Philosophy Now Forum

It blows my mind how Trump supporters have been flooding philosophy forums lately.

We have a public figure who openly treats everything as transactional, dismisses overwhelming scientific consensus on human-driven climate change, and approaches morality primarily through the lens of personal gain. This is a figure credibly accused of sexual assault, consistently indifferent or hostile toward factual evidence, yet now inspiring followers who populate forums traditionally dedicated to thoughtful, reflective discourse.

Anyone who can articulate even vaguely coherent disagreement holds themselves up, or others, as an "expert," despite demonstrating little understanding of empirical justification, scientific consensus, or critical reasoning. Any resulting discussions often spiral into confusion and misinformation rather than a meaningful exploration of ideas.

I'm curious—and troubled—about what draws such certainty from positions so clearly at odds with evidence, morality, and reason, especially in spaces that should prioritize intellectual honesty and open-minded inquiry.

Here's how it'll go. You'll argue around in circles for a week with em, realize they're all clowns, and then kick yourself in the ass for wasting your time.

it is moral to be a leftist... the government will make your choices, unless you want to have an abortion- then that's on you and your doctor, but the government should dictate everything else in the name of saving the planet- it is the only logical way to be...

then again

-Imp

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:05 pm Here's how it'll go. You'll argue around in circles for a week with em, realize they're all clowns, and then kick yourself in the ass for wasting your time.

I actually considered a career in ludification. I got a clown suit, perfected the make-up (happy) and was all set to begin study under a real master. I should have kept up with it.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:05 pm Here's how it'll go. You'll argue around in circles for a week with em, realize they're all clowns, and then kick yourself in the ass for wasting your time.

I understand the difficulty in engaging. I am more interested in the motivation of others that support Trump than engaging with them. It reminds me of prostalitizing. There isn't a genuine desire to reflect, to observe others' views and question their own, but deflect and repeat a Fox News-like framing of all matters relating to Trump.

loveofsophia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:26 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:05 pm Here's how it'll go. You'll argue around in circles for a week with em, realize they're all clowns, and then kick yourself in the ass for wasting your time.

I understand the difficulty in engaging. I am more interested in the motivation of others that support Trump than engaging with them. It reminds me of prostalitizing. There isn't a genuine desire to reflect, to observe others' views and question their own, but deflect and repeat a Fox News-like framing of all matters relating to Trump.

Don't you think it works both ways?

In the USA it seems everything needs to be divided and rather divisive - I'm 'black' your 'white' your team is blue, mine is red.

The only people I sus out as actually being racist, are the ones continually talking about the colour of peoples skin.

Look at the Oscars - "ooh I'm the first black" woteva to win the woteva..WHO CARES?? The longer humans continually carry on about their ethnicity, the longer people will think one's ETHNICITY MATTERS!!!!!

loveofsophia wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:13 am It blows my mind how Trump supporters have been flooding philosophy forums lately.

We have a public figure who openly treats everything as transactional, dismisses overwhelming scientific consensus on human-driven climate change, and approaches morality primarily through the lens of personal gain. This is a figure credibly accused of sexual assault, consistently indifferent or hostile toward factual evidence, yet now inspiring followers who populate forums traditionally dedicated to thoughtful, reflective discourse.

Anyone who can articulate even vaguely coherent disagreement holds themselves up, or others, as an "expert," despite demonstrating little understanding of empirical justification, scientific consensus, or critical reasoning. Any resulting discussions often spiral into confusion and misinformation rather than a meaningful exploration of ideas.

I'm curious—and troubled—about what draws such certainty from positions so clearly at odds with evidence, morality, and reason, especially in spaces that should prioritize intellectual honesty and open-minded inquiry.

Fantasy that fails to match reality inspires many lamentation lullabyes and mucho teeth gnashing.

https://img.patriotpost.us/01JNQAJPWKGE ... dpr=1&q=75

loveofsophia wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 4:13 am It blows my mind how Trump supporters have been flooding philosophy forums lately.

