Tony Hinchcliffe BAD Joke at Trump’s Rally

[thedoorsareopen]

Quote

At least Kamala pays lip service to virtue, even if it's scripted. 

I'm going to ignore the lazy both-sides-ism latent in this comment so I can point out that the words a leader uses are important. The tone a leader sets through their words, how they handle and channel emotions, and the message they convey to those who follow them, is what defines a leader. 

Listen to Kamala's rally speeches, she is a truly inspiring and unifying leader. She speaks of dignity, opportunity, and lifting all people up. Dismissing that out of hand as mere "lip service" is about as disingenuous as seeing Donald praising Hitler and instead of criticizing him, you get mad at the people pointing out his fascist, Nazi-baiting tendencies.

The tone a leader sets defines the kind of leadership they employ. Part of the reason we are criticizing Trump's authoritarian ways is because most of us DO NOT WANT an authoritarian government. We want our country to become more democratic and representative, not less. This fascist playbook is un-American, and you show the lack of respect you have for the collective shared heritage of our society's institutions by supporting this self-serving sleazeball.

For fuck's sake people, didn't any of you see the Star Wars prequels? The Blues Brothers? V for Vendetta? 

This is basic ass shit. When a conman politician comes along using hateful rhetoric and promising to shred the institutions of our society, we as educated and engaged citizens use the power of our voice and our vote to knock him back. This election cycle has shredded my impression of this forum as an enlightened place. Yall took some psychs and think you're geniuses as you sip the conservative koolaid.

 

[Joshe]

@thedoorsareopen I 100% agree with you about Trump but I don’t have a good enough read on Kamala to go ahead and call her integrous, but I’m also not saying she’s not. I do think it’s more likely her rhetoric is more designed than it is genuine, although I’m sure she does value the things she says she does, I’m just not sure to what degree. In comparison to Trump, it’s an obvious no-brainer. 

My point was that even if you don’t think Kamala has integrity or is virtuous as her speech indicates, she at least talks of virtuous and integrous things, which is miles apart from Trump’s speech where there is no semblance of them in sight. 

This is yet another clue for the people on this forum who like Trump over Kamala. But I’m sure they just chalk it up to her being a bullshitter. 

Edited Friday at 01:51 PM by Joshe

[thedoorsareopen]

My point is that as a leader, whether of a country, a company, or just a work team, to a large extent, the medium is the message. A large part of a leader's job is the messaging they engage in, and to some extent there is no "inside" on that. You are messaging outwardly and presenting an outward persona that sets the tone for the millions of people and organizations within and outside the US, and other people make decisions based on that messaging. Leadership is how large groups of humans operate quickly and efficiently, and to a meaningful extent, a leader's messaging is the content of their leadership. Especially in a role like the presidency, where the people being affected will never meet that president personally.

This is why I value Kamala's choice of message, and why I consider Donald's so dangerous. This is also why, even if Kamala's messaging is measured and worked on with her staff, I don't consider that a negative. She's not writing a personal journal. Competent presidents work with large speechwriting teams to convey their agenda thoughtfully, and with nuance a single person may not be able to bring to bear in such a busy position. I'm not looking for Kamala to have a heart to heart with me, but the fact that the thesis of her message is one of dignity and opportunity, regardless of how genuine you think that is, shows that she recognizes the immense soft power the role of the presidency carries. It's not just about the policies of this institution known as the federal government, it's about what side of this nation, and the larger world, she is able to invoke merely through her word choice. Her inspiring choice of words shows she has an understanding of the gravity her prospective position holds, and that's what I make hiring decisions on as a voter.

[DocWatts]

43 minutes ago, thedoorsareopen said:

This fascist playbook is un-American, and you show the lack of respect you have for the collective shared heritage of our society's institutions by supporting this self-serving sleazeball.

For fuck's sake people, didn't any of you see the Star Wars prequels? The Blues Brothers? V for Vendetta? 

This is basic ass shit. When a conman politician comes along using hateful rhetoric and promising to shred the institutions of our society, we as educated and engaged citizens use the power of our voice and our vote to knock him back. This election cycle has shredded my impression of this forum as an enlightened place. Yall took some psychs and think you're geniuses as you sip the conservative koolaid.

 

Thank you for this. The number of people simping for an OBVIOUS  authoritarian grifter in what's supposedly a conscious politics forum has been disappointing. The immaturity, equivocation,  whataboutism, and excuses are more reflective of what I would expect to see in a Facebook comment section, or from talking to low-information voters. It's certainly not evident of people who've put in the work to have a solid grasp of epistemology, that's for damned sure.

