sure, it can happen here

[iambiguous]

We forget the military, and the people are ultimately in control, not the politicians.
It's amazing for nearly 250 years, by and large the military, and the people have listened to the politicians.
If the politicians can't get their shit together in the US, there's a possibility a military leader could takeover, round em up and kill em all.

Few like to think this is in any way applicable to America but if one or another "crisis" becomes big enough and is sustained long enough, "might makes right" is always there behind the curtain. It just depends on which version of the deep state one subscribes to.

On the other hand, being basically hardcore, right-wing, "liberals-are-scumbags!" objectivists, some here insist that by "the politicians getting their shit together" it means them thinking exactly like they do.

Then it all comes down to just how close to or far away from fascism --real fascism -- they are willing to take us. In other words, they embrace "might makes right" only in the sense that "right makes might". They are right so might is okay.

And, given this, I have challenge them thusly:

Okay, you're looking for the truth, right?

But: Aside from what you say it is and others say it is, what facts have been established...and where is the documented evidence to substantiate it?

Also, I am willing to acknowledge that my own take on all of this is rooted only in what I have read about it and heard from others. And in my own subjective political prejudices which are ever and always subject to change given new experiences and new information.

Will you admit the same? Or, again, are you just one more "my way or the highway" political objectivist who sees only what you already insist must be true in order to sustain a belief that you are in sync with the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to believe". And that anyone who does not think exactly like you do is basically the scum of the earth.

In other words, the place which you don't dare to go because you've got so much invested in thinking that you know everything that needs to be known about everything that really matters.

Just say the word, and we can start that thread.

And this:

Seriously though if you let me I can cure you of objectivism.

Yes, right now my own frame of mind is still "the place which you don't dare to go because you've got so much invested in thinking that you know everything that needs to be known about everything that really matters."

You lose all that, true. But look at all you gain. Options for example. With the objectivist, there's only one option: "my way or the highway". Every time you think, feel, say or do something you have to ask yourself, "is this what everyone who thinks and feels and says and does exactly what I do think, feel say and do?"

Everything is always either/or. Your trapped in your own insufferable dogma.

Think about, okay?

So far, no takers.

[Mowk]

there's only one option: "my way or the highway"

That appears as two options to me, your way and my way down the highway.

But I get at least a sense of what you are saying. While each right winger here turns the world into two big lumps it is difficult for me to put them all in the same pile. Do green eyed objectivists always make the same choices and blue eyed ones?

[iambiguous]

there's only one option: "my way or the highway"

That appears as two options to me, your way and my way down the highway.

That's just word games. Most know how the political objectivists [left and right] divide up the world:

1] One of us
2] One of them

And, no, not in this sense: https://youtu.be/9C4uTEEOJlM

[Mowk]

If the words "either" and "or" are just a game.
Agree with me; else...

[obsrvr524]

Most know how the political objectivists [left and right] divide up the world:

1] One of us
2] One of them

Is that what you think "objectivist" means? It would explain many of your seemingly nonsensical posts.

[iambiguous]

If the words "either" and "or" are just a game.
Agree with me; else...

Well, for all practical purposes, if someone is in the position to punish John for refusing to become "one of us", his option can become considerably more restricted. It's like if there really was a God and there really was a Heaven and a Hell, you could still claim the option to tell God to go fuck Himself.

Or someone in Nazi Germany exercises their option to tell Hitler to go fuck himself.

When objectivists gain absolute power because they have the might to enforce their right, you have the option to go along or to resist.

Different ways to look at it. But the reality of power itself doesn't go away.

[iambiguous]

Most know how the political objectivists [left and right] divide up the world:

1] One of us
2] One of them

Is that what you think "objectivist" means? It would explain many of your seemingly nonsensical posts.

Okay, in regard to the point Gloominary is making about politicians getting their shit together, what would you construe to be an objectivist? Are you willing to concede that the liberals and communists have just as much a right to demand that the politicians side with their own leftist policies?

That's what an objectivist is to me. He or she is someone who thinks that they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right think to do."

And that the politicians are justified to use the might of the military if that military might is used to reconfigure the nation to be more in sync with their own ideological agenda.

Now your turn.

