I didn’t even know who he was. I just recognized his X post occupying someone else’s head. But according to his page he’s a legal analyst on MSNBC, which really isn’t known for fairness and accuracy. And his grift is anti-Trumpism, as far as I can tell. His livelihood depends on an empty head’s thirst for that sweet sweet Trump talk. According to Chomsky’s propaganda model the media employ these kinds of “experts” all the time, but given his career as a federal prosecutor it’s clear he was bred to service power and promote the official line.

Thanks. That sounds reasonable.

Great article. I recall there were 2 outside consulting firms that were hired to search for fraud (Berkeley is the other). Political speech is generally propoganda, but in Trump's case - it was aimed at defrauding the public- hence the indictments.

NOS4A2 is still correct that biased media also produces propoganda. But all propoganda works only when we embrace it uncritically. Trump's base seems to fail at that.

Gunman in Colorada supreme court. Funny how the people scared of leftists and the law feel like it's perfectly fine to shoot people. Also funny how they all think like NOS4A2. I wonder when we can read about him in the newspapers.

A man was arrested early Tuesday after he broke into the Colorado Supreme Court overnight and opened fire inside the building, state police said in a news release.

The preliminary investigation “confirmed a high probability” that the incident is not connected to “recent threats against the Colorado Supreme Court Justices,” the Colorado State Patrol said.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html

Benkei’s analysis fails the moment it is compared to reality.

Doesn’t being a laughingstock who gets repeatedly embarrassed get tiresome?

:chin: That’s less a question for you than for the forum. Why do people like this go on? What’s the point?

For some negative attention is better than no attention.

Some regard the lack of approval as a sign of superiority. They understand what others do not.

Some get some kind of satisfaction from trolling. This may be a due to one or both of the above.

I enjoy it. I seek argument for its own sake. I get to test my intuitions against some fairly heavy criticism, and so far so good. If I wanted consensus and adulation I'd join Truth Social.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion?

Some regard the lack of approval as a sign of superiority. They understand what others do not. — Fooloso4

Oh there’s definitely that. Goes nicely with the normal victimization that the right are always peddling.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion? — NOS4A2

It doesn’t hurt, but as I said earlier, it would be nice if it wasn’t often insane and in such bad faith. You say you “test your intuitions.” Fine— but how about asking why those are your intuitions to begin with.

Why are you defending this con man? Why am I able to admit how much of a lying, corrupt sack of shit Joe Biden is, in agreement with much of what you say — about how the Russian stuff was largely nonsense and didn’t swing the ‘16 election, etc. — fairly obvious things for anyone not too caught up in the tribalism of politics; but you simply cannot admit the equally obvious statements about Donald Trump? Yet you go on pretending to be above it all? Above media propaganda, above groupthink, and so forth. Your relentless defense of this goon undermines your whole brand. It’s just bizarre and pointless. If there are real points to be made, why not make them clearly?

Eh, it’s a new year— figured I’d try to understand it once before mostly ignoring it.

I just can't be bothered to care about his moral life or what comes out of his mouth. What I oppose is the moral panic created in his name. His reactionary opposition, especially of the neocon and establishment variety, have created a folk devil the likes of which we have never seen, and they're sending us directly into tyranny in order to combat it. I'm baffled by people wedding themselves to such a cabal, but so it is and here we are.

I seek argument for its own sake. — NOS4A2

That is shallow, frivolous, and unphilosophical. It is the reason why Plato reserves the practice of philosophy for those who are mature enough to approach it seriously. Argument for argument's sake is for sophists and children.

I get to test my intuitions against some fairly heavy criticism, and so far so good. — NOS4A2

This is a good example of the problem. If your intuitions are reflected in your arguments then your inability to see when and how your arguments have failed is the result of arguing for the sake of arguing. It is as if you want to play chess and think that you have not lost when checkmated because you continue to move pieces around.

Because you do not take words and arguments seriously you are not taken seriously.

I just can't be bothered to care about his moral life or what comes out of his mouth. What I oppose is the moral panic created in his name. — NOS4A2

But this can be argued about Biden too. Do you listen to conservative talk radio or read conservative newspapers editorials — to say nothing of cable news, Twitter, Rumble, podcasts, etc. You’d think the fucking world is ending because of some senile figurehead in the White House. So what? Of course it’s overblown, hyperbolic, sensationalized.

Yes, the left does it too. No question. Even if one believes it’s more extreme on the left, why let that blind us to the reality that it’s tribalism all around?

I don’t give a damn about Trump as a personality. I look at his policies and his influence on millions of Americans who take him seriously— and the results of such policies and rhetoric. The record is simply terrible. Biden isn’t far behind.

But the question stands.

Give it a rest already.

That is shallow, frivolous, and unphilosophical. It is the reason why Plato reserves the practice of philosophy for those who are mature enough to approach it seriously. Argument for argument's sake is for sophists and children.

How does one advance his thinking if he refuses to subject his beliefs to the grindstone of argument? He cannot. You become a victim of orthodoxy, a state reserved for dogmatists and religious acolytes—perpetual children. In any case, my rhetoric isn't intended to persuade others or used in the furtherance of some other ploy.

Sophists also overestimated the power of words. It's a shame Plato never dispelled that myth from the get go or Socrates may not have been put to death.

