The best outcome to push back against Trumpism and the degeneracy of these people would be if he completely and openly loses it and acts out his mental breakdown in front of cameras and the world to see in such an embarrassing moment that there's no possible way to spin it into something positive, even for them. — Christoffer
If Colorado does remove him, it will only martyr him more, and all for nothing, because Colorado wasn't going Trump anyway. — Hanover
it might induce such a severe cognitive dissonance that he will literally crack up and begin to rave uncontrollably. I can’t ever see him accepting any culpability, he’ll loose his mind before doing that. — Wayfarer
Your fellow citizens and possible neighbours. — Benkei
because you don't agree with them? — Benkei
If they are slaves to the wave of misinformation and disinformation that makes them radicalized into things like Trumpism and right wing extremism — Christoffer
"The problem isn't really Trump or his followers, it's how we operate in a world in which this online sphere of influence produces new Trumps all over the place. How do we fix the source of the problem?" — Christoffer
I don't think it's very accurate to consider them "slaves" though. — Echarmion
Two things are important to keep in mind: that however wrong the theories, the Trumpian kind of extremism takes up real feelings of alienation and catastrophic breakdown. These feelings aren't particular to Trump supporters. Second, plenty of topics are viable for conspiracy mongering because most everyone is in denial about them to some extent, so this denial is merely rerouted. — Echarmion
I think the online sphere acts more as a catalyst than as the source of the problem. Social Media in particular has hugely reshaped out culture and our beliefs. But it is not in and of itself the source of the feelings that the conspiracies are a response to. That source is a crisis of western ideology. The new information environment has enabled a radical retreat into a fantasy world that supplies our longing for community, self-actualisation and self-absolution as a response. — Echarmion
We have somewhat of a problem today with how single words have become so loaded that any holistic point gets lost due to people just taking aim at singular words, like "these people" or "slaves", without looking at the grander context. — Christoffer
But instead, everyone polarize themselves into arguing over the symptoms. Trump is only one figure in all of this, there are Trump-like people in power all over the world and the threat to democracy isn't their specific shenanigans, but the underlying manipulation of people making democracy into a system of control. — Christoffer
The counter culture that would help humanity to better ourselves is to fight against the system that radicalize ourselves into oblivion. We need a better internet, we need a better system not based on these privatized giants who doesn't care if the world burns as long as they gain massive wealth on the users. — Christoffer
The point I wanted to make is that the people concerned still have agency. Part of the solution involves creating a new mainstream where the energy that these people currently expend on "conspiracy activism" is turned towards actually positive goals. — Echarmion
I think part of the issue is that democracy was already well on the way of becoming a "system of control", because the democratic political institutions were being impoverished and starved. — Echarmion
So the solution probably involves reinvigorating democratic politics. Which means grassroots activism, political involvement beyond the ballot box via vehicles like unions etc. We could probably look at how e.g. Steve Bannon creates his political movement and take some cues from that. — Echarmion
Ever since the project of Marxism had definitely collapsed — Echarmion
Yes, we'd need to break the monopolisation of our internet spaces, and turn them into public goods. This will require a break with capitalist ideology, which unfortunately has been almost unopposed for decades now. So first the groundwork would have to be laid to make a critique of capitalism no longer the realm of fringe theorists or extremists. It would really help to have better online spaces for that. It's a real catch-22. — Echarmion
This is the problem with your counter argument. — Christoffer
I agree, although this point is somewhat self-contradictory in that you say people have agency, but then point out that we need a new mainstream that can steer them in a new direction. Meaning, people do not have agency, they are determined by directions of society. Which is what I say when I talk about narratives. The narratives that shape our perception of reality defines the choices made and if the perception of reality is skewed by power hungry narcissists and we fail to protect democracy from such people because we are lazy and naive, then they dictate the narratives steering society, not people with better intentions for humanity. — Christoffer
We can never be free of narratives, they're part of the human condition. We can only focus on forming better narratives that focus on bettering ourselves, improving our well being and progress humanity into a better future for all, if we want that to happen. — Christoffer
The problem with the degeneration of democracy is that society have handled democracy in a sloppy and naive way. Instead of installing institutions that self-control democracy so that it never corrupts society from the core values of democracy, we just let society constantly balance on a knife's edge so that a nation could vote away democracy all together if they've successfully been manipulated enough. — Christoffer
As long as democracy focus on voting on specific people and not ideas and solutions, we will always have a corrupt system as we are rather focusing on personality traits and theatrics rather than actual decisions for society. — Christoffer
I think that the combination of capitalism and democracy have created this self-perpetual machine in which we have power hungry people who care nothing for society, only manage to take decisions for society because capitalism demands it, or else people will revolt.
