Admitting that you've lost is unamerican. — baker

How so? What is particularly 'American' about never admitting you lost? Think about the absurdities it would lead to. No political candidate would ever concede an election. No professional athlete or sports team would ever concede they lost a game or match. No one would ever pay up on a bet, because they'd refuse to admit they lost the bet. Society couldn't function like this. What you are describing is being a sore loser or being deluded.

"oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion. — Outlander

I'm unsure this is reasonable in any sense.

Your subjective assessment of 'being annoyed' or offended means literally nothing helpful here. Even collective versions mean almost nothing. We are well aware of plenty of collective social claims that are either entire untrue, or in fact ARE people overreacting. There isn't such a simple way to deal with this.

I'm unsure this is reasonable in any sense. — AmadeusD

Well of course not, that's an out-of-context clipping of a larger sentiment, which was also an opinion, one that we both know is shared by the majority. I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm simply saying being loud and annoying is loud and annoying. Not a political view or lack thereof. Saying that not being loud, annoying, and offensive to, since you seem to be playing dumb for some reason, a majority and largely agreed upon standard of social morals, is some sort of hindrance to society while being offensive and irritating people is some qualification of strength. It's not.

It is not subjective, in the terms of quantitatively-measurable politics and society, that is to say it is the will of the people and even yourself. If you like abuse and unneeded suffering, burden, or difficulty, you are a "masochist", which is the cousin of a sadist, and an even closer cousin of a predator or undesirable member of society, which legally makes you a threat to others especially children. I know you're not. So please stop pretending logic is anything less than what it is for the sheer sake of chiming in.

a majority and largely agreed upon standard of social morals — Outlander

No idea why you've felt the need to say im 'playing dumb'. I think you've made a dumb point.

There is no 'largely agreed upon' standard for annoyance or loudness, particularly when it comes to issues that, to different people in different directionss, allows for some annoyance and loudness.

I have no idea what your attitude even is, let alone can i make sense of you. You made a silly point that speaks to your biases. I just pointed it out.

It seems you're relying on my disagreeing with you as an indication that im wrong. Wow.

There is no 'largely agreed upon' standard for annoyance or loudness — AmadeusD

Purposeless degradation or defilement of one's character. It's a literal legal concept, thousands of years old. Slander.

If I come up to you and your family and say, "you're ugly and stupid" than punch you in the face, that would either offend or seem unneeded to the majority of people. That's a fact, jack. You know this. Brashness and "toxicity" go hand in hand. You could disagree with every fiber of your being of a person's life choices, but that doesn't mean calling them a disparaging name is any sort of reasonable means to go about correcting what you deem as a social ill.

Do you like being insulted? What about harmed? Again, needlessly and without purpose. I would wager you do not. And if you do, that places you as an outlier and outcast of society. "Reasonability" is subjective, and if people wish to cast or call what the average, healthy individual wishes to avoid in the light of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" that is quite in line with logic and rationale.

A child knows what pain is. So, hopefully, should an adult. So, though not quite an ad homonym, it is not "my" subjective assessment, but again, I do not understand why you do not accept this, an objective, thoroughly proven sentiment and therefore more or less reality.

Oh, so you're talking about crimes. Okay. Different discussion.

Oh, you're talking about physical assault. Nice. You missed my point, or I missed yours (both, it seems) and im bored now. I think your point is weak and doesn't address the problem that there is no broad agreement about annoyance or offense under a certain legal threshold. Whatever man..

See this is the problem with (not TPF, or discourse wherever it may occur, but rather) modern debate writ-large. We go off on personal tangents, warranted in each one's own mind in the moment of rebuttal.

Let's backtrack a moment. If you could reduce or rather simplify the entire sentiment, as you first ascertained it to be, into a single sentence. For me, that single sentence was, to the best of my ability, based on your reply "Being crass or purposely offensive, for no other reason just to do so, then calling someone who believes society and humanity itself is better off without crass and (pay attention, KEY WORD here is: PURPOSELESS) insensitive demeanor and resulting sensitivity is a malady or "burden on society" while those who believe the opposite are assets to it" is in your words "unsure if [...] reasonable".

That's all I disagree with. And I can point to documentation, legal, social, and otherwise, that support my sentiment. Can you?

The problem is that you (plural) don't know whom you're up against and you don't even care to find out what it would take to win against them.
— baker

What would it take to win against them?
— Fooloso4
I'm not sure, but playing the good boy/good girl and expecting them to play good boys/good girls certainly isn't working. They just laugh it off. — baker

Here is a frame of good versus evil. Within this frame there is no possible answer. How can a fair player win against a cheater? They cannot, they will always lose to the aces up the sleeve. And the conclusion then is that the good guys have to cheat like the bad guys do. The old gold of "They go low, we go high" does not work, it is fool's gold.

