Rs love to say the Dems only want power. Meanwhile, Trump has used the billyclub of state power to intimidate any CEO who disagrees with WH policy. This is pure putinism. Pure. N. o CEO would think a Dem president would use government power to cudgel them if they complained publically. One of the purest tells of R authoritarianism. Fear.
"In an impromptu poll at the Yale event, the CEOs made it clear that things would have to worsen significantly before they publicly criticized the president. Asked how much the stock market would need to decline for them to speak out collectively, 44% said it would have to fall 20%. Another 22% said stocks would have to fall 30% before they would take a stand."
Trump hit another major law firm that worked for his political rivals with an executive order seeking to limit its ability to work for the U.S. government.
Hard to understand the argument here. Trump supporters / right wing news sources have claimed that the DOJ was "weaponized" against Trump. They claimed that was a fair reason for Trump to weaponize government himself and go after his political rivals and have cheered the prospect and cheered him for repeating it over and over. Then, when called out for doing exactly what he said and they cheered for, they yell "liar!" Bizarre.
Hard to understand the argument here. Trump supporters / right wing news sources have claimed that the DOJ was "weaponized" against Trump. They claimed that was a fair reason for Trump to weaponize government himself and go after his political rivals and have cheered the prospect and cheered him for repeating it over and over. Then, when called out for doing exactly what he said and they cheered for, they yell "liar!" Bizarre.
"Trump supporters / right wing news sources have claimed that the DOJ was "weaponized" against Trump." It was.
"They claimed that was a fair reason for Trump to weaponize government himself and go after his political rivals and have cheered the prospect and cheered him for repeating it over and over" Maybe some of the weaker minded ones but plenty don't. Got some examples of this?
remember how the gullible morans believed that millions of 150 year olds were getting SS benefits? Yeah nah you were snookered again by right wing lies. This happens so many times you'd think literate people would understand not to believe anything right wing media tells them, until it is verified. But no. But no.
WaPo:
At Social Security, the DOGE team was initially focused on fears that dead people were fraudulently receiving benefits, according to the two people and the records. But in meetings last month, the career staff explained that the appearance of people with impossibly long lifespans on the rolls was an unfortunate feature of an antiquated technology system — and that none of those deceased people or their relatives were actually receiving benefits. The DOGE team appeared to drop the matter, the people said.
1) There exist authoritarian regimes. Not evidence.
That is evidence. And you mischaracterized his evidence - he listed several exemplars, and didn't merely state that authoritarian regimes exist. All of them are evidence in support.
2) People adapt to prison life. Not evidence. In general, the simpler the system, the easier to adapt to. That says nothing of a wish for strongman/authoritarian governments.
Again, you mischaracterized. Anyway, it is evidence. It's evidence in support of "a wish for strongman/authoritarian governments." You're disputing the probative value of his evidence.
-----------------
I don't know enough to say whether his theory is a good one or not, but he has presented evidence in support of it. I think Russia is the best evidence in support of a theory that at least some people or some cultures definitely want to be told what to do all day by authoritarian figures. In the 90s, after decades of tyranny, Russians were provided an opportunity to live in a free society. They quickly rejected the idea, embraced dictator Putin, and went back to what was the comfortable status quo to them. Russians need someone telling them which pot to piss in, otherwise there's urine all over the floors, the stairs, the walls, and only Christ knows where else. The Russian serf mentality is a real human phenomena, and supports Agip's theory.
No, not evidence.
The fact that authoritarian regimes exist is not evidence that people have a "core human wish to be dominated by a chief/king/strongman." The fact of such existence is easily explained by the indisputable notion that people "have a core need not to be killed by such strongmen."
Do some people have such a "wish to be dominated by a chief/king/strongman"? I would guess that the answer is "yes". But this is a far cry from the more universal claim that people (seemingly, in general) have such a desire.
Regarding the evidence of Russia/Russians, I think that it is unfair to these people. And again, does not qualify as evidence. Their acceptance of an authoritarian regime is much more naturally explained by; 1) the desire to not be killed and 2) the acceptance of what is familiar, than it is by some grand wish of the human species (or even Russians) to be dominated by strongmen.