[obsrvr524]

To me an objectivist says -
"This concern is real"
And if he is politicizing he continues with, "and this is the policy we should use to deal with it."

A counter objectivist politician might say -
"This concern is not real and so this is the policy we should use instead."

A non-objectivist politician would say -
"None of this is real but this is what we should do"

The counter non-objectivist politician might say -
"None of this is real but this counter policy is what we should do.

Doesn't being an objectivist merely mean "I think there is a real"?

[iambiguous]

Doesn't being an objectivist merely mean "I think there is a real"?

Yeah, sure, but my rendition of it revolves around those who insist that their own moral and political convictions reflect the only "real" that counts.

Now back to this:

Okay, in regard to the point Gloominary is making about politicians getting their shit together, what would you construe to be an objectivist? Are you willing to concede that the liberals and communists have just as much a right to demand that the politicians side with their own leftist policies?

That's what an objectivist is to me. He or she is someone who thinks that they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right think to do."

And that the politicians are justified to use the might of the military if that military might is used to reconfigure the nation to be more in sync with their own ideological agenda.

[obsrvr524]

Yeah, sure, but my rendition of it revolves around those who insist that their own moral and political convictions reflect the only "real" that counts.

A moral objectivist would say something like that - "It is a FACT that killing is to be avoided".
A political objectivist would say something like - "It is a FACT that this policy works to our goal".

Those are two different concerns.

Okay, in regard to the point Gloominary is making about politicians getting their shit together, what would you construe to be an objectivist? Are you willing to concede that the liberals and communists have just as much a right to demand that the politicians side with their own leftist policies?

I don't think that objectivism has anything to do with political ideologies (other than when they are factually proven to be fantasies).

That's what an objectivist is to me. He or she is someone who thinks that they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right think to do."

That seems like subjectivism to me. Each subject has their own rendition of best policy. They are not claiming facts but their own opinion of best policy.

And that the politicians are justified to use the might of the military if that military might is used to reconfigure the nation to be more in sync with their own ideological agenda.

That is not about being objective at all. That is about fascism - using force to demand compliance to a policy perhaps concerning morality or ideology. Objectivity hasn't anything to do with it.

[Meno_]

And an oft repeated point in talking about 'objectivists' and ' non-objectivits' or rather, taking such positions, is that objectives are a product of quantifying relative positions which define such positions.

Those positions will entail differing degrees of the objective to subjective continuum and in a sense a definite position has to belong in a sense of defining situations and values, by the use of those definitions, before higher a higher / or lower grade definition can be made as to that degree.

That is why, in today's sense of varied sensibility, it is a misuse to categorize any position as the some total of absolute attributes.

That is the implication which comes through Heidegger's definition of Dasein.

[obsrvr524]

quantifying relative positions which define such positions.

Does that mean expressing an exact definition or applying measurements and numbers?

[Gloominary]

On the other hand, being basically hardcore, right-wing, "liberals-are-scumbags!" objectivists, some here insist that by "the politicians getting their shit together" it means them thinking exactly like they do.

Right, by "getting their shit together" I meant it in the same sense I think you mean it.
That all sides respect the democratic process.
If the courts dismiss Trump's claims of voter fraud and he ends up losing, that he and the republican leaders make a full concession.
Likewise, if the courts affirm his claims and he ends up winning, that the democratic leaders make a full concession.
This respect for the process is of course breaking down before the world's eyes.

When the courts decided in favor of Bush over Gore, a lot of dems felt they'd been cheated.
When Obama was elected over McCain and then Romney, some republican leaders, Trump among them, were promoting conspiracy theories that Obama was born outside the US.
And for the last 4 years dems were promoting their own conspiracy theories about Trump being Putin's puppet, and now Trump is throwing it back at them, claiming Biden is China's puppet and that the dems stole the election.

Everyone knows that America has been getting more and more culturally and politically divided for decades, and it's showing absolutely no signs of slowing down, instead it's accelerating.
There's probably more than just one reason for it, the gap between rich and poor has been growing for decades.
Also America is a more diverse place than ever ethnically and culturally, and while I'm not trying to say diversity is weakness, that would just be a rightwing talking point (likewise diversity is strength is just a leftwing talking point), perhaps we can all at least agree that increasing cultural and ethnic diversity can breed fear and suspicion, as well as confusion over the country's identity, and that this fear and confusion manifests differently for left and right.

