What will become of the right once Trump is gone?

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, Fearey said:

@What Am I What's the difference between being anti-establishment and being an anarchist? The fact that there are people out there that don't understand basic human nature is wild to me. There always has been, and always will be a small number of people that climb to the highest levels of power. If someone is anti-establishment what they're really saying is that they're anti human.

I guess people are free to be anti what humanity has been about for the last 200 000+ years, but they're going to get nothing but ridicule from me.

I'm not saying you can't dislike it intensely, but my point is that focusing all your ire on Trump would be a case of missing the forest for the trees. Of course, I'm not suggesting you develop a posture of extreme hatred for others either, because that would probably turn you into a highly toxic person who lives every day in misery.

Edited September 20 by What Am I

[Fearey]

34 minutes ago, What Am I said:

You can demonize Trump all you want, call him names that illicit feelings of severe danger in the populace, or even forcefully remove him from the equation. But you're dealing with something much larger than the fate of a single man. I'm not sure why this isn't more clear to those on the left.

I would demonize anyone that seeks to overthrow democracy, unless they've proved themselves extraordinarily capable to hold such a position, which is almost unheard of throughout history. I certainly would hope and expect the vast majority of citizens in developed nations to be pro-democracy as well.

As for calling Trump names, what would be the point in that? And what would you even call him. There are to my knowledge no words in the English language that would do such a name calling justice. This is an individual that's committed the highest level of treason possible. The reason people are calling him Hitler is that we've ran out of words that appropriately describe him as a person, or people to compare him to. Calling him a Quisling would be more accurate, but most people have no idea who that is.

Edited September 20 by Fearey

[What Am I]

6 minutes ago, Fearey said:

I would demonize anyone that seeks to overthrow democracy, unless they've proved themselves extraordinarily capable to hold such a position, which is almost unheard of throughout history. I certainly would hope and expect the vast majority of citizens in developed nations to be pro-democracy as well.

As for calling Trump names, what would be the point in that? And what would you even call him. There are to my knowledge no words in the English language that would do such a name calling justice. This is an individual that's committed the highest level of treason possible, all while holding the highest office of the country, making his actions somehow even more severe.

Well again, I'm not saying you can't or even shouldn't demonize him for what happened on Jan 6th, but rather, I'm pointing to a larger phenomenon that many appear blind to. I'm just trying to expand the context of the story as a whole.

Edited September 20 by What Am I

[Fearey]

11 minutes ago, What Am I said:

I'm not saying you can't dislike it intensely, but my point is that focusing all your ire on Trump would be a case of missing the forest for the trees. Of course, I'm not suggesting you develop a posture of extreme hatred for others either, because that would probably turn you into a highly toxic person who lives every day in misery.

I want to know that I did my part in helping assure Trump didn't assume power in 2024. If he became president despite that, then at least I can sleep well knowing I put in some good effort. Whether that is discussing Trump with people online, convincing others to do the same, or actively pushing content throughout social media through technical know-how, AI and automation.

[Fearey]

2 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Well again, I'm not saying you can't or even shouldn't demonize him for what happened on Jan 6th, but rather, I'm pointing to a larger phenomenon that many appear blind to. I'm just trying to expand the context of the story as a whole.

Whether or not there is a larger thing at play, or just blind idol worshipping of Trump as the next messiah I don't know. I would like to think things will somewhat return to the norm once Trump is gone. I think it will take the republican party a long time to heal from Trump, which will cause a large power vacuum in US politics, which I too think is very dangerous for democracy.

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, Fearey said:

I want to know that I did my part in helping assure Trump didn't assume power in 2024. If he became president despite that, then at least I can sleep well knowing I put in some good effort. Whether that is discussing Trump with people online, convincing others to do the same, or actively pushing content throughout social media through technical know-how, AI and automation.

Sure, sounds reasonable enough.

6 minutes ago, Fearey said:

Whether or not there is a larger thing at play, or just blind idol worshipping of Trump as the next messiah I don't know. I would like to think things will somewhat return to the norm once Trump is gone. I think it will take the republican party a long time to heal from Trump, which will cause a large power vacuum in US politics, which I too think is very dangerous for democracy.