Therefore the first step towards a solution must be to reject the comfortable fantasy that "we" are the good guys, and "they" are the problem. Because clearly, for a large minority of America, it is the other way about. Clearly, for these people the game is already rigged so they always lose and they don't want to play by "our" rules any more.

And that is the plain truth, that the game has been rigged from the beginning, to favour the few, the establishment. This has been somewhat hidden because with strong growth in the economy few have to be losing even in a rigged game. As long as the deplorables get their bread and circuses, they won't notice anything.

There's no shortage of circuses, but the bread is running short. That is the problem.

Then it seems you have some level of trust in the system.

Again, you're not groking even the arena in which I made my comment.

There is an observable fact that we, by and large, disagree on what that threshold is. You cannot point to the law. It is transgressed every day, and there are entire movements (even out of Universities - point here being its institutional in nature) to upend the legal restrictions on 'annoyance' and 'loudness'.

The limits of protest, are one prime example where your type of sentiments just aren't palatable to most, and at the extremely worst are entirely unenforceable.

Some laws require arrest at the notion of 'causing offense' (Harmful Digital Communications Act here in NZ and a similar analogue in the UK as examples). But the concept of 'causing offence' is so wildly variable im not understanding how you can rely on the law, other than to discuss hte law.

My sentiment comes down to "What you consider offensive is not a good benchmark" and that all-too-often people think someone being offended is evidence of someone wronging them/whomever is offended.

I understand you may be stipulating that the behaviour youre talking about transgresses those legal benchmarks. I don't not appreciate that. It's just that's not what I was attempting to approach.

Here is a frame of good versus evil. Within this frame there is no possible answer. How can a fair player win against a cheater? They cannot, they will always lose to the aces up the sleeve. And the conclusion then is that the good guys have to cheat like the bad guys do. The old gold of "They go low, we go high" does not work, it is fool's gold. — unenlightened

If a notion of goodness is such that the proposed goodness can be exploited, abused, punished, then this is not goodness at all.

How can a fair player win against a cheater?

If the goal of the game is to win, then why act in ways that hinder winning?

Therefore the first step towards a solution must be to reject the comfortable fantasy that "we" are the good guys, and "they" are the problem. Because clearly, for a large minority of America, it is the other way about. Clearly, for these people the game is already rigged so they always lose and they don't want to play by "our" rules any more.

Or else, they're onto something. What good is a goodneness that is weak?

Admitting that you've lost is unamerican.
— baker

How so? What is particularly 'American' about never admitting you lost? Think about the absurdities it would lead to. No political candidate would ever concede an election. No professional athlete or sports team would ever concede they lost a game or match. No one would ever pay up on a bet, because they'd refuse to admit they lost the bet. Society couldn't function like this. What you are describing is being a sore loser or being deluded. — GRWelsh

American culture (like so many others) is internally inconsistent, containing mutually exclusive tenets.

What good is a goodneness that is weak? — baker

A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.
Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.
— Lao Tzu

Any why think that the Trumpistas are not like that?

No, but I doubt they would admit it.

American culture (like so many others) is internally inconsistent, containing mutually exclusive tenets. — baker

That's true, but it doesn't explain what you said earlier about it being un-American to admit you lost. Why is that un-American, as opposed to un-Canadian, or un-Russian, or un-any-other-culture? I think this is just being a sore loser in any culture. It can't be a virtue in any culture because it undermines having a functioning society for the reasons I gave earlier. In summary:

• Refusing to give up when you're losing = virtue
• Refusing to admit you lost after the contest is over = delusional

Most contests don't last forever. They have an ending, with a winner and a loser. You campaign for a while, then the election occurs, you count the votes and a winner is declared. You can't have two winners, and you can't have your own facts when things don't go your way. That's the problem with Trump and Trump-enablers. They won't accept the loss and move on.

Every win for Trump is a loss for democracy. But the day of reckoning approaches.

Consider this hypothetical (although it may not be hypothetical for long). Trump is found guilty of the charges he’s facing at the January 6th trial, scheduled to begin in March - charges which will almost certainly bring a jail term (pending appeals process.)

So at the Republican Convention in July in Milwaukee, is it credible that the Republican Party will finalise the nomination of someone who has been found guilty of interfering with the peaceful transfer of power? An action which has already resulted in the desecration of the Capitol and hundreds of jail terms? Even though, and incredibly, there’s no clause in the Constitution which disqualifies a candidate for having had such a conviction, how is that not going to amount to a constitutional crisis? ‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? I mean, I have no idea, but I can’t see Trump ‘cruising to victory’.

‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? I mean, I have no idea, but I can’t see Trump ‘cruising to victory’. — Wayfarer

I don't think it will matter. They see the trial as some bullshit political witch-hunt and a significant percentage of voters don't seem to care, so I think full steam ahead Team Trump. I think the game of decency in politics (which was alwasy wafer thin) has evaporated.

I don't think it will matter. — Tom Storm

I may not matter to the rusted-on Trumpistas, but it will still be objectively critical. And as far as the politics goes - will it be a winning strategy?

And actually I think that kind of shrug is just the kind of poisonous miasma that Trump emits. Facts don't matter, right? It's only what people like that matters.

And actually I think that kind of shrug is just the kind of poisonous miasma that Trump emits. — Wayfarer

It's just what it looks like.

I may not matter to the rusted-on Trumpistas, but it will still be objectively critical. And as far as the politics goes - will it be a winning strategy? — Wayfarer

The polls are looking favorable for Trump, so it may well work.

Incidentally, I have met quite a few pro Trump Australians and they are not bogans (rednecks), but generally thoughtful about politics. In their mind civic life and government has become mired in political correctness and is rotten to the core and they really dig the idea of a vulgar mob boss figure like Trump kicking the system about for 4 years. You're right that this inherent cynicism about the status quo is what helps give Trump power. But we live in a cynical age, a fact which a successful candidate can probably harness, so I wonder how useful it is to push back against the zeitgeist. Your Don Quixote avatar may be apropos...

I remain optimistic that Trump is leading his movement off a cliff into the deep blue sea....

I have to say, it will be very entertaining checking in on this thread if and when Trump wins.

So the fact that Trump says that the Constitution ought to be suspended, and that he will purge the public service and jail his critics doesn't bother you? The possibility that America could become a dictatorship isn't a cause for concern? Do you think he's joking when he says he will do that?

.......what?

I said reading this thread will be entertaining. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone who mentioned any of that?

It's only that the comment I responded to seemed quite indifferent to the possibility of Trump winning or even that - 'if and when' - it's probable. Don't you think that he's a real threat to society? Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to understand people's attitudes.

Don't you think that he's a real threat to society? Not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to understand people's attitudes. — Wayfarer

Hmm. Yes, but I don't think that's his fault per se. It's the fault of everyone being so intensely divided and willing to lose huge parts of their humanity in service of an opinion - which is certainly taking opportunity in.
As much as he lies, he's lied about a huge amount too so I find it hard to take it more seriously than any other situation of media-driven horseshit in politics. But, to be clear this post (to you) outlines my position on Trump.

Don't you think that he's a real threat to society? — Wayfarer

The only positive thing that will come out of a Trump presidency, if he goes too far, would be that the sleepy apathetic regular people who doesn't care about politics will wake up and smell the ashes. After such a clusterfuck I think there would be a radical change to the core of the US system that puts higher demands on the competency of any future presidential candidates. Maybe even strengthening the ability to remove presidents who abuse their power. At the moment, all the steps to remove a president hinges on their own followers to vote against him, which isn't gonna happen with fanatics and people who only cares about their own power.

It's ironic that with the historical banishment of those who followed a king, all in the name of freedom, the nation ended up in a rather autocratic position; swear on the bible, live in a white castle, have servants and a king's guard. Maybe we should just call the US out for being the pseudo-monarchy that it is and reshape its democracy to protect it better against those who would and could tear it down into a proper autocratic society.

if he goes too far — Christoffer

Everything he's done since coming down the escalator is a step too far. A thousand times already, it's been 'that's it, now he's done it, there's no coming back from this.' And yet, here we are.

Everything he's done since coming down the escalator is a step too far. A thousand times already, it's been 'that's it, now he's done it, there's no coming back from this.' And yet, here we are. — Wayfarer

I think "going too far" needs to go further before people wake up. When people start to feel the fascist boot up their ass, they're gonna dust off that anti-fascist mentality everyone had during the early 40's.

Just as you say, nothing is done by what has already happen, so he can go far if he like, but if he starts to dismantle the ability for other presidents or the Democrats, or even others in the Republican party to be voted into power after him, then that is gonna be bloody. At this point, due to his own words, I'm not ruling out civil war; if the military is even willing to march on his orders. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone in his own security took action while he's down oinking into- and devouring a pile of Big Macs. There are too many people in the US who wouldn't accept such abuse of power.

On the other side though, if Biden wins I wouldn't rule out militias believing they're God's army under Trump's banner to make some form of attack.. The powder keg is lit and the only thing that would stop it is if Trump chokes on his Big Mac falling on the fuse.

It's going to be some kind of mess, this won't be clean in any form.