[Buck Edwards]

3 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Thank you for this. The number of people simping for an OBVIOUS  authoritarian grifter in what's supposedly a conscious politics forum has been disappointing. The immaturity, equivocation,  whataboutism, and excuses are more reflective of what I would expect to see in a Facebook comment section, or from talking to low-information voters. It's certainly not evident of people who've put in the work to have a solid grasp of epistemology, that's for damned sure.

I feel the same way. It's disappointing. 

[What Am I]

9 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Thank you for this. The number of people simping for an OBVIOUS  authoritarian grifter in what's supposedly a conscious politics forum has been disappointing. The immaturity, equivocation,  whataboutism, and excuses are more reflective of what I would expect to see in a Facebook comment section, or from talking to low-information voters. It's certainly not evident of people who've put in the work to have a solid grasp of epistemology, that's for damned sure.

I do wonder how many people actually perform exercises in the area of subjective consciousness expansion. You're clearly pretty sharp in politics and general epistemology, but is meditation something you successfully engage in? I only ask because I've never seen a post of yours that makes it clear, though perhaps you just don't talk about it.

In my mind, there's somewhat of a gap between a presentation of high intellect and high consciousness, and a conflation of the two can lead to confusion as to what spirituality actually is. Just my opinion, perhaps you differ in your understanding and framework.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, thedoorsareopen said:

My point is that as a leader, whether of a country, a company, or just a work team, to a large extent, the medium is the message. A large part of a leader's job is the messaging they engage in, and to some extent there is no "inside" on that. You are messaging outwardly and presenting an outward persona that sets the tone for the millions of people and organizations within and outside the US, and other people make decisions based on that messaging. Leadership is how large groups of humans operate quickly and efficiently, and to a meaningful extent, a leader's messaging is the content of their leadership. Especially in a role like the presidency, where the people being affected will never meet that president personally.

This is why I value Kamala's choice of message, and why I consider Donald's so dangerous. This is also why, even if Kamala's messaging is measured and worked on with her staff, I don't consider that a negative. She's not writing a personal journal. Competent presidents work with large speechwriting teams to convey their agenda thoughtfully, and with nuance a single person may not be able to bring to bear in such a busy position. I'm not looking for Kamala to have a heart to heart with me, but the fact that the thesis of her message is one of dignity and opportunity, regardless of how genuine you think that is, shows that she recognizes the immense soft power the role of the presidency carries. It's not just about the policies of this institution known as the federal government, it's about what side of this nation, and the larger world, she is able to invoke merely through her word choice. Her inspiring choice of words shows she has an understanding of the gravity her prospective position holds, and that's what I make hiring decisions on as a voter.

100% agree that messaging from the top is of very high importance and her chosen message is healthy. I’m not criticizing her for anything but I’m not so fast to call her a good leader based solely on what she says. I think character is #1, not messaging, and I simply don’t know enough about her at this time to make a judgement. That said, she’s a saint compared to Trump and I do find it odd that so  many people here can’t see the obvious choice. Although, I think I understand why that is the case. It goes to show that many who claim to care about what is true actually care more about how they feel. 

Edited Friday at 03:43 PM by Joshe

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, What Am I said:

I do wonder how many people actually perform exercises in the area of subjective consciousness expansion. You're clearly pretty sharp in politics and general epistemology, but is meditation something you successfully engage in? I only ask because I've never seen a post of yours that makes it clear, though perhaps you just don't talk about it.

In my mind, there's somewhat of a gap between a presentation of high intellect and high consciousness, and a conflation of the two can lead to confusion as to what spirituality actually is. Just my opinion, perhaps you differ in your understanding and framework.

Most of my posts tend to be in the Intellectual Stuff and the Society & Politics sections, since that's closer to my areas of expertise. I do engage in vipassana meditation, but I'll fully admit that meditation isn't the main focus of my contemplative work. I've spent the last two years writing a book on introspective epistemology (a 'field guide' to construct awareness, as I pitch it), and I've been working with some other philosophically minded folks in metro Detroit to build an in-person metamodern forum  (https://fluidityforum.org/vision/).

Over the years I've diverged from Leo's particular approach to spirituality, since at some point I think you do need to step aside from your initial influences and forge your own path. My work focuses more on embodied phenomenology - basically, understanding how we create knowledge from within the limitations of our lived, human perspective within Reality; and what this means for our constructed sense-making frameworks.