On the whole, it is easy to see the Trumpettes as having such a wish for being dominated. Whether or not that is true is not entirely obvious, as such visions may well be tainted with detestability bias
But we still have evidence of eggs.
And we have an old Mexican saying: "Dead toads and cracked eggs, come back tomorrow."
He tried to drive a limo a few years back. It didn't go well, so he's kind of given up on driving.
the man of the people who can't ride a bike, can't drive a car and spends hundreds of millions of dollars playing golf at country clubs. Can you imagine him trying to run a 5k? He'd make it 200 meters and pass out.
That is evidence. And you mischaracterized his evidence - he listed several exemplars, and didn't merely state that authoritarian regimes exist. All of them are evidence in support.
Again, you mischaracterized. Anyway, it is evidence. It's evidence in support of "a wish for strongman/authoritarian governments." You're disputing the probative value of his evidence.
-----------------
I don't know enough to say whether his theory is a good one or not, but he has presented evidence in support of it. I think Russia is the best evidence in support of a theory that at least some people or some cultures definitely want to be told what to do all day by authoritarian figures. In the 90s, after decades of tyranny, Russians were provided an opportunity to live in a free society. They quickly rejected the idea, embraced dictator Putin, and went back to what was the comfortable status quo to them. Russians need someone telling them which pot to piss in, otherwise there's urine all over the floors, the stairs, the walls, and only Christ knows where else. The Russian serf mentality is a real human phenomena, and supports Agip's theory.
No, not evidence.
The fact that authoritarian regimes exist is not evidence that people have a "core human wish to be dominated by a chief/king/strongman." The fact of such existence is easily explained by the indisputable notion that people "have a core need not to be killed by such strongmen."
Do some people have such a "wish to be dominated by a chief/king/strongman"? I would guess that the answer is "yes". But this is a far cry from the more universal claim that people (seemingly, in general) have such a desire.
Regarding the evidence of Russia/Russians, I think that it is unfair to these people. And again, does not qualify as evidence. Their acceptance of an authoritarian regime is much more naturally explained by; 1) the desire to not be killed and 2) the acceptance of what is familiar, than it is by some grand wish of the human species (or even Russians) to be dominated by strongmen.
On the whole, it is easy to see the Trumpettes as having such a wish for being dominated. Whether or not that is true is not entirely obvious, as such visions may well be tainted with detestability bias
But we still have evidence of eggs.
And we have an old Mexican saying: "Dead toads and cracked eggs, come back tomorrow."
they long for the security of authoritarianism, rather than being left to make decision for themselves. the fear is gone - the USSR is gone..but they long for its power.
"In a 2005 survey, 66% of Russians said they agreed "It is a great misfortune that the USSR no longer exists", while only 30% disagreed. In addition, 57% supported some form of Soviet-based system as their preferred political system"
The social phenomenon of nostalgia for the Soviet Union (Russian: Ностальгия по СССР, romanized: Nostal'giya po SSSR), can include sentimental attitudes towards its politics, its society, its culture and cultural artifacts, i...
they long for the security of authoritarianism, rather than being left to make decision for themselves. the fear is gone - the USSR is gone..but they long for its power.
"In a 2005 survey, 66% of Russians said they agreed "It is a great misfortune that the USSR no longer exists", while only 30% disagreed. In addition, 57% supported some form of Soviet-based system as their preferred political system"
It is an enormous stretch to go from "66% of Russians said they agreed 'It is a great misfortune that the USSR no longer exists' " to "people have a core human wish to be dominated by a chief/king/strongman". Indeed, that is such a leap as to be patently absurd.
Russians, before the collapse of the USSR, saw themselves (their nation) as being among the two most powerful in the world - and not without reason. Now they are nothing - the "best" they can do is destroy countries around them (Ukraine). You don't think that most people, anywhere in the world, would long for the good old days when they were important?
Many people think that the USA is on the verge of collapse as far as being THE dominant power in the world and may well split into multiple, scarcely relevant countries. You might well be among those who think this.
