wants every drop for himself.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 1:49 pm It seems that an important part of your post should have been specifying whose perspectives you were recommending to us as making the most sense. I found myself listening to Tucker Carlson’s “perspectives” and naturally assumed you meant them.

ETA: I found where Hanson’s contribution starts. How many of his jaundiced views do I have to suffer before I get to the ones that you think make sense?

The views of VDH do not require highlighting since he explains clearly that he sees the issues as bring. His views were the subject of the interview.

The reason I refer to him, as aside from the fact that I largely agree, is that my interest here is to get these contrasting views out in the open. People here do not discuss, they merely oppose and refuse to examine the reasons for differing value-perspectives.

The first stage in stimulating conversation is offering a perspective, and I share that of VDH. And his general set of views (developed and repeated over years now) is a set that many — also possible IC, Walker and others here — agree with as well.

I often differ with IC (and others more on “my side” than not) but now I realize that I must team with people for a larger purpose: the defeat of this radical régime.

Will we succeed? It is not certain. It seems likely but then again we (of my side) might be surprised and disappointed.

But one thing is certain: no part of the intensity of the present conflicts will abate and they will increase over the next year.

How many of his jaundiced views do I have to suffer before I get to the ones that you think make sense?

This is a discussion forum. If it is your object to understand the opposition then all of them.

All VDH’s perspectives and opinions make great sense to me.

Why do you oppose them? And which ones most?

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:27 pm God help America if the right destroys its bipartisan neutrality. And "the deep state" isn't left either.

First, the conflicts have become so extreme because the radical left (I use a conventional term) have so much moved the Overton Window that to them centrists are now fringe Rightwing radicals. The game of labels and language must be examined.

But in my view — after 10 years of study — I adamantly oppose this radical Left faction. And I can articulate why I oppose them, and with morally-based arguments and ideas.

You say God help us if ‘neutrality’ is lost, but I say that “we” can no longer negotiate with this sort of radicalism. But my centrist political position is now understood (i.e. labeled as) the real dangerous radicalism.

I disagree. And something close to 50% of the nation may indeed agree (more) with me than with you. It is a question of differences that are not bridgeable .

So as VDH said “we” have to become immune to “your” moral-based critiques. And that, in my view, reflects a process I’ve observed over a decade: the articulation and re-articulation of a genuinely Conservative value-set.

You seem to me to be in two contradictory minds: you talk like a centrist of conversations and discussions and your desire to stimulate them, and at the same time you talk like an extremist of conflict and teaming up to defeat the other side as your purpose . You cannot be both. You must choose one or the other, and I'd be interested to know which it is to be.

So as VDH said “we” have to become immune to “your” moral-based critiques

What has the right got against crtiticism based on morals? If the critiques are indeed faulty, by all means identify and explain what you see as their faults. Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se. To me that smacks of fascism.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:57 pm You seem to me to be in two contradictory minds: you talk like a centrist of conversations and discussions and your desire to stimulate them, and at the same time you talk like an extremist of conflict and defeating the other side. You cannot be both. You must choose one or the other, and I'd be interested to know which it is to be.

So as VDH said “we” have to become immune to “your” moral-based critiques

What has the right got against crtiticism based on morals? If the critiques are indeed faulty, by all means identify and explain what you see as their faults. Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se. To me that smacks of fascism.

First, I do hold to a centrist position. Second, it is true, or a case can be made for it, that the Overton Window shifted and that centrism has now been made to seem like extremism. But this must be understood in a number of ways: the country, through social engineering (a difficult and involved topic I admit) has been significantly -- what is the word? -- altered.

All of a sudden (this is my impression) the radicalism that had been in the works for decades manifested itself as ultra-apparent. I could name the areas.

It has taken many people unawares. But now they react. But it is a slow turning of the tide. It has taken a few years even to get started.

You are right in a sense through not because I have a contradictory mind. I value centrism, that is true, but my opponent (a radical régime -- and I believe I can talk coherently about that) does not play by fair rules. It does not want compromise. Compromise is not part of its larger strategy.

Now that I recognize this, or believe that I do, I am now of the mind that I cannot work with these people. This is more or less what VDH said and what TC seems to also suggest. What is the solution then? That is, right now, up in the air.

But don't blame me for these conditions. I simply describe them.

at the same time you talk like an extremist of conflict and defeating the other side

What I say, or begin to propose if you wish, is that I now see a point where negotiation is not possible. And this is what TC and VDH broached in their talk, Again, do not blame me. What I am trying to point out is that this is what things are coming to. One significant sector of the US has got fed up with another sector. The conflict is ideological.

Let me mention one aspect: once the political régime in power begins to use lawfare to attempt to stop a political opponent from regaining power, and the political nature of the effort is obvious, at that point you must realize that you are not dealing with people who are fighting fair. It is really almost that simple. They have become the danger they say they fight against.

