What do you think about anti trump protests starting right now?

[Davino]

2 hours ago, Ishanga said:

This will just destroy the country faster than it already is, this is like getting Your car fixed by the mechanic You choose then purposely putting sand in the gasoline tank, why would you do this? The process has run its course, do you believe or adhere to the process of Your own country? If so then it has done what it was designed to do, if You fight it and don't agree with the result then Your making it worse...if You can't see this clearly then You don't see much of what is going on...

How naive

Hitler was voted

Then as the 51% has the power to dominate the 49% then that's end of the story 

Please may the 49% of the population put down your pants and get ready to get fucked in the ass

Don't do anything about it, you'll be disturbing the process!

How can anyone hold such childish views. Do you know the role that the opposition plays in democracy? Literally, even without being in power, they have important duties and responsibilities for keeping the government in check. I'm just saying, they must exert them within the limits of the law and democracy. Which is a very sound and grounded point.

[What Am I]

37 minutes ago, Fearey said:

I hope they do. Trump tried to coup the country last time around. If they somehow managed to prevent Trump from taking office by force that would be 1000% justified and the right thing to do, in my opinion.

He has no business being anywhere close to the presidency after all he's done. I'm sure there's plenty of decent shooters out there that'd be willing to enact justice where the supreme court failed.

Fuck Trump. Let there be chaos!

It might be justified if they riot on Jan 6th and delay the certification of the vote for a few hours, but it's a stretch to say it'd be justified if the violence gets so intense that it somehow prevents him from taking his democratically determined role in office. And it's certainly a stretch to say he should be straight up murdered.

I won't try to pin your words on all Democrats, though. You're the first person I've seen state something so radical, so it doesn't seem to be the general consensus. Hopefully it stays that way.

[Kid A]

1 hour ago, Fearey said:

I hope they do. Trump tried to coup the country last time around. If they somehow managed to prevent Trump from taking office by force that would be 1000% justified and the right thing to do, in my opinion.

He has no business being anywhere close to the presidency after all he's done. I'm sure there's plenty of decent shooters out there that'd be willing to enact justice where the supreme court failed.

Fuck Trump. Let there be chaos!

Behavior like this is exactly what leads to Trump being president.

Wouldn't surprise me if this has already been picked up by some right wing influencer. They are amazingly good at finding stuff like this.

Edited November 10 by Kid A

[Fearey]

2 hours ago, Kid A said:

Behavior like this is exactly what leads to Trump being president.

Wouldn't surprise me if this has already been picked up by some right wing influencer. They are amazingly good at finding stuff like this.

Mass psychosis of the American people is what lead to Trump. People that derive their truth from what feels good to them, and that happens to align with their narrow-minded view of the world. People that have never questioned anything they read online because why would "the good side" ever lie?

 

No rational human being could ever vote for someone like Trump, unless they themselves benefit from it personally. Which limits the number of people where it might make logical sense to selfishly vote Trump down to a few thousand people.

Edited November 10 by Fearey

[What Am I]

Just now, Fearey said:

Mass psychosis of the American people is what lead to Trump. No rational human being could ever vote for someone like Trump, yet here we are.

It'd be foolish on our part to not empathize with someone feeling super angry and upset right after such a contentious election. My only point is that escalating rhetoric to that level may be a bit much. It's not becoming of Democrats, who I admit are clearly more mature on average. Also, the fulfillment of these actions would likely initiate the end of the country, and maybe the end of the world if it spirals way out of control.

[Fearey]

3 minutes ago, What Am I said:

It'd be foolish on our part to not empathize with someone feeling super angry and upset right after such a contentious election. My only point is that escalating rhetoric to that level may be a bit much. It's not becoming of Democrats, who I admit are clearly more mature on average. Also, the fulfillment of these actions would likely initiate the end of the country, and maybe the end of the world if it spirals way out of control.