Do you not think that, should the USA follow this path of self destruction, 40 years down the road, people here will agree that "It is a great misfortune that the USA no longer exists."? Will that sentiment mean that "people have a core wish for freedom and democracy."
they long for the security of authoritarianism, rather than being left to make decision for themselves. the fear is gone - the USSR is gone..but they long for its power.
"In a 2005 survey, 66% of Russians said they agreed "It is a great misfortune that the USSR no longer exists", while only 30% disagreed. In addition, 57% supported some form of Soviet-based system as their preferred political system"
It is an enormous stretch to go from "66% of Russians said they agreed 'It is a great misfortune that the USSR no longer exists' " to "people have a core human wish to be dominated by a chief/king/strongman". Indeed, that is such a leap as to be patently absurd.
Russians, before the collapse of the USSR, saw themselves (their nation) as being among the two most powerful in the world - and not without reason. Now they are nothing - the "best" they can do is destroy countries around them (Ukraine). You don't think that most people, anywhere in the world, would long for the good old days when they were important?
Many people think that the USA is on the verge of collapse as far as being THE dominant power in the world and may well split into multiple, scarcely relevant countries. You might well be among those who think this.
Do you not think that, should the USA follow this path of self destruction, 40 years down the road, people here will agree that "It is a great misfortune that the USA no longer exists."? Will that sentiment mean that "people have a core wish for freedom and democracy."
ok let's look for the reasons Russians wanted the USSR back:
"The most common reasons listed for regret are the end of the unified economic system, and them no longer being citizens of a superpower.[14]"
The first is exactly what I am saying. They want decisions made for them by central planning. The second is what you are saying: they want their nation to be considered important.
This would suggest we are both touching on parts of human psych.
In the end, constitutional democracy is such a new concept in human history that we must not consider it normal. Normal is living under a 'chief,' 'king' 'emperor' or whatever. And doing as you were told by the local aristocracy. That's what people did for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our idea of a constitution and voting and laissez faire capitalism...not the normal human state of affairs. The USA was the only democracy on the planet for a time. The only. Which means it was a fundamental break.
The Magna Carta was only 800 years ago and that chose to keep the king in charge. For centuries whenever there was a revolution, they just chose another king.
Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
ok let's look for the reasons Russians wanted the USSR back:
"The most common reasons listed for regret are the end of the unified economic system, and them no longer being citizens of a superpower.[14]"
The first is exactly what I am saying. They want decisions made for them by central planning. The second is what you are saying: they want their nation to be considered important.
This would suggest we are both touching on parts of human psych.
In the end, constitutional democracy is such a new concept in human history that we must not consider it normal. Normal is living under a 'chief,' 'king' 'emperor' or whatever. And doing as you were told by the local aristocracy. That's what people did for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our idea of a constitution and voting and laissez faire capitalism...not the normal human state of affairs. The USA was the only democracy on the planet for a time. The only. Which means it was a fundamental break.
The Magna Carta was only 800 years ago and that chose to keep the king in charge. For centuries whenever there was a revolution, they just chose another king.
Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place.
There is some truth in some of what you say. No one would dispute that most people, for most of human history were ruled by monarchs in one form or another.
But that is not what is in dispute.
So, let's get to your conclusionary statement:
"Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place."
I'm sorry, but this contains no logic at all. Not even a scintilla.
You never showed that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,'". You only showed (and this is not in dispute) that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people did live under a 'king,'". These are completely different statements. 100%. Absolutely. Unrelatedly. Different.
So, no, that is no evidence at all. Not even a little.
ok let's look for the reasons Russians wanted the USSR back:
"The most common reasons listed for regret are the end of the unified economic system, and them no longer being citizens of a superpower.[14]"
The first is exactly what I am saying. They want decisions made for them by central planning. The second is what you are saying: they want their nation to be considered important.
This would suggest we are both touching on parts of human psych.
In the end, constitutional democracy is such a new concept in human history that we must not consider it normal. Normal is living under a 'chief,' 'king' 'emperor' or whatever. And doing as you were told by the local aristocracy. That's what people did for hundreds of thousands of years.
