:rofl:

Glad to see this devolve into exactly the kind of absurdity that inspired it. Nice job boys :clap:

The only true way to deal with science-denying morons. Satire and sarcasm.

:lol:

This is great. I can’t even see what you’re responding to, but I love it all the same.

Ever occur to you that maybe Trump himself had something to do with that? — tim wood

I think this is fair. Compare how Obama was treated in conservative media — he held a coffee while saluting! He wore a tan suit! He asked for dijon mustard! He’s a Muslim! He wants to make himself king! Not to mention endless references to Hitler. For years and years this happened. I couldn’t stand Obama, but it was almost never criticism of doing too LITTLE for working people, or for bailing out banks and the auto industry, or for betraying people on the public option, or for the drone wars. When he was criticized for this, it was minimal— largely because conservatives applaud much of it themselves.

“Liberal” media are also hysterical and largely unfair. The Russia stuff from the beginning was obviously ridiculous to anyone not wearing DNC blinders, the stuff about not disavowing David Duke was BS, the stuff about Charlottesville was BS, the pathetic worship of Robert Mueller, etc.

BUT — and this is where the “all politicians lie” and “both parties are the same” simplemindedness breaks down — Trump has beyond a doubt given them far more to work with. His lies are more numerous and more blatant, his corruption and lack of knowledge about the world, the economy, the military, the government, history, science, philosophy, art — everything except self-promotion— is unlike anything that’s come before. And he’s great at dog-whistling and implications, always making sure (probably thanks to years of being sued and dealing with lawyers) he has plausible deniability.

Imagine Obama likening his opposition to vermin and communists, or implying or explicitly advocating for jailing them. Or saying the election was stolen? What would the reaction on Fox News have been, when they blew a gasket over a condiment preference?

Trump is indeed different. You can’t whip your side into a frenzy and become ever-more extreme in your rhetoric and advocacy of violence and then be surprised when there’s an assassination attempt. I don’t like assassination attempts either — no one serious does — but once again the hypocrisy was so heavy afterwards it was nearly unbearable.

It’s an endless circle of calling out hypocrisy. Both sides are usually correct when they do so. That doesn’t make them equal. Republicans are simply more dangerous and bigger hypocrites. If saying that automatically makes one “biased,” fine. Then we need more bias— because it’s true.

The spin should be recognized for what it is, but simply dismissing it as 'business as usual, nothing to see here' whenever it's convenient (aka: when it's directed at one's political opponents) is the other side of the extreme — Tzeentch

Oh it’s definitely not business as usual. But I think we all know we’re well beyond that.

From my perspective, the Republicans put this train in motion, starting with Palin and the tea party (maybe even the Contract with America) and McConnell’s Senate shenanigans. Their media hasn’t helped; in their attempt to justify their unpopular agenda they’ve had to undermine truth and science and mathematics and reality far more than Dems.

The democrats are spineless corporatists and bureaucrats, but as similar as both parties really are I don’t see them as equal either— they’re not the ones that took us off the rails. So I’m certainly biased in that way — but I think I’m correct to be.

It does appear to me as downplaying - at least, when we consider the probable reaction if the opposite had happened. — Tzeentch

It’ll always appear as downplaying. Take a look at January 6th. What’s that, exactly? I myself don’t think it’s what the democrats make it out to be — but it’s also not what the republicans try to spin it as.

If Trump supporters were burning Teslas, I wouldn’t like it. I don’t like it now. But I would be pushing back against those that spin it. In this case I see much exaggeration. I don’t see that many people in power — or on philosophy forums — coming out in defense of it.

because Tesla is Musk’s sacred cow, and Musk has successfully bought himself a direct line to lawmakers and regulators, we must all now pretend that this is a crime of national consequence. — Benkei

Exactly. It’s just hilarious to watch. The spineless, principle-less, fact-free partisans are such fantastic hypocrites it’s quite incredible.

January 6th: patriots peacefully protesting.
Tesla cars destroyed: domestic terrorism.

I’m not in favor of destroying Teslas. I don’t like seeing it, and I don’t think it’s great strategy (although Tesla shares ARE plummeting). It’s the hypocrisy that I get a kick out of.

Two guys that shrug at January 6th and defend a genocide walk into a bar…

Yeah, that’d be funny or biting, if not for the fact that you’re too stupid to realize that was a joke. But keep trying.

I wish I never existed. — Truth Seeker

My wish is that all the people that wished they never existed would be granted their wish. Just so I could stop hearing about it.

Oh a few cars set on fire. Poor billionaire, boo woo.

Anyone remember the attack on the Capitol? “No one died! It’s just some property damage.”

Anyone die from the Tesla vandalism? No. “Domestic terrorism!”

It’s just so easy. Who can take partisan trolls seriously? Even if they PRETENDED to have principles, maybe they wouldn’t be so easy to spot.

“Domestic terrorism.”

When they do it, it’s terrorism. When we literally storm the Capitol because our cult leader told us the election was stolen, it’s a friendly tour.