Yeah maybe. Then what will be the consequences of doing nothing? Of letting someone that tried to coup the country, while the sitting president nonetheless, step into office again. It sets a scary precedent if future presidents start acting like they cannot be held legally responsible for anything they do, as a result of Trump doing so.

Edited November 10 by Fearey

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, Fearey said:

Yeah maybe. Then what will be the consequences of doing nothing? Of letting someone that tried to coup the country, while the sitting president nonetheless, step into office again. It sets a scary precedent if future presidents start acting like they cannot be held legally responsible for anything they do, as a result of Trump doing so.

Well, there is that argument. And when applied retrospectively, with foreknowledge of the Nazis and other horrific periods, it would have made sense to step in earlier and prevent the chaos. So I get the perspective you're coming from, and I guess I don't have a great answer. Except maybe to point out that strangling an innocent baby Hitler, sans the certainty of what he'd eventually become, is still murder.

We may have to wait for a true atrocity to occur before we can justify severe action. Or maybe technology will advance to the point we can peak forward in time to see Trump's results. If we knew with certainty he'd blow up the planet, I'd quickly start leaning your way. But until then, something like half or more of the people in the country don't share the opinion of shooting Trump in the head. Quite the opposite. Depending on who's making the judgement, that could be seen as an act of extreme evil in itself.

Edited November 10 by What Am I

[Kid A]

36 minutes ago, Fearey said:

Mass psychosis of the American people is what lead to Trump. People that derive their truth from what feels good to them, and that happens to align with their narrow-minded view of the world. People that have never questioned anything they read online because why would "the good side" ever lie?

 

No rational human being could ever vote for someone like Trump, unless they themselves benefit from it personally. Which limits the number of people where it might make logical sense to selfishly vote Trump down to a few thousand people.

These people wouldn't have lost their minds and been so afraid of losing their democracy if they hadn't been exposed to way too many authoritarian and undemocratic tendencies from the left. Even though Trump is one of the most black-and-white cases since World War 2, it's still not entirely black-and-white. 

[Salvijus]

The reason people are protesting is because they are confident they know who the people really are of every political party, what is best for America and how things will play out. This confidence is self evidently self deception and just plain arrogance. 

Edited November 11 by Salvijus

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

This confidence is self evidently self deception and just plain arrogance.

Another banger from Salvijus.

Using your logic every time you go vote for a political party its entailed that you have self deception and plain arrogance since you "know" whats good for the country and how things will play out.

You don't think for 2 seconds before you post your thoughts - do you?

[Davino]

20 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The reason people are protesting is because they are confident they know who the people really are of every political party, what is best for America and how things will play out. 

Nope

They are protecting and enforcing their self-interests

That's what everyone is doing everywhere

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Another banger from Salvijus.

Using your logic every time you go vote for a political party its entailed that you have self deception and plain arrogance since you "know" whats good for the country and how things will play out.

You don't think for 2 seconds before you post your thoughts - do you?

It's okay to have a perspective on who's a better candidate. But the moment you believe you got it all figured out 100%, this will lead to protesting if your candidate loses. Because you're so damn sure everything is going to be horrible now. But in truth you don't know. And this confidence that you do know is self deception. 

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Nope

They are protecting and enforcing their self-interests

That's what everyone is doing everywhere

True. But they are doing so because they are confident they know what is best for them and for the world. And they believe they know people inside out and their intensions. This is self deception. This is the cause for riots that are happening. 

[Davino]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

But they are doing so because they are confident they know what is best for them and for the world.

The other side is also doing that. All sides are doing that

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

And they believe they know people inside out and their intentions.

That's self deception, right

4 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

This is the cause for riots that are happening.

I do not condone violence

Yet violence happens in big scale sociology

In the same way we have a microargument here in the forum, so it happens in the macroscale

That's how things work

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

The other side is also doing that. All sides are doing that

 

True. 

1 hour ago, Davino said:

I do not condone violence

Yet violence happens in big scale sociology

In the same way we have a microargument here in the forum, so it happens in the macroscale

That's how things work

That's how things work right now. But if people were more honest with themselves, we could potentially avoid a lot of unnecessary toxicity. That's the reason it's worth pointing these things out. 