And I can say "I have a generally centrist position" but it has been made impossible to hold to that position because those on a farther, radical side have made centrism an impossibility.

So really I am suggesting the beginning of far more significant divisions in the body-politic.

What has the right got against crtiticism based on morals?

The Left and the Progressive set always couch their (bad) arguments in moral terms. For example here, with you. You are beginning to suggest that because I have the ideas I do that it "smacks of fascism". But that is what the Left always says! Whoever differs from them is, ipso facto, a fascist. And all the same negative terms are used underhandedly to establish moral blame.

What I try to point out is that the Right that is now developing, but really it has incorporated many views that were traditionally of the Left, is becoming immune to those pseudo-moral accusations. And is reestablishing itself within moral arguments that it believes are more genuine.

I can tell you that it is in this area that I have myself been working (and struggling) for many years. Left-Progressive politics, and certainly those what are bent to Socialism, always couch their assertions about themselves in moral terms. But they are immoral. However, and with that said, I do recognize competing moral sets. (But I agree overall with IC's assessments of Socialism and Communism -- these lead to wicked results).

Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se.

I've read and watched him quite a bit and, no, I do not share your view.

To me that smacks of fascism.

Generally speaking, for those on the Progressive Left, anyone who does not share their value-sets automatically gets located in that zone. It is almost a meaningless term though. The ultra-scare-word.

The Left and the Progressive set always couch their (bad) arguments in moral terms. For example here, with you. You are beginning to suggest that because I have the ideas I do that it "smacks of fascism". But that is what the Left always says! Whoever differs from them is, ipso facto, a fascist. And all the same negative terms are used underhandedly to establish moral blame.

Correction: you referred generally to VDH and not to me.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 7:27 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 6:40 pm I haven't watched Carlson since he was fired from Fox.

Watching it now, good opening, good comments, so far so very good.

Folks say, what to do, we've heard enough and we're convinced. Well, it doesn't hurt to hear the truth.

Trump made mention quite awhile back about directly going after the civil service system that protects the Left that owns it, but nothing about that has been made public that I've seen, if he's mentioned it since then.

That is the key. That's what Lincoln did when he took office, got rid of all the old administration, not just the top guy. They were quick to fix that so it couldn't be done again. The deep state has been growing ever since.

Of course things have changed. The deep state is entrenched, the swamp is wide, the trough is deep. Any president R or D not approved by The Left, who is not going to rubber stamp the Left's agenda without a single veto to spending, will have their efforts undermined by the pencil pushers and keyboard tappers who live in the surrounding suburbs, the richest counties in the country.

Can't have some hillbilly coming in and upsetting all that gravy.

That's why they're busy turning the presidency into just another office worker, and not even the highest paid anymore.

This is fantasy! The left doesn't own the civil service system. Neither does the right. That's why the right has such a problem with it. God help America if the right destroys its bipartisan neutrality. And "the deep state" isn't left either.

And as for Trump upsetting the gravy! Trump doesn't want to spill any gravy—he wants every drop for himself.

When all the employees vote Democrat, they own it. DC is as partisan as it gets, all Democrat.

Fire every one of them. Rules and regulations are getting changed left right, willy nilly, all in favour of Democrats, so change that rule and fire every one of them. They are not constitutionally protected. Clean house. Put farmers in charge of the government.

VDH is a farmer. Man of the earth, steady thinker.

As for your Trump comments ---- nonsense.

Here is a sample of how those “on the other side” are seeing and framing their adversaries. Sure, it’s TeeVee-type material (flickers on Plato’s cave) but worth understanding how they are seeing their struggle.

What is curious is how those three self-describe as being from intelligence backgrounds which implies Federal-State police (or military) operatives involved in a — what else to call it but a war?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 9:53 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Tue Oct 03, 2023 8:57 pmSo as VDH said “we” have to become immune to “your” moral-based critiques

What has the right got against crtiticism based on morals? If the critiques are indeed faulty, by all means identify and explain what you see as their faults. Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se. To me that smacks of fascism.

Generally speaking, for those on the Progressive Left, anyone who does not share their value-sets automatically gets located in that zone. It is almost a meaningless term though. The ultra-scare-word.

ALexis, you are doing that thing of arguing with points you believe other opponents of your ideas would have made in response to your comments, instead of addressing the point I made about Hanson's and your objection to criticism.

I haven't labelled Hanson as fascistic merely because we disagree. I have labelled his dismissal of moral-based critiques of the right as suggestive of fascism. The onus is on him and his admirers and supporters to justify what seems to be an attempted hand-waving away of any moral values. Without morals, every outrage can be brought into your "Overton Window".