:rofl: I love it.

I can’t imagine the reality for someone who has shrilled so relentlessly over the years for any politician, much less for one like Trump. — praxis

On this site anyway. But check Twitter — it’s very common. Hence so many Tweet reposts; he spawns from there.

I’ll pass. — NOS4A2

Excellent!

Your reality involves searching for things like videos of weird individuals inserting their fingers in their ass and wiping them on Teslas, which you then post on a philosophy forum and joyfully call reality. — praxis

Please don’t encourage self-reflection. It’s not like this is a philosophy forum…

Anyway — Please let him just continue. It almost always guarantees a laugh whenever I check.

Reality, brought to you by Twitter.

Spreading those realities, one tweet at a time. Gives great joy to your average mental patient too.

People! We’re living in a new Renaissance! Brought about by the casino-bankrupting reality TV star!

It’s REALITY! Why are you all laughing?

“Rubbing your faces in reality!”

(“Reality” = the stupid Tweets I happen to like today.) Hey, whatever brings one joy. I get to have the joy of laughing at them, so it’s a win-win.

Imagine coming to an internet philosophy forum to promote propaganda that everyone laughs at, day after day.

Genuinely worried you're mentally ill. — AmadeusD

Projection. It’s fairly obvious you’re mentally ill, given that you’ve held some kind of a grudge for literally years (even after being ignored for that amount of time), follow me around, slander and insult me unprovoked, and then continue to obsessively respond even after weeks have passed. All the while trying to maintain an air of being above it all, as if you weren’t the psychopath in this scenario. Being in psychology myself, this is very typical. You see it with most narcissists and sociopaths.

I’ve alerted the moderators already to your behavior.

Anyway- I can see now why I would have put you on the ignore extension, especially given that your other “contributions” are fatuous and remind me of someone who pretends to know it all because they recently took an undergraduate philosophy class.

er. I will refrain from further comment — AmadeusD

Yeah yeah … we all believe that I’m sure. :wink:

Then Trump might develop an appreciation of the complexity of the problem. — Banno

I really don’t think that’s in him. He doesn’t do complexity or nuance.

He's not often wrong, he's just a patently aggressive, disrespectful and emotionally immature person. — AmadeusD

Only to disingenuous, sanctimonious internet twits. I agree it’s a waste of time — and childish — to lower myself to your level. Can’t help myself. Pretentious pukes should be resisted at every instance — that’s my philosophy.

This turned out prophetic: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/974319

So ignoring court orders, threatening to impeach judges they disagree with, deporting green card holders because they don’t like what they say— you know, the “law and order” party. Violating due process and freedom of speech and assembly.

Now bombing countries and encouraging Israel while failing at a ceasefire in Eastern Europe.

What’s funny is that there’s no outrage from the petty partisan imbeciles who railed against Biden (often for far less). Just shows yet again that most people have no values or principles — just the unadulterated need to root for their preferred WWE wrestler, or sports team — no matter what they do.

We were talking about Democrats, remember? — RogueAI

You were talking about democrats.

Democrats would not support a war against Iran. — RogueAI

Many would. As always, if the pretense is right, they’ll go right along. Probably not with Trump in office though.

Do you see why what you said was really stupid? — RogueAI

Given that you say some of the stupidest things on this forum, and can barely keep up in this conversation without making up diversions, I’d be weary of accusing anyone of stupidity.

46 is more than 33. But glad to see the popularity of genocide slipping downward a bit.

The Democrats would support a war against Iran??? — RogueAI

40% supported a war against Iraq. So why not?

Maybe. — RogueAI

Well yes. Maybe the Chinese forget about Taiwan too. Who knows?

It would receive 0 support. Are you saying the Democrat party now would support a war against Iraq? Or Iran? — RogueAI

They would likely support a war against Iran, many of them. They’ve already thrown in their support for genocide. We call that “sane” behavior now.

There are two political parties in America. — RogueAI

And who said anything about political parties?

It seems to me that both sides are like exhausted bloody boxers, and Russia is ahead on points, but Ukraine is thinking, if we can hold on another three rounds, and just get a knockout blow.... — RogueAI

:lol:

Ukraine has been losing for literally years now. If you call annexing territory “losing on points,” that’s an interesting spin indeed.

Russia will keep what they’ve taken. It’s not fair, but it’s what will happen.

The Democrats have been consistent in their opposition to Iraq. — RogueAI

Who said anything about Democrats?

And no, they’ve been far from consistent. 40% voting for the resolution in 2002 is hardly what it would receive now.

So why were they wrong and you're right? Putin's not an evil guy, but Bush of Cheney or whoever we want to select was? — Echarmion

Good lord.

taken into consideration already — jorndoe

Hardly.

the invasion of Iraq doesn't have many defenders — jorndoe

Yeah, now. Not back then. Back then the very people condemning Russia today were defending the US.

Typical good guy bad guy stuff. That’s seemingly the limit of political imagination. Putin is an evil guy by bent on conquering Europe and re-establishing the Soviet Union. “Same old bullshit.”