That said, there's still a lot that I agree with Leo about, but I'd say that we have very different areas of emphasis. Psychedelics isn't a focus of my work, though I fully recognize that they can be very useful for subjective consciousness expansion. I approach nondualism in a different way than Leo. And I also place less emphasis on frameworks like Spiral Dynamics, since I feel that in practice it's often used as a form of epistemological and sociological bypassing.

Edited Friday at 04:39 PM by DocWatts

[thedoorsareopen]

Quote

I do wonder how many people actually perform exercises in the area of subjective consciousness expansion. You're clearly pretty sharp in politics and general epistemology, but is meditation something you successfully engage in? I only ask because I've never seen a post of yours that makes it clear, though perhaps you just don't talk about it.

In my mind, there's somewhat of a gap between a presentation of high intellect and high consciousness, and a conflation of the two can lead to confusion as to what spirituality actually is. Just my opinion, perhaps you differ in your understanding and framework.

I experienced firsthand that experiencing nonduality does not directly lead to being a genius in all affairs, lol. But in the context of nonduality, don't you find it interesting the world you come back to? Let's say I am being imagined in the mind of God. I, am an idea, a mentalization. My being is fundamentally mental, not fundamentally physical.

Oh hey, I live in a country that is defined not just by a physical territory, but by a set of ideas. The idea of "America," and all that entails. It's quite a rich set of ideas. There are many empowering ideas and concepts embedded in the conceptual, moral, ethical, governmental, societal, entrepreneurial, and psychological make up of this country's national character. These ideas, such as the idea of self-determination, or the idea that all people are created equal, are just laying around. They wait for us to pick them up and see what we can do with them. Previous generations did the same for their time, and now it's our time.

What I see at play in this election, from the lens of epistemology, is that questioning authority has always been a central theme in American thought. But too many people do it reflexively. Being charitable, it seems Donald benefits from this, somehow positioning himself as the outsider candidate. But from where I'm standing, it seems like since the 60s there has been this reflexive cynicism latent in American society that's so prevalent, people engage in this cynicism without questioning why.

I say the real subversive act these days is believing that government can actually work for citizens rather than for capital or for the so-called "elites." What I see in Kamala is a candidate who's worked in public service her whole life, and like Biden, that makes her more qualified to run the government competently for the average citizen, not hopelessly bought out by special interests.

I say we as citizens should try to be cynical of those who want us to believe that government can't work, and work harder to demand that our politicians work for us. Be more engaged with the political process as it actually stands in this country, rather than being so ready to take a sledgehammer to the whole thing out of frustration. 

I mean hello, the guy who's hobnobbing with billionaires like Elon Musk, and ready to sell out US foreign policy to the highest bidder is the one who's more beholden to special interests, no matter how he branded himself.

[What Am I]

48 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Most of my posts tend to be in the Intellectual Stuff and the Society & Politics sections, since that's closer to my areas of expertise. I do engage in vipassana meditation, but I'll fully admit that meditation isn't the main focus of my contemplative work. I've spent the last two years writing a book on introspective epistemology (a 'field guide' to construct awareness, as I pitch it), and I've been working with some other philosophically minded folks in metro Detroit to build an in-person metamodern forum  (https://fluidityforum.org/vision/).

Over the years I've diverged from Leo's particular approach to spirituality, since at some point I think you do need to step aside from your initial influences and forge your own path. My work focuses more on embodied phenomenology - basically, understanding how we create knowledge from within the limitations of our lived, human perspective within Reality; and what this means for our constructed sense-making frameworks.

That said, there's still a lot that I agree with Leo about, but I'd say that we have very different areas of emphasis. Psychedelics isn't a focus of my work, though I fully recognize that they can be very useful for subjective consciousness expansion. I approach nondualism in a different way than Leo. And I also place less emphasis on frameworks like Spiral Dynamics, since I feel that in practice it's often used as a form of epistemological and sociological bypassing.

Wow, thanks for being so candid with your response. It's clear you're an honest player, which is always appreciated.

Our paths in spirituality may have some differences, but it'd be a mistake on my part to gatekeep and pretend there's no options outside the scope of those I'm more familiar with. Taking someone accomplished like Aurobindo as an example, rather than utilizing classical methods of meditation, it's my understanding he reached significant levels of mystical awareness using the creation of his writings as a sort of self-teaching. It sounds like you know what you want to do and how you plan to get there. Good stuff.

