The Trolling Trumpeter may be putting himself at risk.As he moderates some of his grotesque and unseemly campaign promises, the sieg heiling ,alt-right,breitbart supporters are not happy.those on the left are not happy but are “waiting to see”.The use of force to preserve power is more predictable in human history than the use of force to gain power.This is not a moral difference but a pragmatic matter of where force is likely to reside.I have a dim recollection of some threat being made to the master of ceremonies of The Apprentice,but this is a wholly different story.Trump is about to discover that the ship of state does not change direction with a shifting of oars,its ponderous mass may take years to shift direction safely.Abrupt change will leave vacuums that will be quickly filled internationally by regional alliances.Domestically,rapid shifts build uncertainty and resentment.Dog whistle appeals to second amendment folk have mobilized some dangerous folk.He’d Better make sure that the secret service does a better job for him than It did for Obama and he’d better stop improvising meals and itinerary.Somehow violence comes readily to those with a 10 ,000 year old earth centric view of creation.
Violence is predicted. Seems like a safe bet which raises some obvious questions. What group-enhanced mindsets are more likely to cause people to take the law into their own hands? When Obama won his two Presidential bids I do not recall groups of outraged Republicans closing streets and damaging property as they protested our Country’s sharp turn to the left. Generally, outrage and offense is felt by minds so deeply steeped in their personal “goodness” that any deviation from their orthodoxy is perceived as an assault against humanity that should be punished. Which party is known for its willingness to expand the powers of a central authority? Which party adds thousands of pages of laws dictating control over ever greater nuances of every citizen’s behavior? We should understand that every law is a form of force. Daedal2207 could well be correct when he writes “The use of force to preserve power is more predictable in human history than the use of force to gain power. This is not a moral difference but a pragmatic matter of where force is likely to reside.”
So let’s look at “where force is likely to reside”:
Many of those who believe in a 10,000 year old earth centric view of creation also believe that they “should love the sinner”. I am asking Daedal2207 to provide the empirical evidence that supports his accusation that such believers as a group tend to produce more violence than others? To find massive levels of violence consider some other recent groups who took to heart the following “moral” belief (attributed to Marx): “From each according to ability to each according to need”. How many deaths were caused by Marx-inclined “leaders” such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong? When comparing today’s Conservatism (based on the Founders’ original intent) and Progressivism – which of the two most resembles the highly destructive, self-righteous “morality” of Marx? Is force more likely to reside in a governing philosophy advocating for free markets, equally protected liberty of speech and belief, and a small, divided-power government – OR, as in Progressivism, is force more likely to reside in a philosophy that says government knows best and should exercise more control over how we should act – (AND FEEL! There are now “hate” crimes. Those convicted of criminal behavior determined to be motivated by “wrong” emotions are to suffer EXTRA penalties.)?
DS,your definitions remind me of my pre school attempts to remember those invoked by Billy Batson’s SHAZAM.The creators of Captain Marvel simply picked heroic characteristics to be magically invoked to transform the kid into ” the nemesis of all evil”.(Diversity was at work even here because the features of the superhero were the regional Irish features of Fred MacMurray)All the desirables go into “republicans” and Progressivism becomes the legacy of Marxism and by the way what are ” wrong emotions”? Violence is a potential that finds available tools be they cobblestones or guns.
You pave the streets if you wan’t to deny the use of cobblestones,it’s too late to curb the NRA.Which level of government ,and it exists on several levels,would you select to curb mass fire weaponry? I guess you’d consider government controlled by Republicans(what about the will of the people?)Leave it to Beaver?
Daedal2207 had presented the belief that violence would come from the right side of the political spectrum. I tried to present logical and empirical evidence that the greater risk comes from today’s left.
I want our beliefs to be rooted in empirical evidence and not the fantasies of comic books (or any other false source). Which mindsets are more likely to spawn violence in the context of current politics seems like an essential to-the-point question to ask and attempt to answer. We agree that some mindsets spur some actions more so than others – right? I think that we can agree that all actions have consequences (How would one know an action happened if not by consequences). The political left and the political right cultivate different beliefs which in turn cause us to promote different policies. Empirical evidence allows us to MEASURE the consequences of various mindset-evoked actions. Which mindsets spur actions that cause more harm than good? As regards politics what question is more important than this when attempting to judge REAL WORLD risks and gains?
As an example of mind-set differences, Daedal2207 makes some assumptions about the NRA, “mass-fire weapons”, the “will of the people” and “Leave it to Beaver”:
Depending on the truth of the following the NRA does more good than harm: Does an availability of guns cause fewer crimes than it causes? Researcher John Lott has provided empirical evidence that in most parts of our Country guns are used far more often to prevent crime and protect life than they are used to do harm. Since the 1930’s the NRA has supported laws prohibiting public ownership of fully automatic weapons. Our Constitution supported a Republic form of government more so than a simple “will of the people” Democracy in order to help protect individual rights from being crushed by mob mindsets. I don’t know what Daedal2207 believes is harmful (or good?) when pondering the meanings of “Leave it to Beaver”. The concept seems to represent an ideal family structure that is relatively rare today. Does that mean that we should not aspire to the ideal, or does Daedal2207 believe that this structure if considered desirable is actually harmful to humanity’s future? What is the evidence? Provide it. We should all wish to adjust to best evidence.
Daedal asks: “What are wrong emotions?”
This question addresses the core of most human conflict. In short, “wrong emotions” are feelings that are inappropriate to the realities. If one fears that which objectively is not dangerous the feeling of fear is “wrong”. If one feels complacent when danger is objectively imminent the emotion of complacency is “wrong”. If a group shares a hatred of another group because they collectively believe the other is fundamentally racist, but they are not, the emotion of hatred is “wrong”.
The key to the evolution of appropriate emotions (and the avoidance of inappropriate or “wrong” emotions) is to strive for the most accurate judgments as to objective truths. Emotions move us to actions. For actions to be beneficial rather than dysfunctional it is critical that our beliefs be rooted in objective realities. The methods of science are directly to the point.
An excellent reference Susanna.Yes,the ghetto born saying from the 60s was “Nobody Sh..s the Shi..er” so Obama was wrong in thinking that Trump was serious about returning for advice.Trump may have been momentarily impressed by the magnitude and complexity of the presidency but customary reliance on an inner feeling would dictate that it would unerringly guide him.Just like manifest destiny.In the meantime under his shield ,Social Security,,Medicare,Public Education ,pension rights etc. are being undermined by the professional party faithful who will destroy as much of the support network of the average American ultimately in favor of the wealthy ,before the luster is lost.The intellectual elite will continue to be both scapegoat and heat shield.Urbanism,globalism,theoretical research(underpinnings of human survival) are being abandoned as America becomes great again in Andrew Jackson’s world .Maybe uncle Putin will help us in our world.
daedal2207, are you by any chance suggesting that, actually, words have meaning … therefore, consequences as well attached to them?
The below link provides a commentary on the concept with supportive material from a little book published in 2005 (product of an earlier essay) by philosophy professor Harry Frankfurt. Back then, it made the New Times best seller list and is currently enjoying a resurgence in popularity. (The book is on one of my shelves … wink, wink!)
Quinta Jurevic: “As citizens of a country that purports to live under the rule of law, we have a duty to insist that words have meaning—even when the President swears an oath he doesn’t even understand.”
The Furies have been unleashed. We will need help from all corners. A loving and reflective Thanksgiving to all!
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.