So again; What has the right got against crtiticism based on morals? If the critiques are indeed faulty, by all means identify and explain what you see as their faults. Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 11:46 am I haven't labelled Hanson as fascistic merely because we disagree. I have labelled his dismissal of moral-based critiques of the right as suggestive of fascism. The onus is on him and his admirers and supporters to justify what seems to be an attempted hand-waving away of any moral values. Without morals, every outrage can be brought into your "Overton Window".

The use of the term *fascist* and *fascistic* in today's discourse is common and extremely erroneous. The use of the term is so common, so totally pervasive, that I say you must be aware of this and if you are not I suggest that you become aware of it. The word is always there, lurking and ready to pounce. It is always used far too broadly and as a term to label opponents who have zero connection with bona fide fascism.

VDH makes coherent and supported criticisms about a Progressive/Left ("Woke" if you wish) ideological movement that has matured in the last decade or so into a powerful sector which he regards as dangerous. This sort of criticism is developing more and more among those who are reacting against a range of excesses by this ideologically-driven sector. I say that his critique is not without merit.

I have labelled his dismissal of moral-based critiques of the right as suggestive of fascism

You might want to offer some quotes from any of his written work where he does this. And I think you would need to point out your own perspectives on this issue. What are those morally-based critiques?

I would suggest that in fact the developing reactive position -- I have referred to Tucker Carlson's expose of the *vulture capitalism* of Paul Singer from time to time -- is evidence of the crossing of partisan boundaries. This is not typical or classical 'Right-wing' discourse. So I am not sure how you could define this type of critical analysis as inclining to fascism in any sense. The term fascism must be reserved when describing real fascisms.

So again; What has the right got against crtiticism based on morals? If the critiques are indeed faulty, by all means identify and explain what you see as their faults. Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se.

I clarified what I mean previously: the Progressive Left wields a morally-based argument against anyone who opposes its tenets. If you do not think like a Progressive you are a regressive, and this is a moral failing. There is no established tenet defended by Progressivism that allows any critique or counter-argument. I have come to see their moral logic as faulty, and therefore much of their moral stance as having been established on shaky ground.

The developing movement -- developing slowly and in a sense reluctantly -- against what I call progressive radicalism (hyper-liberalism is another term I use) has been forced to reexamine value-structures and review or revise moral arguments to counter those pseudo-moral arguments that are used to defend certain expressions of radicalism. If you wish I could mention some of those areas of competing moral assertion.

But it is wrong to say that VDH (or TC) are unconcerned about morality.

by all means identify and explain what you see as their faults. Hanson sounds like his party has a problem with morals and criticism per se.

Sure, that can definitely be done. But the ground has to be laid for *productive conversation* and more often than not productive conversation is (intentionally?) undermined. That is to say shut down. And those who have contrary ideas are isolated, banned, 'cancelled' etc. Are you unaware of this?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 9:25 pm Mind what I said about ORANGE MAN as FUCK YOU.

Who better to throw at a dirty as all get out system populated by dirty as all get out politicians?

Someone smarter. Someone who isn't a wanna-be dictator. Your big orange FUCK YOU has the potential of destroying far more than you may have intended.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:33 pm Your big orange FUCK YOU has the potential of destroying far more than you may have intended.

I propose that you, Lacewing, have no adequate conception about what is valuable and needing to be preserved or strengthened, so that when you talk about what is being destroyed, or stands to be destroyed, you may be speaking from a position of ignorance. Part of ignorance is not to be familiar enough with categories of value. And to become familiar with categories of value requires study (reading, research, intercommunication) and you are very lacking in these areas.

While it is true that Trump is a figure easy to critique -- for all the reasons that have been named -- you also fail to consider that he has served a useful and important function and continues to do so. But could you name any of that? No. You and others with TDS are incapable of clear seeing when it comes to that terrible orange man.

Often you use the word *skewed* to speak of your adversary's viewpoint. OK, fair enough as far as it goes.

But note that "our perspective" of you(s) is similar. TDS produces a creature incapable of careful thought. It inflames emotional unreason. It blinds the victim of it.

With this said I do not mean to imply that criticism is not possible -- it most certainly is. But it must be carried out from a balanced perspective and in a balanced person.

If I could help you I certainly would.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 5:25 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Oct 04, 2023 3:33 pm Your big orange FUCK YOU has the potential of destroying far more than you may have intended.

I propose that you, Lacewing, have no adequate conception about what is valuable and needing to be preserved or strengthened, so that when you talk about what is being destroyed, or stands to be destroyed, you may be speaking from a position of ignorance.

The only point of your ignorant proposals is to preen in your pretentious, self-importance. I'm not reading anything else you have to say. I kindly suggest you fuck off.

What this thread reveals is how mean minded Maga GOP morons is they know they have made bad choices, they know their ideas are mean minded and destructive so they thrash out like little children and project their hate and destructiveness on to others.