Tracking Trump's New Cult Members

[Joshe]

It will be interesting to see how Trump's new cult members respond to their indoctrination and which cohorts emerge.

One such cohort is the UFC crowd.

When Trump first started showing up, Rogan would only shake his hand—now he goes in for full hugs. 

 

Edited November 18 by Joshe

[PurpleTree]

Must be very very exciting times to be a Trumpist now. Wonder how long it’ll be exciting though and if Rogan will ever regret his decision.

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Joshe a video for the Future Generation Laugths. Well I am laugthing ready.

[ChrisZoZo]

15 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

and if Rogan will ever regret his decision.

Don’t think you regret choosing Trump over Harris but the complete blatant lack of integrity will be probably something that will come to haunting him.

[ChrisZoZo]

4 hours ago, Rafael Thundercat said:

video for the Future Generation Laugths. Well I am laugthing ready.

Is it’s a don’t know if I should laugh or cry moment? Lol

[Joshe]

 

[Joshe]

There’s a new narrative being adopted to justify this clown show. They’re saying that in normal times, you want steady, competent people running your nation, but we’re not in normal times and so now is the time for risk, adventure, and ambition. In 2016, they justified it by “needing a chaos agent to let our government know they need to shape up”. 

My bet is, this will be the rationalization that goes mainstream and sticks. JP and Piers articulate it with enthusiasm here:

Also, Rogan is blaming the US and Ukraine for potential WW3. 

Rogan is in the deep end now and he will only get more radical. He will become the most effective useful idiot / propagandist the world has ever known. The post-truth world is about to blow up, hopefully just metaphorically. 

Edited November 25 by Joshe

[What Am I]

25 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Also, Rogan is blaming the US and Ukraine for potential WW3.

So on this one, I haven't heard a great justification for why Biden is providing new weapons with the go-ahead to strike Russian soil when he's currently on his way out the door. I imagine there is a good explanation for why it's reasonable, but I just haven't come across it yet. What would be your explanation?

Edited November 25 by What Am I

[Bobby_2021]

@What Am I @Joshe The ATACMS and storm shadows are fired into Russia have deeply integrated western technology. So western involvement in firing the missile makes the west a joint party in an attack on Russia  motherland. The coordinates, GPS, are all set with heavy western involvement and Ukrainian personal don't have authorisation to do this on their own.

United States attacked Russia, by firing missiles into Russia. 

This is enough for provoking Russia into WW3.

[What Am I]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@What Am I @Joshe The ATACMS and storm shadows are fired into Russia have deeply integrated western technology. So western involvement in firing the missile makes the west a joint party in an attack on Russia  motherland. The coordinates, GPS, are all set with heavy western involvement and Ukrainian personal don't have authorisation to do this on their own.

United States attacked Russia, by firing missiles into Russia. 

This is enough for provoking Russia into WW3.

That's how it appears to me, which is what prompted me to ask for the steelman argument. For someone just taking a glance at the situation, it seems like Biden (or whoever calls the shots) wants to escalate the conflict to the point where Trump has no choice but to continue the war.

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

@What Am I @Joshe The ATACMS and storm shadows are fired into Russia have deeply integrated western technology. So western involvement in firing the missile makes the west a joint party in an attack on Russia  motherland. The coordinates, GPS, are all set with heavy western involvement and Ukrainian personal don't have authorisation to do this on their own.

United States attacked Russia, by firing missiles into Russia. 

This is enough for provoking Russia into WW3.

This is false according to ChatGPT. https://chatgpt.com/share/67440349-2ff0-8010-bdf2-783e7836afe2
 

@What Am I I don’t have an explanation and without insider/trade knowledge, I can’t even begin to speculate the motive. Even with insider knowledge, without what is most likely classified intel, you still couldn’t be confident one way or the other. It’s not wise to rely on “appearances” regarding things of a complex nature. If my family found The Atheist’s Bible on my bookshelf, it would appear to them that I’m an atheist and if they saw me reading the King James Bible, it would appear to them I’m interested in becoming a Christian. 

The more complex a thing is, the more unreliable “appearances” are. Rogan consistently makes this epistemic error, as does the right in general. 