I don't think the republican party even exists as a meaningful distinction anymore. It seems like it's just establishment and anti-establishment now. I have a feeling that same restructuring is echoed throughout the Western world. It'll be interesting to see what comes next.

Anyway, I'm taking up too much oxygen in this thread, thanks for the back-and-forth.

[BlueOak]

52 minutes ago, Fearey said:

@What Am I What's the difference between being anti-establishment and being an anarchist? The fact that there are people out there that don't understand basic human nature is wild to me. There always has been, and always will be a small number of people that climb to the highest levels of power. If someone is anti-establishment what they're really saying is that they're anti human.

I guess people are free to be anti what humanity has been about for the last 200 000+ years, but they're going to get nothing but ridicule from me.

This is difficult to unpack but i'll try to give two perspectives. Generally, as we are aligned with the authoritarian axis in the modern day, anti-establishment is considered to be.

Anarchist or Libertarian. aka Left/Right. Often Anti-authoritarian or sometimes just socialist leaning.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

If we were more central, anti-establishment might be described as something else, perhaps radical centrism which still can be seen as it in some quarters. Radical tends to mean changing the status quo.

Many different forms of anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism exist and are not represented in the modern day much at all, making this stance sometimes anti-authoritarian by ideology but certainly anti-establishment by their incompatibility with the limited political axis we allow for.

I would personally bring up Utopianism for example, as an ideal always out of reach but a goal to strive for, various communes types for people wanting to grow their own food and be self-sufficient, and significant collective ownership in key areas that need it, such as homeless shelters. I'm also not against Green anarchism as a limited force to push, something younger people often do before they develop better ways and methods to contribute to more substantial change.


Further:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Anarchism  Types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_anarchism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Libertarianism Types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_libertarianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Communism

Edited September 20 by BlueOak

[Joshe]

@What Am I 

With respect, I think your convenient centrism is clouding your perception. I wasn't interested in debating what Trumpism is in this thread, so I don't want to go that deep, but one aspect of your sense-making that's preventing you from seeing what Trumpism is, is that you make no distinction between biased criticism (think MSNBC) and intelligent criticism of Trump. You lump it all together as TDS. 

Another thing preventing you from seeing what is true is you've conveniently avoided answering certain questions. 

Can you answer this question: What is Trumpism? 

Is this your answer?: "Fundamentally, it's an anti-establishment movement comprised of ordinary Americans who are fed up with the status quo and the elites hoarding all the wealth and power and Trump is just the current avatar at the head of that movement". 

That is but a small aspect of Trumpism and it's not completely accurate. You can take this view and situate it inside a larger view.

Maybe this anecdote can expand things: 

I personally know many Trump supporters. Before Trump, they were not anti-establishment. They were not political AT ALL.

Did daddy Trump come in and give a voice to their needs, or did he come in and dangle red meat before them, which they stared at in amazement, frothing at the mouth, orgasming every time Trump said "fuck you" out loud. 

Because before Trump, these people who I know, they were not ideological anti-establishment lunatics. They were relatively peaceful, non-combative, and non-argumentative. Now, they're not. They did not exist in their current form before Trump.

If you honestly answer the question: "What changed the people?" and if you're developed enough and don't cling to cherished beliefs that protect you, and if you answer the question in earnest, you should experience some degree of disgust. That disgust is what you currently mistake as "TDS". 

Edited September 20 by Joshe

[Joshe]

The anti-establishment movement, which is stupid AF and comprised of idiots, was largely ushered in by Trump. Trump showed the various media markets just how many dumbasses were ripe for fleecing, and grifters acted quick to gain position. The information landscape and institutional integrity across all government sectors has been significantly damaged by this movement. When some people acknowledge this, it bothers them, and the expression of that bother is what you call "TDS". 

If you care about those systems and the people that comprise it, you would condemn Trumpism yourself. 

