Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shameful Display of Anarchy and Violence

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Would you say it is proper to say that the Humean view can be labeled metaphysically possible? I'm trying to think of the best term to use. I know you were responding to Necro, but I was getting at the idea that although the scenario doesn't contradict the rules of how reality operates, there is no evidence to say that this happened. Or stated another way, how would you characterize something like "you drank coffee this morning"? I have no evidence that this occurred, but it is a reasonable guess because so many people do.

I think it's more imaginative possibility. If something is conceivable, where conceivable is taken to be its imagination doesn't entail a logical contradiction, then it's possible. So on this view, it's equally as possible that I had coffee this morning as I didn't have coffee, as it is possible I have 3 eyes, or am immortal. But squared circles aren't possible. 

I think necro is shifting the goalposts. He's actually changed what he said. He's said at first, "probably," and his hunch is based on something else that happened in the past. That's just a basic logical fallacy. And I think it's Humean in the sense that the only way to get "possibility" out of that is to widen the sense of possibility such that every matter of fact, and its contrary, is possible, because it can never imply a contradiction.

Now he's saying no, I'm only saying there's some elements are present and that's lending itself to support possibility, but nothing more. That's fine but "there are elements here" is redundant with "there is evidence here." It's a mere repetition. What are the elements here? It's not clear what he regards those to be. I think it's "the way the media is treating the situation" or "Biden could gain from this." But those are just non sequiturs. Sloppy logic.

Keep in mind that what we ought to do, and are permitted to do, depends on the facts of the situation, and what it is reasonably for us to believe the facts of the situation are. If the people that stormed the Capitol believed certain things because of not just sloppy logic but epistemic vice, their cause is unjust. That is, had the election been stolen, or had they reasonable grounds to believe so, (or if they were objecting democracy itself), then they might have justification to storm the Capitol and prevent the certification.

But they don't. They make basic logical fallacies at every step. "Trump won" or "stop the steal" isn't a even commitment to a battery of evidence that Trump won. They can't even present it in an unambiguous way where you could even tell what it is they're saying. It's muddled. It's more like the equivalent of the folks in the Black Hole at a Raiders game with their costumes and face-paint. It's more just hooliganistic performance for the feelsgood team against the feelsbad team. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 248
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

14 January 2021 We will crush their violence enacted under their feast of self-delusion and contempt for our Constitutional rule of law. The republic will prevail. The citizens on both sides are

As America prepares to certify our next President, a large band of hooligans have taken upon themselves to storm the Capitol.  This in the name of Freedom?  Are these hooligans striving to look for th

I have enough superstition about me not to want to declare that we've survived this, just yet. But despite everything, it looks better to me today than it did yesterday, and it's the first time in a w

Posted Images

46 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Let me know when you have the "right way" at the "right time" for the "right reason." Until then your fluffy idealism is boring and unhelpful to the people on the ground desperately trying to preserve whatever remains of the American spirit against the tide of socialists and socialist sympathizers.

Extremely uninterested in being helpful to you or them

Link to post
Share on other sites

From today’s New York Times:

Chief Steven A. Sund of the Capitol Police ... defended the actions of the officers as “heroic,” despite widespread criticism over how easily they were overrun by the mob of Trump supporters.
...
In a pair of videos ... a woman who has a Make America Great Again flag draped around her can be seen stepping up to a ledge next to a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, a long hallway with portraits of former speakers of the House. As soon as she steps up to the ledge next to the door, a loud bang can be heard, and she falls to the ground. ...
...
Chief Sund said his agency had placed the officer who shot Ms. Babbitt on administrative leave and that the officer’s police powers had been suspended. He did not identify the officer.

 

Edited by Dupin
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2021 at 6:33 PM, necrovore said:

he process hasn't even played out yet and, without interference, could conceivably have come out Trump's way. There is no reason for Trump to have interfered with it, or to have encouraged anyone else to -- and there is every reason for the Democrats to have done so.