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

100% agree that messaging from the top is of very high importance and her chosen message is healthy. I’m not criticizing her for anything but I’m not so fast to call her a good leader based solely on what she says.

3 hours ago, thedoorsareopen said:

Competent presidents work with large speechwriting teams to convey their agenda thoughtfully, and with nuance a single person may not be able to bring to bear in such a busy position.

I think thats exactly the appeal of Trump - he isn't sterilised and scripted like Kamala but is more raw and authentic, even if that means people see him as an authentic buffoon. For the more logical minded who still vote Trump, perhaps they aren't voting for him as much as they are the team and party - they're betting on and hoping that Trump won't get in the way of the team doing some good work.

Both sides are viewing this as existential, as the last vote for their party ever. MAGA - because Democrats will let masses of migrants in to legalise and vote for blue, solidifying the party for decades to come. Democrats - because they think Trump will go scorched earth and install some Christian Nationalist theocracy.

There are extreme fringes on both sides, that both parties don't want to deal with and cater too, in order to secure election victories. But then those idiots galvanize the opposite side to go against them even harder and here we are in a polarized situation. The middle of both sides needs to get their houses in order.

Aren't there enough checks and balances in the system to prevent what we’re all fearing the worst of anyway? America survived 4 years already.

Edited Friday at 06:14 PM by zazen

[What Am I]

40 minutes ago, thedoorsareopen said:

I experienced firsthand that experiencing nonduality does not directly lead to being a genius in all affairs, lol. But in the context of nonduality, don't you find it interesting the world you come back to? Let's say I am being imagined in the mind of God. I, am an idea, a mentalization. My being is fundamentally mental, not fundamentally physical.

Yeah, definitely true in my experience as well. It seems like the nondual state is more so a profound intuitive recognition of the raw sameness of all things, along with a liberation from the sense of individuality that typically plagues every second of our lives. As Ken Wilber puts it, it's a "knowing" of everything rather than a "knowing about" everything. In addition to my own efforts, I also have a decent amount of experience with 5-MeO-DMT, so I guess you could say I cheated and stole a glimpse of where the road eventually goes. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's levels of awareness way beyond what I've seen, perhaps expanding infinitely.

I do find the world interesting, but I've been striving for more of a balance between the manifest and unmanifest. A way of not only hearing the notes in the symphony but also a continuous recognition of the silence between them. It may be that since I've worked on that for so long, there's been some neglect in other areas of development. I don't think it'd be the first time that happened with a spiritual practitioner. I don't really regret it though, since I can't think of a more awesome goal to sacrifice for and work towards.

[Joshe]

9 hours ago, zazen said:

For the more logical minded who still vote Trump, perhaps they aren't voting for him as much as they are the team and party - they're betting on and hoping that Trump won't get in the way of the team doing some good work.

I think this is wishful thinking. What do you think they could do that others haven't been able to? They might be able to get something done about immigration, but what else?

RFK seems to be the only one of them who cares about people, but the wish to improve and the ability to improve are two different things. Do you actually think RFK is a lone genius who will improve the physical health of the citizenry? 

Same with Elon. Anyone can hire a team or teams of efficiency experts and data scientists to figure out the best ways to run things. Will he improve education? Or will he just remove the agencies that hinder him from burning up as much rocket fuel as he wants and littering earth's orbit with his trinkets and dumping rocket fuel where he pleases? 

What value does Tulsi Gabbard bring to the table? What about Tucker Carlson? What about Vivek? What skills do they possess? They advocate for policies most people reject. Most people don't want bibles in schools. Most people like separation of church and state, but your team of super-heroes call for it. They also call for ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc, to have their licenses revoked. Do you think this would solve problems? 

What problems would they solve? What problems would they create? What actual logic do you have? 

 

Edited Saturday at 02:38 AM by Joshe

[Juan]

On 10/31/2024 at 7:36 PM, EdgeGod900 said:

and that you don't know Tony

I watch Kill Tony every week so I know what’s up, that’s an assumption of yours.

On 10/31/2024 at 7:36 PM, EdgeGod900 said:

that you are attached to your Puerto Rican Identity

Nope, but nice guess. You don’t seems to understand, read again what I wrote on my past post. You’re lucky that the US DON’T own you, we can’t decide for ourselves in many politic areas because of this, we can’t friking vote for the US president, don’t make me start about our electricity also issue (spoiler alert, LUMA is owned by a US and Canada company), the rich come here to avoid paying federal taxes, beaches many times it’s being corrupted/“purchased” ILLEGALLY by rich people from outside (it’s illegal to own beaches areas here), and the list goes on dude. 