Edited September 20 by Joshe

[What Am I]

14 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Can you answer this question: What is Trumpism? 

Is this your answer?: "Fundamentally, it's an anti-establishment movement comprised of ordinary Americans who are fed up with the status quo and the elites hoarding all the wealth and power and Trump is just the current avatar at the head of that movement". 

I wouldn't use the direct term of Trumpism to define it, but my answer would be similar to what you've posted, though with a few changes which I'd consider important: "Fundamentally, it's an anti-establishment movement, and Trump is just the current avatar at the head of that movement."

19 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Maybe this anecdote can expand things: 

I personally know many Trump supporters. Before Trump, they were not anti-establishment. They were not political AT ALL.

Did daddy Trump come in and give a voice to their needs, or did he come in and dangle red meat before them, which they stared at in amazement, frothing at the mouth, orgasming every time Trump said "fuck you" out loud. 

Because before Trump, these people who I know, they were not ideological anti-establishment lunatics. They were relatively peaceful, non-combative, and non-argumentative. Now, they're not. They did not exist in their current form before Trump.

Right, but I'd argue it wasn't necessarily Trump as the singular cause who changed them, but rather it was the influence from a much larger shift in thought that was already growing, and happening around the entire planet no less. Trump himself wouldn't be immune either. Though I can't deny that his bombastic nature didn't contribute to the current state of things.

22 minutes ago, Joshe said:

If you honestly answer the question: "What changed the people?" and if you're developed enough and don't cling to cherished beliefs that protect you, and if you answer the question in earnest, you should experience some degree of disgust. That disgust is what you currently mistake as "TDS".

I can't claim that it's impossible that if I were more developed I wouldn't feel exactly as you're describing.

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

The anti-establishment movement, which is stupid AF and comprised of idiots, was ushered in by Trump. Trump showed the various media markets just how many dumbasses were ripe for fleecing, and grifters acted quick to gain position. The information landscape and institutional integrity across all government sectors has been significantly damaged by Trumpism. I think this, even if poorly articulated, is close to the essence of what you think is "TDS". 

If you care about those systems and the people that comprise it, you would condemn Trumpism yourself. 

It'd be foolish of me to pretend my perspective is infallible, so I must concede that it's possible Trump is the true originator of all the issues we're seeing, even though I don't believe it to be the case.

[Joshe]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The American right is addicted to lunacy now and they will not settle for less. 

Yeah, that's my read too. We might get lucky though. I think whoever the replacement is would need to move fast, before losing too much steam. I think many on the right are fatigued and the longer the new avatar waits to appear, the more cult members will go home. The proud boys types ain't going anywhere.

I think the most feasible is that Vivek and Carlson team up. Both are incredibly good bullshitters, one in politics, the other in media. Between Vivek, Tucker, Elon, and Joe Rogan, the whole thing could be kept alive but I think many women will say "fuck this". 

Either way, I've been brainstorming business ideas around fucking up their entire game. Here's a couple interesting ideas that I bet would bring value:

[Joshe]

@What Am I Thanks for answering. Just a few thoughts and I'll leave you alone. 

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

Right, but I'd argue it wasn't necessarily Trump as the singular cause who changed them, but rather it was the influence from a much larger shift in thought that was already growing, and happening around the entire planet no less.

There is never a singular cause for a thing, but weights can be applied to the variables, and if you think the variable that is Trump gets 10% weight, there is an error somewhere in your logic, which, just guessing, might be found in your interpretation of what you think is a planet-wide phenomenon. Is it possible the entire planet was influenced by what they were seeing happen in America? "Shit, if America is the most developed country in the world, and they condone behavior like that, we can too!" Monkey see, monkey do. No? Just hold it as a hypothesis. 