It was clear that the objections would fail and Biden's win would be certified.  So there is no reason for the Democrats to have interfered with it, or to have encouraged anyone else to -- and there is every reason for Trump to have done so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's not easy to stomach is the leftists cum Socialists unctuously claiming the moral high ground, they have never had that right. One standard for others (Insurrection! Mobs! Riots! Anarchy!) and another for themselves ("Peaceful protests...")was permitted them by supporters and tacitly by their political opponents alike - simply because they purportedly care for 'the minorities'. Which they don't, it's a show. Find enough disaffected people, especially of minority 'tribes' to believe your sympathy and promises of personal gain, you can have a majority. And forget about individualism... The Democrats' greedy ambitions and power-hunger have never been clearer as lately, and now I think, maybe, for some it will slowly dawn what Trump was up against, what he was for, and that he'd seen through them early. Apparently, he wasn't egotistically "only out for himself" like nearly all of people I hear and read ignorantly believe. The Democrat Left was already at work dividing the nation before he came on the scene and the GOP was ineffectual to deal with that. But beautifully twisted by the despicable MSM and intelligentsia was that HE was the divider, especially racial. Which was 'the narrative' that stuck. They had four years to plan a strategy of how to grasp power back, and weren't caught napping this time.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Let me know when you have the "right way" at the "right time" for the "right reason." Until then your fluffy idealism is boring and unhelpful to the people on the ground desperately trying to preserve whatever remains of the American spirit against the tide of socialists and socialist sympathizers.

The American spirit is this type of chaos? Then I guess BLM had a lot of American Spirit.

A proponent of Capitalism who supports of this type of behavior is actually a proponent of Crony Capitalism.

To justify the violence is  ultimately making another "public good" argument that socialists make.

Officially creating an environment of chaos, lawlessness, physical aggression is NOT the solution to "eliminating" socialists and socialist sympathizers. The right way is to use the free speech that already exists. Otherwise, you'll end up pushing for fascism ... fascism over socialism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, necrovore said:

Even more evidence... it just keeps coming...

"Person tries to break into a building and gets shot in the process " makes perfect sense. What are you trying to argue? That's what happens when you initiate force. I'm going to hope you're not referring to the first video in your link. 

I mean, you don't seem to be arguing for a false flag operation anymore. You seem to be saying "there were agitators who were not Trump supporters". Great. What's your point? That somehow the actual Trump supporters were innocent? That they were manipulated and don't deserve punishment? That the agitators outnumbered the Trump supporters? I don't even know what you're saying anymore. 

In other words: evidence of what? You couldn't possibly mean evidence of a false flag operation. A false flag isn't just the presence of agitators, it's that the entire event was orchestrated and planned by a different group and caused by a different group. Trump asked the people himself to go there, and wanted them to show strength, and said that the day would be a big day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Trump may not have explicitly incited violence, but he came very close to it by telling an emotionally aroused mob to go to the Capitol and show "strength".

We can objectively say that as president of the United States, he did not use the power vested in him by the Constitution to rapidly quell the protest. He could have quickly made an unambiguous condemnation of all people who broke into the capitol building. He could have immediately called in the National Guard. It is easy to argue that he made a minimal and weak effort to defend the Constitution by means of a weak and nearly absent defense of Congress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conflating ALL of Trump supporters with President Trump, and he with ALL of them - has been the fallacious product of the media all along. No one is omnipotent and people have no single consciousness.

One could surmise that Trump wanted to exhibit that great numbers of Americans were not going to be cowed into a socialist USA by his invitation to go there, but who is that cynical to think he wanted the small minority of bad ones to invade and disrupt? I find the claims ludicrous that he incited them or even privately wanted them to cause violence at the Capitol. To what ends? How could that change any procedures at this late stage?

His last speech was fine and conciliatory.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

How false flaggy would it get , if Congress was briefed on intel from FBI that said antifa was going to infiltrate and agitate the Trump supporters with the intent to target the Capitol? And then the Capitol Police refused help from different agencies the day of ? And then the Chief of the Capitol Police resigns after denying being read into the intel, does that get false flaggyish?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, necrovore said:

p.s. some more evidence just showed up.

Turns out the 2 guys identified in this link are genuine Trump supporters. 

The guy with the beard, is actually a known Nazi who has swastikas tattooed all over his chest. https://phillyantifa.org/page/2/  search Jason Tankersley. 

The other guy, the actor, he is a known QAnon guy. Https://heavy.com/news/jake-angeli-q-shaman/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to part of Trump’s speech, as much as I could stomach.

He threw loyal supporters under the bus.

It was all right to say that storming the Capitol was the wrong thing to do but then he should have said that he understood their feelings and motivation.  And he should have described, at length, the role of Antifa.

Not only did Trump concede, worse, his use of the past tense sounds like he has given up trying to get election fraud acknowledged in the courts.  

He has dropped all election challenges in Georgia according to this article.

 

 

Edited by Dupin
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have enough superstition about me not to want to declare that we've survived this, just yet. But despite everything, it looks better to me today than it did yesterday, and it's the first time in a while I've been able to say that. That said, we are far, far from anything approaching good, and we could lurch towards the worse at any moment. Or towards the worst.