And to this class, cultural and ethnic division you can add Covid.
Regardless if you think the threat from Covid is being exaggerated or not, it's at least a crisis in that most top public health officials appear to say it is and many people and politicians believe it is.
In a crisis there's even more potential for division.
Minor issues are ones we're more willing to compromise on, because even tho we don't entirely trust the other side to get it right, even if they get it wrong, it won't be the end of us all, but major crises could be do or die, people's trust and willingness to compromise breaks down, as well as just the general panic and fear that's in the air, means people are more willing to act on an instinctive level, and compromise take some degree of discipline, to reign our instincts in.

So how can we lessen this division?
I think it starts by accepting that about 50% of the country sees things quite a bit differently than we see them, that they're not going to change, and that while we may not agree with them, we do have to live with them, they are our friends, family and neighbors, and while they may be wrongheaded at times, they're at least not insane, stupid or evil, they may even have something to teach us, occasionally.
If you grow to hate your family sheerly over political differences, there is something very wrong.
That is cult like behavior, and if many families start to break down this way the country will be next.
If you're afraid of publicly revealing your political beliefs, beliefs much of the country share, because of the potential social, economic, and physical ramifications, then something is very, very wrong, and we can't keep going on like this.
The cult like thinking on both sides has to stop if we are to go on living with one another.

Because of worsening economic, social and now medical conditions many Americans are enduring, changes do need to be made, I think most of us can agree on that, but it can't just be my side's changes.
If we want to make some changes in our direction, we're going to have to allow the other side to make some changes in theirs too.

There has to be accommodation, collaboration, compromise as well as openness to change and new ideas, and it has to be roughly a two way street, just like any relationship, or it probably won't survive, and it probably isn't worth surviving either.
If this isn't possible for many to do, then the solution may ultimately be secession.
But this endless back and forth, where one side accuses the other of being a traitor, I think if we continue to go down that road, it can only lead to one place, and that is the violent end of the American experiment.

[iambiguous]

Yeah, sure, but my rendition of it revolves around those who insist that their own moral and political convictions reflect the only "real" that counts.

A moral objectivist would say something like that - "It is a FACT that killing is to be avoided".
A political objectivist would say something like - "It is a FACT that this policy works to our goal".

Those are two different concerns.

Note some specific contexts.

Okay, in regard to the point Gloominary is making about politicians getting their shit together, what would you construe to be an objectivist? Are you willing to concede that the liberals and communists have just as much a right to demand that the politicians side with their own leftist policies?

I don't think that objectivism has anything to do with political ideologies (other than when they are factually proven to be fantasies).

Tell that to the ideologues down through the ages who insisted that their own political agendas would be reflected in the law of the land and in all government programs and policies.

That's what an objectivist is to me. He or she is someone who thinks that they are in sync with the "real me" in sync with "the right think to do."

That seems like subjectivism to me. Each subject has their own rendition of best policy. They are not claiming facts but their own opinion of best policy.

Okay, would you or gloominary call it that in regard to "politicians getting their shit together"? Would you concede that your own rendition of it is no more rational -- necessarily rational -- than the liberals and leftists? Are you willing to concede that, say, communists have just as much a right to demand that the politicians side with their own policies?

And that the politicians are justified to use the might of the military if that military might is used to reconfigure the nation to be more in sync with their own ideological agenda.

That is not about being objective at all. That is about fascism - using force to demand compliance to a policy perhaps concerning morality or ideology. Objectivity hasn't anything to do with it.

Come on, if someone does believe that they are in sync with the real me in sync with the right think to do, and, as a result of that they advocate using military might to "takeover, round em up and kill" all those they perceive as "one of them"...isn't that in the general vicinity of objectivism? It certainly is as I understand it?

Now, I don't know if that is what Gloominary is advocating the military do in regard to those politicians whose "shit" isn't wholly aligned with his own, but if he is that comes close enough for me to what is "for all practical purposes" objectivism

[Meno_]

quantifying relative positions which define such positions.