Basically, no one's at the steering wheel. No vision exist, no ideas are being formed by knowledgeable people and instead society just flows by itself. That would have been good, if not for all the destructive messes it also generates. — Christoffer
That's only generated more populist movements with people using the speed of online marketing to manipulate themselves into power fast before anyone notice the problems they pull with them.
The solution is to fine tune the democratic system so that populist narcissists and people only interested in power gets replaced by people working for the needs of society more than pushing their own names and egos. If we had systems that removed people in power more easily when they abuse their power, and if politicians were forced to act more in-line with how the core democratic values of being "the people's voice" in politics, that would force democratic politics into being more focused on solving societal problems and help people rather than putting all energy into the illusion of helping or improving. — Christoffer
I don't think it collapsed, I think that the critique of capitalism is alive and healthy and with how extreme the difference between the rich and poor through the catalyst of neoliberalism has become I think we'll see more of it as time goes on. There's definitely gonna be pushes for more Marxist ideas through a Hegelian slave/master analysis going forward. — Christoffer
The problem is that the polarized masses of left/right people who are uneducated on the actual concepts of criticism against capitalism just forms another part of the radicalized population who are stuck in a loop of non-solutions in society, battling out amateur interpretations and not actually doing proper philosophical discourse on that matter. — Christoffer
One solution for the online sphere is to create a new space that is considered better than the rest. I've seen this happen with things like computer software. When all major corporations produce subscription based software that they constantly increase the subscription price on while slowing down on innovation and progress, people get fed up by it and as soon as something that's open source reaches a point where it actually competes with the paid options, people start to move over to it and the corporations lose money. Even if they later put money into innovation, they hardly get the users back since the trust is lost and people don't want to be stuck in a system of manipulation by the companies who mostly put on a smiley face and dance the marketing dance to form the illusion of comfort with their software. — Christoffer
People don't trust these megacorps, people don't trust Facebook or TikTok, they only tolerate them because there's no wide spread alternative. If an alternative grows and their promise and delivery matches and outcompete the others, that can shift society. It's basically playing by the rules of the free market game, but with open source solutions that democratize spaces away from destructive algorithms. — Christoffer
Think of Wikipedia. It's been tested and found out to be more generally trustworthy for the purpose of sources of knowledge than many established and paid for sources, regardless of what people believe is the case. And because it's widely used, widely known and "open source", there's no destructive algorithms to be found. It's focused on being a good function and a good part of our online experience.
If we can generate better social media spaces that focus on having a similar good reputation, that doesn't have a big business behind it, that doesn't have a tech guru front figure wanting to reshape the world based on their skewed point of view, and that focus on gathering people on positive grounds with algorithms pushing back at destructive actions and behaviors, and being free of ulterior capitalistic motives... then that might save us from these radicalization machines.
But it demands an effort to create something that first and foremost can compete on the free market and deliver a better experience than all the others. Maybe if nations around the world were to have a fund for it. In which democratic nations fund the development and management of such an online space based on principles like the UN, a united space that cannot be corrupted by a single nation or corporation, in which there's no other focus than having a space for all to gather in, free from market movements and the manipulation of the people in favor of the people in power or narratives of nations.