Trump is an authoritarian and a statist. He has been searching for a way to overturn the election for months, and the only way we have yet preserved our system is because other people (to varying degrees) have frustrated him in his efforts. The fascistic assault on the Capitol was a logical and predictable result of everything Trump has said and done, for years. He made it possible, incited it, encouraged it (and, I am certain, applauded it in private) -- but he did not do this alone. The people who have supported Trump share in that guilt in varying measures. They support, wittingly or otherwise, what he represents, which includes a hostility towards democracy and the liberal virtues which make it possible. They have blood on their hands. And they have deeply wounded our country which, with all of its flaws (and they are many), remains the best extant guardian of individual liberty. Their support for Trump is thus in itself an assault against liberty. Objectivists who support Trump have profoundly lost their way, and work in direct opposition to their stated interests.

It troubles me greatly -- as it should trouble everyone else here -- to witness the degree and depth of conspiracy theory-type thinking which has infected this site (and the country). Objectivism proclaims support for Reason and Reality and is supported by them. To sunder this primary relationship in either direction is to leave Objectivism entirely untethered, to turn it into a mockery. Trump has displayed a consistent and utter disdain for truth, and he has embraced and promulgated a litany of lies in support of his power-lust. Lying has flourished around him accordingly, and I do not fault individuals who have been deceived, per se. But it is time, and past time, and far past time to wake up to the reality of the situation. Rand once remarked (in my memory of it, at least; I am open to correction) that once it was perhaps respectable or understandable to have an honest interest in socialism, but that following the horrors of the 20th century, the evidence was too overwhelming. The evidence is in on Trump. He is a would-be dictator. And those who continue to support him should find the courage to admit who and what he is, and by extension, who and what they are, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Yes said:

Agreed- America deserves better than to be a nation defined by anarchy and violence.

Actual train of thought:

Premise 1: Anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes rulers and States.

Premise 2: Those who stormed the Capitol did so with the explicit goal of keeping Donald Trump as the ruling head of state.

Conclusion: Those who stormed the Capitol are defined by anarchy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DonAthos,

“Trump is an authoritarian and a statist.”

Even if partly true Trump still looks great compared with Biden/Kamala.

“He has been searching for a way to overturn the election for months ...”

Overturn?  Trump and many others claim that Biden/Kamala’s victory was due to massive election fraud.  There are many links to articles about this at the end of Theft of the U.S. Presidency.  The most articulate are Bill Whittle, Scott Adams, and Paul Craig Roberts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dupin said:

DonAthos,

“Trump is an authoritarian and a statist.”

Even if partly true Trump still looks great compared with Biden/Kamala.

 

 

Here is the crux of the matter, I think. "Looks great" compared to them in every respect except for superficial niceties and glib presentation. One needs to see also what was implicit in Trump's actions to know him. And one doesn't and cannot throw a switch and hey presto: (forced) laissez-faire capitalism. As Objectivists can give the impression he should. His supporters would hardly countenance that - and the opposition, never. Much action would need be taken by a leader through the present methods and channels of statism to start to reduce statism. Counter-intuitive as it seems, that's the only path possible. And so to slowly accustom the citizens to less statism.

I think much was necessarily reactionary in his output by what he faced: Malicious against the malevolent. A (erstwhile) "dictator" against dictators. A bully against the worst political/ideological bullies I've ever seen outside the African continent. An American against anti-Americanists. The deceit and lies of the media put his lies in the shade.

Freedom and independence of Americans was his explicit goal, I was never in doubt. His foreign initiatives bear this out, as did the economy taking off, but I have heard nothing complimenting those achievements except from conservative commentators. Where are you, ARI?

His support is largely that way already. But MOST Americans had had to rise to the personal challenge of greater liberty and the self-responsibility it requires. They have not. Another ideology predominates and that is beyond the powers of any President. Where does the moral onus lie - but on the citizens, not any leader to enforce.

In later years he will be seen as an America-and- freedom loving President, for now the memories are too raw.

And compared with what's to come...I shudder. Without the restraints of senate and the Executive, these new people are going to run havoc. They clearly have, like children, zero self-restraint whatsoever, and it seems most unlikely they respect the idea of America and its Constitution. Already before the inauguration, there's arrogant talk I hear of ending the filibuster; DC a new state; admitting increasing migrants; etc. That bodes badly for afterwards.

How possibly will the Socialist Democrats ever be voted out?

We are facing a one-party rule here, folks. The norms of politics have fallen away in the US.

And Harris the perfect candidate for future dictator.

Yup - "by comparison", Trump's an angel.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...