Does that mean expressing an exact definition or applying measurements and numbers?

No.Counting ballots is not certainly definitive, and that is just the opposite. The thing is, if the probable cases go up, it approaches what is defined as more probable and definitive.


"Does that mean expressing an exact definition or applying measurements and numbers?[/quote]"


Statistically , the either/or moves levels of argument up to either/and/or.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, being basically hardcore, right-wing, "liberals-are-scumbags!" objectivists, some here insist that by "the politicians getting their shit together" it means them thinking exactly like they do.

Right, by "getting their shit together" I meant it in the same sense I think you mean it.
That all sides respect the democratic process.
If the courts dismiss Trump's claims of voter fraud and he ends up losing, that he and the republican leaders make a full concession.
Likewise, if the courts affirm his claims and he ends up winning, that the democratic leaders make a full concession.
This respect for the process is of course breaking down before the world's eyes.

The problem here of course revolves around those who do not respect the democratic process. Once they manage to convince themselves that they [and they alone] are on the side of the good guys, and that those who don't share their own political convictions are on the side of the bad guys, then, well, the part where their own "kingdom of ends" begets the infamous "by any means necessary" mentality begets things like Nazis and their left-wing equivalent.

Thus only to the extent that it is determined that Trump won the election will they recognize the democratic process as legitimate.

That's always my focus. Are they political objectivists in the manner in which I construe the meaning of that [left or right] or are they really willing to submit to the ups and the downs of the political process.

So how can we lessen this division?
I think it starts by accepting that about 50% of the country sees things quite a bit differently than we see them, that they're not going to change, and that while we may not agree with them, we do have to live with them, they are our friends, family and neighbors, and while they may be wrongheaded at times, they're at least not insane, stupid or evil, they may even have something to teach us, occasionally.

But this is where I shift gears. I broach the idea of moral and political values as the embodiment of dasein. "I" shaped and molded by the historical and cultural times. And configured and reconfigured by the actual experiences one has in a life that may or may not be understood by those who grew up in an entirely different set of circumstances.

Again, this part:

Okay, you're looking for the truth, right?

But: Aside from what you say it is and others say it is, what facts have been established...and where is the documented evidence to substantiate it?

Also, I am willing to acknowledge that my own take on all of this is rooted only in what I have read about it and heard from others. And in my own subjective political prejudices which are ever and always subject to change given new experiences and new information.

Will you admit the same? Or, again, are you just one more "my way or the highway" political objectivist who sees only what you already insist must be true in order to sustain a belief that you are in sync with the "real me" in sync with the "right thing to believe". And that anyone who does not think exactly like you do is basically the scum of the earth.

In other words, the place which you don't dare to go because you've got so much invested in thinking that you know everything that needs to be known about everything that really matters.

Just say the word, and we can start that thread.

And this:

Seriously though if you let me I can cure you of objectivism.

Yes, right now my own frame of mind is still "the place which you don't dare to go because you've got so much invested in thinking that you know everything that needs to be known about everything that really matters."

You lose all that, true. But look at all you gain. Options for example. With the objectivist, there's only one option: "my way or the highway". Every time you think, feel, say or do something you have to ask yourself, "is this what everyone who thinks and feels and says and does exactly what I do think, feel say and do?"

Everything is always either/or. Your trapped in your own insufferable dogma.

Are those convinced that the politicians can't get their shit together pissed off because the politicians don't share their own political agenda? And, concomitantly, that their own agenda is so superior that it warrants using the might of the military to bring them into power? What is the reality of their position here?

Who gets to decide when the "crisis" is big enough to warrant "right makes might" reconfiguring into "might makes right"?

Well, one thing seems clear historically, the theocrats and the secular ideologues are often willing to sic the Army on "the people" if that's what it takes to bring the people around to the side of the good guys: them.

Or, of course, if they won't come around? All the way up to and including final solutions.

Because of worsening economic, social and now medical conditions many Americans are enduring, changes do need to be made, I think most of us can agree on that, but it can't just be my side's changes.
If we want to make some changes in our direction, we're going to have to allow the other side to make some changes in theirs too.