One could dream. — Christoffer
It's not a counter argument. I'm highlighting the arrogant and elitist way you speak about people that don't view the world in terms that you do. — Benkei
Sure, but that doesn't imply the narrative needs to be cynically exploited to steer the stupid masses to enlightened goals. — Echarmion
There's no way to insulate democracy from the demos. A democracy that's immune to it's self-dissolution is kind of an oxymoron. German has an "eternity clause" in its constitution, stating that certain parts (like the basic democratic constitution) can not be altered under any circumstances. But obviously the constitution is ultimately just a "scrap of paper". Such a clause only works so long as the paper retains legitimacy
Which is why I think the more important institutions are the soft, cultural ones. — Echarmion
How would that actually work though? Electoral politics inherently draws certain personalities. It's seems more useful to work around that than try to somehow make the process as impersonal as possible. — Echarmion
Some interests groups are definetly powerful and their particular interests have a noticeable effect on policy. It's not simply something as abstract as society in general. — Echarmion
Isn't that what we're already trying and failing to do? No-one has a recipe for getting "the right people" into the job, and I think this is ultimately a fool's errand. The problem isn't really that the politicians are uniquely bad, it's that they're exposed to pressures and temptations that lead to bad decisions. — Echarmion
More people need to be involved in the nitty-gritty of local politics, so they have an understanding of how they work, broaden the pool of possible candidates and are aware of how to effectively advocate for themselves.
A popular movement need not be populist. Populism is a particular perversion of the popular. — Echarmion
It's been 30 years since the SU collapsed and capitalism is running rampant. How much longer will that take? — Echarmion
So your solution is to somehow conjure up a population of proper philosophers? How would that work? — Echarmion
Convenience is king in the fast moving world and the social media giants are very adept at offering it. — Echarmion
Without a popular systematic critique I don't see how we get enough of a movement going to decisively shift away from the current domination by big platforms. — Echarmion
Well we'd need to generate the impetus for such a shift somehow. I don't think there's an alternative to building a movement to provide that.
Wikipedia was lucky in that it came up early, before a monetised alternative took root. With social media, we do not have that luxury. — Echarmion
The problem with the assumption that people are pushed around by “narratives” is that it should be just as easy to push them in the opposite direction through the very same methods. — NOS4A2
both of which the reactionary and incompetent experts told us would happen under the Trump regime — NOS4A2
News organizations have turned Biden’s age (granted, a legitimate concern) into the equivalent of a scandal. In story after story, headline after headline, they emphasize not his administration’s accomplishments, but the fact that he’s 80. A New York Times headline during his recent diplomatic mission to Asia epitomized this, turning the president’s joke about jet lag into an impression of a doddering fool: “‘It is evening, isn’t it?’ An 80-Year-Old President’s Whirlwind Trip.” Ian Millhiser of Vox nailed the problem: “I worry the ‘Biden is old’ coverage is starting to take on the same character as the 2016 But Her Emails coverage – find something that is genuinely suboptimal about the Democratic candidate and dwell on it endlessly to ‘balance’ coverage of the criminal in charge of the GOP.”
The evidence-free Biden impeachment efforts in the House of Representatives are presented to news consumers without sufficient context. In the first round of headlines last week, most news outlets simply reported what speaker Kevin McCarthy was doing as if it were completely legitimate – the result of his likely high crimes and misdemeanors. The Washington Post presented it seriously: “Kevin McCarthy directs House committees to open formal Biden impeachment inquiries,” adding in a credulous line: “The inquiry will center on whether President Biden benefited from his son’s business dealings … ” No hint of what is really happening here. In this case, the New York Times was a welcome exception: “McCarthy, Facing an Ouster and a Shutdown, Orders an Impeachment Inquiry.” That’s more like it.
Trump continues to be covered mostly as an entertaining sideshow – his mugshot! His latest insults! – not a perilous threat to democracy, despite four indictments and 91 charges against him, and despite his own clear statements that his re-election would bring extreme anti-democratic results; he would replace public servants with the cronies who’ll do his bidding. “We will look back on this and wish more people had understood that Biden is our bulwark of democratic freedoms and the alternative is worse than most Americans can imagine,” commented Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen, and an expert in authoritarian regimes. — The Guardian
Since Biden took office the US economy has added a record 14m jobs while his list of legislative accomplishments has earned comparisons with those of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson … Trump, meanwhile, is facing 91 criminal indictments in Atlanta, Miami, New York and Washington DC, some of which relate to an attempt to overthrow the US government. — The Guardian
Regardless, Trump is leading in many polls. — Wayfarer
How do you reasonably debate or convince people otherwise when they willingly vote for someone who wants to suspend the Constitution -- the very document that secures their right to vote in the first place? — GRWelsh
What we're experiencing with Trump, Fox News, Newsmax, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this whole phenomenon of alt-right, alt-facts, conspiracy theorists, demagogues, etc. is all what I would call the necessary evil of living in an open, democratic society with free speech. — GRWelsh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.