There is no mysterious phenomenon sweeping the globe. What is going on here is an exploit. Common people do have legitimate grievances, which ideally, would be addressed by their government, but that's not the case, is it? We don't have governments that can be good to them in the way they want. The system is currently immature and corruption is spreading. The reason people are now fed up with the system is because, unlike in the past, there's now a vast network of computers by which information flows. Now that the people have access to information, the entire game has changed. When Player A finds out what Player B is up to and Player B recognizes it, Player B has to adapt new strategies. So, the politicians get sneakier. Over time, the masses catch on, very slowly, and when they do, the politicians have to become even sneakier. The public intuits this and they don't like it. And THIS is what Trump exploited, and in turn, revealed the exploit to others.

Trump tricked people into thinking he cared about them and stamping out corruption. The whole world was watching it unfold and media companies and politicians across the globe were taking notes. That is how I would explain the phenomenon. 

The people have been exploited but they have not yet recognized it. By the time they do, the wolves will have already adapted their strategy. Because that's how the game works. It's all one big exploit. 

Edited September 20 by Joshe

[ici]

@Joshe These business ideas are flawed by virtue of the fact that whoever owns the business, runs the show. You could exert your own biases and subjective ideological views on what constitutes as propaganda and what doesn’t which makes such an independent authority hard to trust. Even if you promise to be accurate in your data, humans still make mistakes and break promises. One mistake and the credibility of your business goes down to zero. Take Truth Social for example. It’s an idea no different to yours run by someone you do not particularly like. The irony is that a propaganda tracking SaaS could easily turn into a propaganda machine in of itself.

https://truthsocial.com/

@Fearey Just to clarify, yes, this is exactly what I meant. I wasn’t joking.

@What Am I Yeah man, they don’t understand it. Right-wing values would not fade even if Trump, Rogan, Musk, Carlson or whoever else is no longer around. I posted a video about illegal immigration in this sub-forum and nobody said a thing. The left are usually loud and vocal about individuals who do something which is not in accordance to their views. When it comes to debating issues that actually matter, it’s dead silent. I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Matt Walsh’s new movie “Am I Racist?” I feel like whoever does that would either get a warning for being overly ideological or straight up get banned, which speaks volumes about the ideological bias on this forum. You’re not allowed to criticise the left or post anything they deem controversial, provocative, anything they see as right-wing propaganda. God forbid if it slips through, they’ll be quick to lock it before “it gets out of hand.”

[Fearey]

@ici Take a look at this. These are your people. It actually pains me to think about how many people completely lost their ability to think because of one man.

 

[Joshe]

23 minutes ago, ici said:

These business ideas are flawed by virtue of the fact that whoever owns the business, runs the show. You could exert your own biases and subjective ideological views on what constitutes as propaganda and what doesn’t which makes such an independent authority hard to trust. Even if you promise to be accurate in your data, humans still make mistakes and break promises. One mistake and the credibility of your business goes down to zero. Take Truth Social for example. It’s an idea no different to yours run by someone you do not particularly like. The irony is that a propaganda tracking SaaS could easily turn into a propaganda machine in of itself.

All businesses come with challenges. If it were easy, everyone would do it. There is such a thing as objectivity and it is possible to adhere to it. You just gotta have vision and drive to know how. Of course, many people wouldn't trust it, but over time, you'd develop a reputation which could speak for itself. This is actually a fucking brilliant idea. People are in need. Their loved ones are sending their hard-earned cash to Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson and buying golden sneakers and Trump NFTs. If this trend continues, there will be a huge opportunity to solve that problem. 

Edited September 20 by Joshe

[What Am I]

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

@What Am I Thanks for answering. Just a few thoughts and I'll leave you alone.

No problem, I'm happy to interact. It just feels like my large numbers of posts can become overbearing in some threads.

1 hour ago, Joshe said:

There is never a singular cause for a thing, but weights can be applied to the variables, and if you think the variable that is Trump gets 10% weight, there is an error somewhere in your logic, which, just guessing, might be found in your interpretation of what you think is a planet-wide phenomenon. Is it possible the entire planet was influenced by what they were seeing happen in America? "Shit, if America is the most developed country in the world, and they condone behavior like that, we can too!" Monkey see, monkey do. No? Just hold it as a hypothesis. 