There has to be accommodation, collaboration, compromise as well as openness to change and new ideas, and it has to be roughly a two way street, just like any relationship, or it probably won't survive, and it probably isn't worth surviving either.
If this isn't possible for many to do, then the solution may ultimately be secession.

And, yet again, I can only point out that crucial distinction between the political objectivists here hell bent on insisting that they and only they know which changers need to be made and someone like me who is "fractured and fragmented" in regard to resolving conflicting goods.

This and those objectivists who are willing to sic the Army on the "scumbag liberals" who won't accept The Right Changes.

They want the "American experiment" to fail. They want their "right makes might" agenda to prevail.

By, for example, any means necessary.

Edit:

Last night PBS aired the documentary "rise of the Nazis": https://www.pbs.org/video/episode-1-politics-6y6ygy/

A classic historical account of political objectivists willing to use "whatever means necessary" to gain power.

[iambiguous]

Not exactly stormer troopers, perhaps, but nothing here is really predictable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ma ... story.html

Demonstrations in support of President Trump’s refusal to accept the results of the presidential election will descend on downtown Washington this weekend.

The events have been promoted by far-right media personalities, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists — several of whom announced plans to attend. Counterdemonstrations organized by anti-fascist and anti-racism groups are being planned nearby.

The rallies, which include a Women for Trump event, a “Million MAGA March” and a “Stop the Steal” demonstration — which falsely asserts that voter fraud cost Trump the election — will begin Saturday morning in and around Freedom Plaza.

The pro-Trump rallies have garnered support from Fox News host Sean Hannity as well as more fringe figures, including Enrique Tarrio, chairman of the Proud Boys; self-described “American Nationalist” and social media agitator Nicholas Fuentes; conservative provocateur Jack Posobiec, who promoted the “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory tied to the 2016 shooting at D.C. pizzeria Comet Ping Pong; Scott Presler, a pro-Trump activist who works with anti-Muslim group ACT for America; and Infowars founder and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

A lot of them no doubt will be QAnon nuts...but how many will not be? How many will be basically out and out fascists?

And of course how large will their numbers be?

[iambiguous]

The plot[s] thicken:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/opin ... e=Homepage

The ominous portents...

It’s hard to tell whether Donald Trump is attempting a coup or throwing a tantrum.

Crying voter fraud, his administration has refused to begin a presidential transition despite his decisive electoral defeat. Some Republicans have floated the idea of getting legislatures in states that Joe Biden won to disregard vote totals and instead appoint pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College. The president has decapitated the Pentagon, putting fanatical loyalists in some of its highest ranks. Anthony Tata, who called Barack Obama a “terrorist leader” and tweeted a lurid fantasy about the execution of the former C.I.A. director John Brennan, is now the Pentagon’s policy chief. This is all supremely alarming.

On the other hand...

But there’s cause for comfort, of a sort, in signs that the president is preparing for life outside the White House in exactly the way one would expect — by initiating new grifts. Trump has been sending out frantic fund-raising requests to “defend the election,” but as The New York Times reports, most of the money is actually going to a PAC, Save America, that “will be used to underwrite Mr. Trump’s post-presidential activities.” Axios reports that Trump is considering starting a digital media company to undermine Fox News, which he now regards as disloyal.

These moves suggest that while Trump may be willing to torch American democracy to salve his wounded ego, at least part of him is getting ready to leave office.

Of course all we can do is to tune in to the evening news each day and see what the con man actually does. And how the "cult of Trump" responds in turn.

Then the part that this plays:

Once Trump is no longer president, he is likely to be consumed by lawsuits and criminal investigations. Hundreds of millions of dollars in debt will come due. Lobbyists and foreign dignitaries won’t have much of a reason to patronize Mar-a-Lago or his Washington hotel. Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch could complete the transition from Trump’s enabler to his enemy. And, after four years of cartoonish self-abasement, Republicans with presidential aspirations will have an incentive to help take him down.

“His whole life he’s been involved in a bunch of litigation,” said the superstar liberal attorney Roberta Kaplan. But post-presidency, “I have to assume that, given the amount of civil litigation and potential criminal exposure, it’s going to be at a completely new dimension.”

You know what they say, "may you live in interesting times". Indeed, "the times" now remind me of "the Sixties". Everyday a new mindboggling development.