[What Am I]

1 minute ago, Joshe said:

@What Am I I don’t have an explanation and without insider/trade knowledge, I can’t even begin to speculate the motive. Even with insider knowledge, without what is most likely classified intel, you still couldn’t be confident one way or the other. It’s not wise to rely on “appearances” regarding things of a complex nature. If my family found The Atheist’s Bible on my bookshelf, it would appear to them that I’m an atheist and if they saw me reading the King James Bible, it would appear to them I’m interested in becoming a Christian. 

The more complex a thing is, the more unreliable “appearances” are. Rogan consistently makes this epistemic error, as does the right in general. 

I suppose that's a fair answer, but it's definitely not satisfying.

[TheAlchemist]

20 hours ago, What Am I said:

So on this one, I haven't heard a great justification for why Biden is providing new weapons with the go-ahead to strike Russian soil when he's currently on his way out the door. I imagine there is a good explanation for why it's reasonable, but I just haven't come across it yet. What would be your explanation?

1. As a response to Russia bringing foreign troops to Ukraine

2. To improve Ukraine's position in the coming negotiations

Based on these two points alone it seems to me to be a strategically smart choice to make. 

Edited November 25 by TheAlchemist

[What Am I]

1 hour ago, TheAlchemist said:

1. As a response to Russia bringing foreign troops to Ukraine

2. To improve Ukraine's position in the coming negotiations

Based on these two points alone it seems to me to be a strategically smart choice to make. 

That's a decent response and at least makes sense as to why Ukraine might want to risk it. Still though, it seems very inappropriate for an outgoing administration to make a decision like this, especially when the incoming administration has explicitly stated their intention to end the fighting and negotiate peace. If the upcoming democratically elected leaders weren't consulted first, that'd be a real shame in my opinion.

[Joshe]

12 minutes ago, What Am I said:

That's a decent response and at least makes sense as to why Ukraine might want to risk it. Still though, it seems very inappropriate for an outgoing administration to make a decision like this, especially when the incoming administration has explicitly stated their intention to end the fighting and negotiate peace. If the upcoming democratically elected leaders weren't consulted first, that'd be a real shame in my opinion.

Dude, think about this statement: The incoming administration's intentions are to end the fighting and negotiate peace.

I'm sure the existing administration and administrations all across the land have these intentions as well... but what good are they? How do you manifest it in reality? 

What is there to negotiate? Have Ukraine give up their territory? Give Putin something else of value? You don't negotiate with terrorists because it sets a precedent that weakens your entire position going forward. 

Jordan Peterson said in this clip there's a high probability the war will end sooner after Trump gets in office. You have to be an absolute fool to make this statement without insider knowledge. Maybe JP has Putin's personal number, like Musk. Maybe they've already worked out a backroom deal to make Trump look like he solved the great problem of our time. 

If the war ends as soon as Trump gets in and Putin goes home empty-handed, it will be because Putin wants to strengthen Trump's position. That's the only way that happens, otherwise, Putin ain't going home empty-handed.

[What Am I]

29 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Dude, think about this statement: The incoming administration's intentions are to end the fighting and negotiate peace.

I'm sure the existing administration and administrations all across the land have these intentions as well... but what good are they? How do you manifest it in reality? 

What is there to negotiate? Have Ukraine give up their territory? Give Putin something else of value? You don't negotiate with terrorists because it sets a precedent that weakens your entire position going forward. 

Jordan Peterson said in this clip there's a high probability the war will end sooner after Trump gets in office. You have to be an absolute fool to make this statement without insider knowledge. Maybe JP has Putin's personal number, like Musk. Maybe they've already worked out a backroom deal to make Trump look like he solved the great problem of our time. 

If the war ends as soon as Trump gets in and Putin goes home empty-handed, it will be because Putin wants to strengthen Trump's position. That's the only way that happens, otherwise, Putin ain't going home empty-handed.

Typically in proper negotiations, compromises are made on both sides, and nobody comes out of it with their ideal scenario. I'd imagine it would look something like that.

Regardless, though, my point wasn't necessarily about how the negotiations should look. The citizens of the United States voted for a new leader knowing full well what his policy is regarding the US's involvement in the Ukraine war. If the current administration were to unilaterally defy that will, it would seem wrong to me.

[Joshe]

54 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Typically in proper negotiations, compromises are made on both sides, and nobody comes out of it with their ideal scenario. I'd imagine it would look something like that.

Regardless, though, my point wasn't necessarily about how the negotiations should look. The citizens of the United States voted for a new leader knowing full well what his policy is regarding the US's involvement in the Ukraine war. If the current administration were to unilaterally defy that will, it would seem wrong to me.