Edited November 11 by Salvijus

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

It's okay to have a perspective on who's a better candidate. But the moment you believe you got it all figured out 100%, this will lead to protesting if your candidate loses.

So protesting is out of the picture at all times, because there is always a possibility that you can be wrong , but voting is okay even though you can be wrong there as well .

That kind of skepticism eats itself, because it can be mirrored, so you end up saying nothing of substance. 

Not doing an action is an action as well. You not protesting (and being wrong about the effects of not protesting) could have horrible consequences as well and you being passive by your logic entails that you know that you should be passive over not passive.

The argument of "you can be wrong" can be applied to everything and therefore changes nothing and is not an argument for passiveness.

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

So protesting is out of the picture at all times, because there is always a possibility that you can be wrong , but voting is okay even though you can be wrong there as well .

That kind of skepticism eats itself, because it can be mirrored, so you end up saying nothing of substance. 

Not doing an action is an action as well. You not protesting (and being wrong about the effects of not protesting) could have horrible consequences as well and you being passive by your logic entails that you know that you should be passive over not passive.

The argument of "you can be wrong" can be applied to everything and therefore changes nothing and is not an argument for passiveness.

There are actions that come from "I do not know yet this feels right to me so I will do that" And there are actions that come from false certainty that 100% confidence you know what's up. A kind of false egoic knowledge. The first way of acting is more gracious, led by Spirit. The second way is very salty and led by the false confidence of ego. 

What I'm seeing in these presedential riots are bunch of people who belong to the second category of people. For them it's worth reminding that there's more to life than they can understand. On behalf of their own mental health. So that they would begin to see from a broader place. From a place of peace rather than from a place of "desperately defending my beliefs" 

Edited November 11 by Salvijus

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

There are actions that come from "I do not know yet this feels right to me so I will do that" And there are actions that come from false certainty that 100% confidence you know what's up. A kind of false egoic knowledge. The first way of acting is more gracious, led by Spirit. The second way is very salty and led by the false confidence of ego. 

What I'm seeing in these presedential riots are bunch of people who belong to the second category of people. For them it's worth reminding that there's more to life than they can understand. On behalf of their own mental health. So that they would begin to see from a broader place. From a place of peace rather than from a place of "desperately defending my beliefs" 

That case, what you now pushed back your take to is "if you are not justified in believing that you are right, then dont take an action" , which everyone here would agree with but that wasn't your original take.

Your original take was that given that one can be always wrong, one shouldn't take any action. Which is very much different from your current take.

Now given what your new take is , you should have started with this and make a case for why you think the protestors are unjustified in believing what they believe , rather than just dismissing them and saying "but they can be wrong though, why are they arrogant".

Make a case for why you think they have a false sense of certainty and that they are not justified in believing the things they believe in. - this is where the substantial conversation lies, not in the "but you are arrogant though"

Edited November 11 by zurew

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

That case, what you now pushed back your take to is "if you are not justified in believing that you are right, then dont take an action" , which everyone here would agree with but that wasn't your original take.

Your original take was that given that one can be always wrong, one shouldn't take any action. Which is very much different from your current take.

Now given what your new take is , you should have started with this and make a case for why you think the protestors are unjustified in believing what they believe , rather than just dismissing them and saying "but they can be wrong though, why are they arrogant".

Make a case for why you think they have a false sense of certainty and that they are not justified in believing the things they believe in. - this is where the substantial conversation lies, not in the "but you are arrogant though"

Awareness and honesty that "I do not know" leads not to passivity. It leads to peace. And peace behaves very differently than salty egos. When you see bunch of salty egos defending their perception of the world, that is the clue they have failed to admit "I do know know". Arrogance is just another word I sometimes use for lack of honesty. 

Edited November 11 by Salvijus

[voxun]

Today on episode America. Lets protest because democracy works  🤣