He addressed the concerns of some Americans, yes. Did he address the concerns of all Americans? Doesn’t seem so. Thankfully, you’re in the group whose concerns were addressed.
I don’t think several million people marched solely for the things you mentioned. That said, unless they use that protest fire to get into politics or become more newsworthy, it may sink as an effort. But damn, that was a lot of people.
I suppose it was ok. He just hasn’t stepped into the Presidential shoes yet. Technically he has and there’s _some_ signs that he’s starting to see what’s really ahead, but I guess that’s what the first 100 days is about. It’s not just establishing an agenda for the next four years but part of their learning curve.
There’s a lot of organization happening in the background though. What we end up seeing on the internet or TV is just a sliver of what’s happening viewed through distorted lenses. If nothing else, it’s going to be continue to be a circus. Events seemingly popping up out of nowhere are often planned in advance. That’s what made today’s march so surprising to me. I’d heard about it in bits and pieces over the past few weeks, but had no idea it would be so widespread and massive. Takes a lot of organizational skills, more than just a few posts in a few forums. So, it’ll be interesting.
I’m getting it now but until I made a few posts about it and responded to a few people about it, I got zero. I didn’t even know it was happening. But once I said a few things / liked a few things, it was like a switched flipped ‘on’ and I started getting posts about it that had been going on, but I didn’t get to see ’til then.
He had his Press Secretary and he himself got mad about the crowd reporting. Yesterday, the 45th President’s team told the National Park Service to cease using their Twitter account after they retweeted a photo comparing the two.
If he gets a thicker skin and stops being bothered by these things, they’ll slow down. But as long as it eggs him on so easily, creating MORE news for them to fill in the empty news spaces with, it’ll continue.
Fact is, there’s not usually a whole lot of news to report in the world. The problem is 24 hr news reporting : there’s just not enough out there.
Most Presidents let the ‘other side’ complain incessantly. Obama had to deal with the right’s whining for 8 yrs. Bush had to deal with the left’s whining for 8 years. Part of the job.
But, well, he’s different in a few ways.
Thing is, the 2.9 million marchers are Americans. They _should be_ part of the ‘we’ you use. They don’t feel a part of the ‘we’, so they’re protesting.
As long as they’re not included in the ‘we’ formula, they’ll make a noise.
If the answer you see is an authoritarian regime and/or police state as the after-effect of a ‘tipping point’, I think that’s the wrong direction. It might be the way we go – which is part of _why_ they’re making a noise now before too many executive orders go out whereby in one of them, they no longer can.
You’re part of the in-group. The current administration may likely be supportive of your perspective on such things. There shouldn’t _be_ an out-group in a united country.
I did not like how you took 2.9 million Americans and dismissed them with a sentence.
I’d love to see a new age of enlightenment where logic and reason are held to a higher regard than emotional reaction.
How can we do that? [good topic shift by the way – the cake / Twitter stuff was gossip]
I don’t see a solution to be found in the political realm.
I don’t see him as a parent though or even much of an authoritarian. He’s middle management to me and so *far* seems self-directed and self-motivated.
*Some* of his ideas I’m fine with _if_ they’re done properly.
I’ll respond to your next comment in a moment.
As far as remaining equal, we have to start equal. Are we starting on equal footing? No. 2.9 million women marched today. If you don’t understand why they’re marching, that’s part of the reason why they’re marching.
Identity politics is the boogeyman here. There’s issues being identified by the identity politics that need addressing. It’s really that simple.
Here’s one of the issues: Abortion. Is it entitlement or a right? Tough call there. People have debated about this one for a long time.
Who does a ruling either way effect most directly? Humans. In particular, it affects Americans.
Does it affect particular Americans?
Yes. But if I break down any further, am I engaging in identity politics at this point?
So the pleasure in sexual relations is simply a biological ploy to encourage procreation and should therefore not be toyed with as it is falling short of the biological goal?
How is it possible for humans, who are emotiorational beings to exclude emotion?
Reasonable to me, includes logic and emotion.
I don’t see how emotional reaction can be entirely divorced from logic and reason.
First off: I am using the sense of reason as in “reasonable”. “A reasonable person”. “common-sense”.
If we are using different senses of “reason”, we should clarify before continuing.
Ok. With that, we have a disconnect. It’s a subtle disconnect, as we’re using two different senses of the same definition of reason..
The three senses which are closely connected but distinct are:
the ability to think and make decisions based on logic
I’m using the basic google dictionary distinctions, Def. 2.
An example of common sense would be the results of a well-behaved courtroom process for example. Or the results of a regular discussion between people where they come to a common understanding.
This is where diplomacy steps in. Objective reality is created by a community. Objective : many subjective views upon an external object coming together on a general consensus opinion.
The test of objective reality is in the application: The pragmatic factor.
There are many forms of objective reality, depending on the needs of the consensus group.
Government has laws which are sometimes informed by judges whose decisions are informed by “the people” who were informed by a process of prosecutor and defense upon a particular issue whose truthvalue must be determined.
[that was a wordy sentence so I need a sip of coffee – just a sec]
It depends on the field one is working within.
Objective reality as determined by the sciences, for example, is an ever-changing objective reality. Through the rigor, there’s the hope that this sieve will keep the wheat and leave behind the chaff as it were.
But it is a messy process. Most scientific papers, to put it in a blunt way, are wrong. Yet even those that are right have the potential to be wrong in the future. Such is the process.
that meme is killing me! haha – I’ve been there and I’m still her in a way and I’m fine with it.
I don’t have the nihilism though nor the Platonic realm part of things nor the straight forward relativism.
But am I in that family of thought? You betcha – just less extreme. I just accept flawed first principles as a pragmatic, regrettable necessity and move forward from there. You can walk confidently on firm enough sand.
Logic is a system created by humans. It’s traceable historically to the philosophies of several humans who once walked the earth and whose ideas have become influential in Western Civilization.
It is a practical methodology of “winnnowing” (the name of the process I mentioned before with the sciences) and through 19th century refinements has allowed us to construct a system powerful enough to construct “logic machines” to make speedy work of the excluded middle based process.
A process that was once invented by humans, traceable historically and has an earthly root.
Oh wow, even though I scored 42% on Nel Noddings, what a fascinating ethical stance she has.
I’ve known many who may have unconsciously followed her ethical philosophy. It’s powerful. I’d never seen it written down before but I’ve seen it in people.
I can relate to a lot of it, although there’s some issues I have with it which is probably why I got a 42% match. Still, fascinating though.
I used to say “I’m a utilitarian” but they take things too far for me. But I can gladly call myself pragmatist with just a touch of wistfulness.
My main exposure to Camus was watching The Stranger a few years back and following it up with some research.
I found a lot to agree with and some to disagree with. But there’s a large part of me that’s Camus for sure.
You’ve investigated deeper than I Still working on getting “myself” described properly in philosophical terms.
Took a test a couple of hours ago that blew me away a bit though.
and just a few minutes later, it popped up with the *correct* top answer. I never see Epicurean for anything hardly. So that was cool getting pegged properly.