Trump isn't president yet. Should Biden just stop making all decisions right now if they aren't in alignment with Trump's will? Do you see how absurd this is? 

Also, do you assume Trump and Biden are collaborating and Trump has told Biden his intentions? And if that were the case, do you think Biden could trust the guy who lies every time he speaks? And then you also think these two totally opposed people should play well together? You voted in Trump. You can forget about civility, respect, and the right thing being done. 

How do you know Trump wouldn't give the same green light Biden did? You cannot know because you don't have the info. 

Edited November 26 by Joshe

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Trump isn't president yet. Should Biden just stop making all decisions right now if they aren't in alignment with Trump's will? Do you see how absurd this is?

Yeah, I can't really argue against that. I've been careful in my other comments about this subject, because you're correct; Biden and his administration are still technically in charge. In theory, he could drop nukes on Russia, and it wouldn't be against the framework of our current system of democracy. But I do think that in the spirit of democracy, it'd be appropriate for an outgoing administration to voluntarily cease actions that are in heavy disalignment with the incoming one, even if it's not technically against the rules.

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Also, do you assume Trump and Biden are collaborating and Trump has told Biden his intentions? And if that were the case, do you think Biden could trust the guy who lies every time he speaks? And then you also think these two totally opposed people should play well together? You voted in Trump. You can forget about civility, respect, and the right thing being done.

I'm not a big fan of this paragraph. It's unfortunate it's come to this.

11 minutes ago, Joshe said:

How do you know Trump wouldn't give the same green light Biden did? You cannot know because you don't have the info.

While that's true, there has to be some kind of logical fallacy being represented here, which I can't precisely identify by name. I don't think it's fair to expect anyone to whip out a counterfactual with any degree of certainty. All I can do is look at what is happening.

[Bobby_2021]

22 hours ago, Joshe said:

This is false according to ChatGPT. https://chatgpt.com/share/67440349-2ff0-8010-bdf2-783e7836afe2

Obviously Chatgpt is bullshit here.

Use chatgpt to understand how ATACMS work. 

That all you need to do.

 

Edited November 26 by Bobby_2021

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

But I do think that in the spirit of democracy, it'd be appropriate for an outgoing administration to voluntarily cease actions that are in heavy disalignment with the incoming one, even if it's not technically against the rules.

In the spirit of democracy? 😂In the spirit of Democracy, you don't try to steal an election, and if you do, you should never be allowed in politics again. That's the spirit of democracy. 

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

I'm not a big fan of this paragraph. It's unfortunate it's come to this.

I'm sorry if I was disrespectful. It just seems REALLY absurd to me that you think Trump's opponents should show him some respect and do what he wants them to do. He's the most disrespectful person our politics has ever seen, and you want the people he disrespected the most to cater to him. Do you think it would come easy to cater to a guy who tried to steal the last election? For people who don't sweep this under the rug, it would never seem like the right thing to do to assist Trump in anything. You have very high standards you'd like the Dems to meet but it seems they don't apply to the Reps.

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

While that's true, there has to be some kind of logical fallacy being represented here, which I can't precisely identify by name. I don't think it's fair to expect anyone to whip out a counterfactual with any degree of certainty. All I can do is look at what is happening.

hmm. I don't see it.

I don't know that Trump wouldn't give the greenlight on the same thing Biden did. I can't say it's unlikely or likely. It might seem counterintuitive, but like I said, the situation is complex and there is much information we don't have. For all you know, NOT giving the green light poses more risk to WW3 than giving it. My point is, people like to sit back and observe complex situations with not even 5% of the information they would need for good analysis, and then jump to conclusions. That is the fallacy. 

Also, earlier, you mentioned something like "it's not a very satisfying answer", which makes me think you would like a satisfactory answer. I'm not saying this is going on with you but this is the very psychological mechanism that leads people to seek certainty in situations where there simply isn't enough information to warrant it.

People like clear, black-and-white answers, especially in complex and high-stakes scenarios. This craving for clarity often pushes people to oversimplify, ignore nuance, and cling to narratives that confirm their biases, instead of accepting the reality of uncertainty. And they do it all to serve themselves. Again, I'm not saying you're doing that, but it seems like it's possible. 

Edited November 26 by Joshe