This is a good example of the problem. If your intuitions are reflected in your arguments then your inability to see when and how your arguments have failed is the result of arguing for the sake of arguing. It is as if you want to play chess and think that you have not lost when checkmated because you continue to move pieces around.

Because you do not take works and arguments seriously you are not taken seriously.

I don't care if I'm taken seriously.

But this can be argued about Biden too. Do you listen to conservative talk radio or read conservative newspapers editorials — to say nothing of cable news, Twitter, Rumble, podcasts, etc. You’d think the fucking world is ending before of some senile figurehead in the White House. So what? Of course it’s overblown, hyperbolic, sensationalized.

Yes, the left does it too. No question. Even if one believes it’s more extreme on the left, why let that blind us to the reality that it’s tribalism all around?

No, I don’t listen to that shit, nor do I watch any television. My propaganda diet is limited to what pops up on my X feed. But I sometimes see the neocons, warmongers, and Bushites in The Atlantic warning of a Trumpian future and find I am in good company. I’m glad the grand ol party has imploded and the neocons are left without a ship to float on. But that they’ve shifted their support to Biden is quite telling, in my opinion.

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch.

How does one advance his thinking if he refuses to subject his beliefs to the grindstone of argument? — NOS4A2

The question is: to what end? If the end is arguing for the sake of arguing, then there can be no advance, just endless argument.

The question is: to what end? If the end is arguing for the sake of arguing, then there can be no advance, just endless argument.

It's a method. The end is one's own education and growth, which ought to be endless.

But I sometimes see the neocons, warmongers, and Bushites in The Atlantic warning of a Trumpian future and find I am in good company. — NOS4A2

Did you approve of Trump authorizing the killing of Suleimani? Actions like that are straight out of the neocon playbook. It led to an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. air base. No soldiers were killed, but if some had been, we might have been in a shooting war.

Did you approve of Trump authorizing the killing of Suleimani? Actions like that are straight out of the neocon playbook. It led to an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. air base. No soldiers were killed, but if some had been, we might have been in a shooting war.

Yes I did. The prospect of war was one of the reasons Bush refused to do it. It turns out he was wrong.

It's a method. The end is one's own education and growth — NOS4A2

So then, it is not arguing for the sake of argument. You often seem to forget this.

The truth is, though, that this does not square with your compulsive defense of Trump.

Yes, I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing.

My compulsive defense of Trump correlates well with my opposition to his enemies.

Yes I did. The prospect of war was one of the reasons Bush refused to do it. It turns out he was wrong. — NOS4A2

You approve of assassinations of other country's generals, yet you have disdain for warmongers? Is that right?

Yes, I seek argument for its own sake, — NOS4A2

If you seek argument for the sake of your education and growth then you do not seek argument for the sake of argument. Except it is evident that you actually do argue for the sake of arguing. It is then evident that what you do is pointless. Round and round.

My compulsive defense of Trump correlates well with my opposition to his enemies. — NOS4A2

Of course it does! But he already has more than enough high paid lawyers who do a much better job of defending him than you do. Whether they will all actually get paid is another story.

You approve of assasinations of other countries generals, yet you have disdain for warmongers? Is that right?

Yes, I approved of that assassination. It arguably averted war.

If you seek argument for the sake of your education and growth then you do not seek argument for the sake of argument. Except it is evident that you actually do argue for the sake of arguing. It is then evident that what you do is pointless. Round and round.

I said I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing. Why do you refuse to quote what I say, stopping mid sentence for whatever reason, and pretend I said something else? We know why: you're a sophist.

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch. — NOS4A2

This explains your indifference to culture war issues regarding civil rights and the interests of those influencing the makeup of judicial appointees. Those issues have a direct bearing on who has power in communities. Trump has been a very good boy in that regard.

To act as if this was not going on is to misunderstand the support for Trump. Your vision of politics excludes the simple ingredient of perceived self-interest.

My propaganda diet is limited to what pops up on my X feed. — NOS4A2

Notice I mentioned Twitter. Which has become a huge cesspool itself. A poor diet indeed.

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch. — NOS4A2

Again, I’m not interested in his personality or that he insults everyone who doesn’t kiss his ass— I’m interested in policy. And when it comes to policy, he’s as much part of the uniparty as anyone. Same rhetoric, same personnel, same legislation.

There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. — NOS4A2

And when it comes to policy, he’s as much part of the uniparty as anyone. — Mikie

Uniparty? There's a huge difference between them. One of them is leading to cases like this:

Emergency rooms not required to perform life-saving abortions, federal appeals court rules

There are differences, and important ones. Abortion, climate, guns, you name it. But corporate America still dominates both. No labor party or socialist party like other countries, etc.

I said I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. — NOS4A2

No. This is what you said. In full:

I enjoy it. I seek argument for its own sake. I get to test my intuitions against some fairly heavy criticism, and so far so good. If I wanted consensus and adulation I'd join Truth Social.

Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion? — NOS4A2

And this is what it was in response to:

Doesn’t being a laughingstock who gets repeatedly embarrassed get tiresome?

That’s less a question for you than for the forum. Why do people like this go on? What’s the point? — Mikie

Like Trump you say something then say something else to modify it. As if you did not say what you said and said something else all along. And like Trump you attempt to hide behind your words when your actions tell a different story.