Despite the fact that Imperial Russia under Tsar Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine and march on Berlin, they're rejecting temporary cease-fire deals and insist on a long-term peace agreement. — Tzeentch

Kind of funny that most arguments against peace assume this premise, of which there’s no evidence. Glad Trump, in his own idiotic way, isn’t buying it.

https://www.youtube.com/live/nNJOUy_luDM?si=Fl5VVUb-z_XgFcFN

Always interesting to hear from the boogeyman.

Seems accurate to me.

Also always funny to hear from people go on about how awful the invasion was, yet was fully supportive of the US invading Iraq back in 2003.

Principle is always the same: when you do it it’s terrorism; when I do it, it’s counter-terrorism.

You must not have taken a formal course in marketing to say this. — L'éléphant

I wasn’t talking about me exclusively, and my point is that it goes beyond buying brands.

Everyone knows businesses try to sell things and have various techniques to do so.

Maybe the Amish are on to something ;-) — Wayfarer

I was in Amish country a couple years ago — it’s seeped into their culture too. They give buggy rides, have ice cream stores, sell rootbeer from their farms, own restaurants, etc. There are several different sects. Only the most strict don’t engage in any of this stuff and are self-sufficient. Those are the ones I was hoping to meet—and never did.

The place to come for all Twitter updates and Truth Social reposts, plus the NY Post and Fox News, of course.

Always informative.

If few want to control many, they have to control perception. And they certainly have us firmly by the perception. — Tzeentch

:up:

And by desire, thanks to the merchants of cool and others like them.

A sibling died years ago and the algorithm started sending me ads for crash diet plans, black suits, grief counselling, and tickets to Las Vegas. Ads using psychological profiles and sentiment analysis are incredibly invasive. — fdrake

It’s scary how well some of these algorithms work though— with news, with music, with anticipating what you’ll search for based on the prior search or time of day, etc. We’re still reeling from the effects of the 90s and 2000s ad blitzes, but now with smartphones and social media it makes those days look quaint.

I think if they were to remake the documentary, the “cool” now would be influencers, who are really corporate shills themselves. Much like the example of ICP, they have to sell out — then kids catch on, and someone new comes up, then corporate America absorbs them, and so forth. Since they own these platforms, they get to choose.

And what's the alternative? Are you implying that owning a home is a bad thing? Or renting? — jgill

No, but there are alternatives: pooling resources with friends or family is a common one. But that isn’t very profitable, so it’s made to seem “un-cool.”

My wife and I convinced ourselves that we needed to buy a house before having a baby. We’ve done both — and now I realize I don’t need 3 bedrooms and 1,800 square feet at a 5.65% mortgage rate. I think it was the right move at the time, but I never even considered buying my parents’ house and making a little apartment for them or something — and I wonder why. It’s not because I don’t get along with them or that we’d have no privacy or space, or that it didn’t make better sense financially. It’s partly because in this culture, that’s simply ruled out as an option if you’re a “successful” adult. That’s aggravating to me.

Consequently their minds are all over the place, they have very short attention spans and get bored very easily. But we're all like that nowadays. I'm like it! 'Consumerism' relies on stimulating wants, the more the better, and getting consumers habituated to mass-produced goods. Vast fortunes are made on it. — Wayfarer

Yes indeed. It’s an attention-based economy in many ways now. They want your likes, views, engagement. That makes them money for advertisers. Not altogether different from television shows — the product TV sold was people’s attention, and they sold it to advertisers. Even subscription-based platforms now have ads. Facebook is just a cesspool of it. Twitter too.

There is absolutely no rational reason to buy a diamond for an engagement ring, its a manufactured social pressure — Philosophim

Good example. When I heard the “rule” was 3 months salary it was really irritating. Says who? Here business has taken something once authentic and turned it into something contrived and purely about profit.

it's hard to see the water when you are swimming in it. — bert1

Exactly. It’s precisely this that I like to analyze, where possible.

. I hate the way FB has become an essential service for my work purposes — bert1

The role of social media in all this could be a thread of its own of course, but yes— like iPhones, since nearly everyone has one or is on one, we’re ripe for being even more intelligently targeted, our data being sold without permission. Getting out of it becomes a collective action problem.

What would you like to discuss? — bert1

Whether or not you agree — but also specific examples. For me, I think advertising rears its ugly head in areas one might not suspect — like marriage and especially WEDDINGS. But also homeownership, which I kind of “fell for” in a way. Or the way living at home with one’s parents is viewed as being a loser — which ties into encouraging owning a home or renting.

It’s subtle, but you see the beliefs and values that are essential as prerequisites for the desired consumer behavior manifest themselves in stories on television, from sitcoms to dramas — because the networks are themselves owned by corporate America.

Human beings have the same needs they had 100,000 years ago— but now those needs and the rituals surrounding them have been hijacked. Nothing is exempt — Christmas, marriage, love, where we dwell, what we eat, how we dress, what we strive for. It’s all been infiltrated.

You must have some examples in your own life…