I’m not offended at all by Tony’s joke, I’m just responding by how it was received here in Puerto Rico, cuz it has some legit consequences that can’t be ignored.

Edited Saturday at 01:46 AM by Juan

[Juan]

@EdgeGod900 And if this is how many US citizens sees us, well, prepare for us to fight back for a revolution, we won’t tolerate any more abuse from the US (and at the same time of course we gotta improve our inside government like I explained in my past posts). We won’t get our independence anytime soon but, we are getting closer.

[zazen]

11 hours ago, Joshe said:

I think this is wishful thinking. What do you think they could do that others haven't been able to? They might be able to get something done about immigration, but what else?

There are enough checks and balances to prevent them from doing anything crazy, which is why I'm not panicking in the first place. What people should panic about is the larger cycle of history we are in which no candidate or party can do anything to stop. The national security state and corporate dominance is a prevailing factor no party has much say in affecting change in, yet these two have much say in the lives of many, and not usually in their favour.

Getting thrown a bone or two here and there and being able to make slight socio-cultural shifts is one thing, but affecting change in the state apparatus's war machine and corporate dominance is a whole other. This is why they always talk a big game about being able to make changes and being anti-war or helping the vast majority, but there are stubborn and stiff gears in the state machinery which prevents them from ever acting on that rhetoric.

Any economist or business owner would shrivel up at hearing Kamala's economic takes. Unrealized gains tax and equity as equality of outcome will only have corrosive outcomes for the economy. They penalize success before its even realised, and disincentivize it to begin with. 

[thedoorsareopen]

Quote

Any economist or business owner would shrivel up at hearing Kamala's economic takes. 

23 Nobel Prize-winning economists call Harris’ economic plan ‘vastly superior’ to Trump’s

This is lazy strawmanning that relies on hazy unconscious feelings that the guy who says "You're fired" is a better business man than the touchy feely effeminate Democrat, and is not supported by anyone who's run the numbers.

Quote

“Simply put, Harris’s policies will result in a stronger economic performance, with economic growth that is more robust, more sustainable, and more equitable,” the economists write.

The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that Harris's economic plans would add $3.95 trillion through 2035, vs. Trump's $7.75 trillion.

Harris's Opportunity Economy policies would directly lower costs for working and middle class Americans, increase access to entrepreneurship and homeownership for the average person, increase economic activity in the working and middle class economy, and would likely return more in taxes to the federal budget than Trump's plans. Trump's plans hinge mostly on continuing tax cuts to corporations and the top 1%, which after 40 years of trickle down economics, has been shown doesn't actually trickle down to the vast majority of Americans. And kinda flies in the face of your idea that somehow Trump is the anti-corporate dominance candidate.

Oh, and one big cost of Trump's plan? Deporting 16 million people don't come cheap, least of all to our values.

Edited Saturday at 09:29 AM by thedoorsareopen

[El Zapato]

"There are enough checks and balances to prevent them from doing anything crazy, which is why I'm not panicking in the first place."  I say panic, you don't understand Agent Orange.  Intellect or spirit, they should both be screaming at you!

[El Zapato]

@thedoorsareopen Excellent point and it demonstrates nicely what a lack of information can do to bring down a society.  This has probably been shown but it is worth a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th watch:

 

[EdgeGod900]

Btw I think its cap that you are truly a fan of his.

17 hours ago, Juan said:

@EdgeGod900 And if this is how many US citizens sees us, well, prepare for us to fight back for a revolution, we won’t tolerate any more abuse from the US (and at the same time of course we gotta improve our inside government like I explained in my past posts). We won’t get our independence anytime soon but, we are getting closer.

Also you're being extra bro, just like how the media are portraying this petty shit. In this "Neo-Nazi" rally did you see how the crowd reacted to that puerto rican joke? Watch their reaction and you tell me if you think this is how most US citizrn sees yall. 

I'll say it again, it was a bad idea to bring a edgy comedian to a political campaign, but the media's ability to make drama out of everything created a domino effect of everyone seeing this as a big deal.

 

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID, THIS SHIT IS SO FUCKING PETTY. Even the media can fuck with the minds of "spiritual people." I don't even know why im responding to this petty bullshit; I'm literally the only one that exist lmao.

Edited Saturday at 07:57 PM by EdgeGod900