We have a public figure who openly treats everything as transactional, dismisses overwhelming scientific consensus on human-driven climate change, and approaches morality primarily through the lens of personal gain. This is a figure credibly accused of sexual assault, consistently indifferent or hostile toward factual evidence, yet now inspiring followers who populate forums traditionally dedicated to thoughtful, reflective discourse.

Anyone who can articulate even vaguely coherent disagreement holds themselves up, or others, as an "expert," despite demonstrating little understanding of empirical justification, scientific consensus, or critical reasoning. Any resulting discussions often spiral into confusion and misinformation rather than a meaningful exploration of ideas.

I'm curious—and troubled—about what draws such certainty from positions so clearly at odds with evidence, morality, and reason, especially in spaces that should prioritize intellectual honesty and open-minded inquiry.

The underlying problem is much broader than what you're seeing with Trump supporters. Sound reasoning requires solid facts and solid critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, a high percentage of people never develop these skills. Even fewer have developed solid conceptual thinking skills which are required for understanding complex problem domains. Their beliefs tend to be self-centered and simplistic. This has long been true. It was true well before Trump.

For all intents and purposes Trump is using the same playbook as that of the fascists from a century ago with demagoguery at its core. Trump appeals to those who hold self-centered and/or simplistic views - typically those two go hand-in-hand. In Trump they have a "kindred spirit". They have the emotional and mental maturity of children - as does Trump. In Trump they have someone who also holds self-centered and simplistic views. He appeals to their self-centered and simplistic nature and strokes their egos while doing so. Trumps tells them how smart they are. Trump tells them how loyal they are. Unlike "intellectuals", including scientists, theyare the smart ones. "Intellectuals" just think they're smarter.

Tell me if I've got this right. I've been scratching my head all morning over this.

The greatest gesture of thanks to the veterans that made it possible (or contributed to it indirectly) for the U.S. to exist as a free market society so Trump can obtain the american dream and become a billionaire...

... is to cut the veteran's benefits and services so they can suffer more than they already are?

Granted, most of the ww2 and vietnam era vets have croaked or are about to, and the biggest existing batch of vets now are from the Middle East conflicts. But does that change anything?

Trump's thinking is that today's vets don't suffer like the ww2 and vietnam vets, so why give them so many benefits.

Ah, but why isn't a nation able to afford veteran services that the citizens can agree are sufficient and everyone is happy?

Because the nation is broke? Why's that? Etc., etc., etc., etc....

A scene from A Face In The Crowd.

Another

I can't see man. Is that fuckin Andy from the Andy Griffith show? You know I used to pass through the actual Mayberry town all the time on my way to Virginia.

It’s an Elia Kazan film (1957) and really good. In fact I am going to watch it again this evening because you-plural reminded me of it.

You know I used to pass through the actual Mayberry town all the time on my way to Virginia.

What nefarious deeds were you up to in such a decent neck of the woods?

Why the old man bought a abandoned christmas tree farm just there past Mt. Airy and we was settin' ta clean that farm up and try ta sell those trees, mmmhm. Reckon the old man dropped me out of his will when i became a sex offender, mm... never saw that christmas tree farm again.

loveofsophia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:26 am

promethean75 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:05 pm Here's how it'll go. You'll argue around in circles for a week with em, realize they're all clowns, and then kick yourself in the ass for wasting your time.

I understand the difficulty in engaging. I am more interested in the motivation of others that support Trump than engaging with them.

How can you obtain 'the motivation', of others, if you do not engage, with them?

loveofsophia wrote: ↑Sat Mar 08, 2025 5:26 am It reminds me of prostalitizing. There isn't a genuine desire to reflect, to observe others' views and question their own, but deflect and repeat a Fox News-like framing of all matters relating to Trump.

To you, is it only 'those' who follow 'that one', or who follow 'that side' of things, who only deflect and repeat a "one sided" frame of things?