There is no mysterious phenomenon sweeping the globe. What is going on here is an exploit. Common people do have legitimate grievances, which ideally, would be addressed by their government, but that's not the case, is it? We don't have governments that can be good to them in the way they want. The system is currently immature and corruption is spreading. The reason people are now fed up with the system is because, unlike in the past, there's now a vast network of computers by which information flows. Now that the people have access to information, the entire game has changed. When Player A finds out what Player B is up to and Player B recognizes it, Player B has to adapt new strategies. So, the politicians get sneakier. Over time, the masses catch on, very slowly, and when they do, the politicians have to become even sneakier. The public intuits this and they don't like it. And THIS is what Trump exploited, and in turn, revealed the exploit to others.

Trump tricked people into thinking he cared about them and stamping out corruption. The whole world was watching it unfold and media companies and politicians across the globe were taking notes. That is how I would explain the phenomenon. 

The people have been exploited but they have not yet recognized it. By the time they do, the wolves will have already adapted their strategy. Because that's how the game works. It's all one big exploit.

So while I see a certain logic in what you're saying, there's a type of conspiratorial vibe to it that gives me pause. There appears to be quite a bit of fear, urgency, and insistence in these words, and I'm seeing the telling of a grand narrative which appears to involve a highly devious and secretive plan by those with power to exploit the populace and perform a ruse. With the scenario you've laid out, what would be the rest of the plan? Where is it all heading, and what would be the ultimate goal?

Edited September 20 by What Am I

[What Am I]

49 minutes ago, ici said:

@What Am I Yeah man, they don’t understand it. Right-wing values would not fade even if Trump, Rogan, Musk, Carlson or whoever else is no longer around.

Agreed, though I'm not sure we can even necessarily label it right-wing values. Not by the strict definition of what that has meant in the past.

49 minutes ago, ici said:

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Matt Walsh’s new movie “Am I Racist?”

Yeah, this may be especially unfortunate. I've heard "Am I Racist?" is genuinely very funny, regardless of your political affiliation. It's a regretful state when we get to a point where the self-reflective properties of humor (even at our own expense sometimes) has completely drained away, and we're left with a war-like attitude where winning the bigger game comes at all costs.

Edited September 20 by What Am I

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Walsh’s new movie “Am I Racist?”

That's not a question Walsh wants an answer for 

[Joshe]

29 minutes ago, What Am I said:

So while I see a certain logic in what you're saying, there's a type of conspiratorial vibe to it that gives me pause. There appears to be quite a bit of fear, urgency, and insistence in these words, and I'm seeing the telling of a grand narrative which appears to involve a highly devious and secretive plan by those with power to exploit the populace and perform a ruse. With the scenario you've laid out, what would be the rest of the plan? Where is it all heading, and what would be the ultimate goal?

When you realize this is how the world works, it feels like a conspiracy, but God would be the conspirator.  

In this context, there is no grand narrative and there is no kabal and there is no plan. There are only entities trying to survive in a jungle and the only plan is survival by any means necessary. 

Some people have realized we're living in a fucking jungle and think it would be best to not do that, so they attempt to influence people to cooperate in building healthy societal structures so we can evolve as a species. 

But other people benefit from the laws of the jungle. They benefit from chaos and confusion. If your edge is in the jungle, you don't want to lose the jungle. 

The lower group cannot admit they want to keep the jungle and so they distort their thinking to protect themselves from the truth. 

As reality unfolds, new exploits are revealed and entities do what they can to maximize their survival agendas. 

It's not conspiratorial at all... but I remember it feeling like that when I started to understand this is how it works. 

 

[What Am I]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's not a question Walsh wants an answer for 

lol right, and there's a fair argument that his agenda is clearly hidden in the background of the film, so I could see certain people simply preferring to not be exposed.

I remember a time when the messages in TV and movies were far more subtle and tasteful. Everyone used to come together in unison of their enjoyment. And if there did happen to be an important political message in some media, it was usually not even noticed by like 95% of the audience. Things have changed a lot.