Our idea of a constitution and voting and laissez faire capitalism...not the normal human state of affairs. The USA was the only democracy on the planet for a time. The only. Which means it was a fundamental break.
The Magna Carta was only 800 years ago and that chose to keep the king in charge. For centuries whenever there was a revolution, they just chose another king.
Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place.
There is some truth in some of what you say. No one would dispute that most people, for most of human history were ruled by monarchs in one form or another.
But that is not what is in dispute.
So, let's get to your conclusionary statement:
"Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place."
I'm sorry, but this contains no logic at all. Not even a scintilla.
You never showed that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,'". You only showed (and this is not in dispute) that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people did live under a 'king,'". These are completely different statements. 100%. Absolutely. Unrelatedly. Different.
So, no, that is no evidence at all. Not even a little.
well yeah I'm assuming that people organize society in a manner they prefer. Not every place every time, but for the most part. If millions of peasants truly hated living under feudalism....they would have done some rich man killing a lot more than they did. There weren't a lot of peasant uprisings even though there were a whole lot more peasants than aristocrats.
Not until the 18c in America did the peasants throw off the royals for good.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
There is some truth in some of what you say. No one would dispute that most people, for most of human history were ruled by monarchs in one form or another.
But that is not what is in dispute.
So, let's get to your conclusionary statement:
"Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place."
I'm sorry, but this contains no logic at all. Not even a scintilla.
You never showed that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,'". You only showed (and this is not in dispute) that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people did live under a 'king,'". These are completely different statements. 100%. Absolutely. Unrelatedly. Different.
So, no, that is no evidence at all. Not even a little.
Anyway, let's go back to something you did say earlier. I believe that you said that women in particular looked for protection, out of necessity, and would naturally gravitate toward a "strongman". Sorry, I am too lazy to go back and look for your exact wording choice.
This actually makes some sense. One would think that women in particular would naturally be drawn to a strongman for exactly this reason - far more so than men, who have less need of someone to protect them.
How then, do you square this with the reality that men voted for Trump in far higher percentages than women when Trump clearly attempts to be such a strongman (a rather pathetic attempt, by my eyes, but nonetheless an attempt) and that is the bulk of his appeal?
There is some truth in some of what you say. No one would dispute that most people, for most of human history were ruled by monarchs in one form or another.
But that is not what is in dispute.
So, let's get to your conclusionary statement:
"Since the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,' I think that is evidence of a deep human need to be told what to do and know your place."
I'm sorry, but this contains no logic at all. Not even a scintilla.
You never showed that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people preferred living under a 'king,'". You only showed (and this is not in dispute) that "the vast amount of samples of human civilization show that people did live under a 'king,'". These are completely different statements. 100%. Absolutely. Unrelatedly. Different.
So, no, that is no evidence at all. Not even a little.
well yeah I'm assuming that people organize society in a manner they prefer. Not every place every time, but for the most part. If millions of peasants truly hated living under feudalism....they would have done some rich man killing a lot more than they did. There weren't a lot of peasant uprisings even though there were a whole lot more peasants than aristocrats.
Not until the 18c in America did the peasants throw off the royals for good.
You, of all people should know better.
Are you not the one who repeatedly states things like, "All it takes is to make an example of one (newspaper, business, congressman, general, ...) and the rest fall into line."?
Is that not you?
It should be obvious to anyone who understands that much that strongmen have, since the beginning of time, made examples of one and the rest have fallen into line to save their own heads.
People have not chosen how to organize their societies. Strongmen have chosen how to organize their kingdoms. People have chosen to save their individual necks by keeping their heads down and saying, "Yes, sir."
well yeah I'm assuming that people organize society in a manner they prefer. Not every place every time, but for the most part. If millions of peasants truly hated living under feudalism....they would have done some rich man killing a lot more than they did. There weren't a lot of peasant uprisings even though there were a whole lot more peasants than aristocrats.
Not until the 18c in America did the peasants throw off the royals for good.
You, of all people should know better.
Are you not the one who repeatedly states things like, "All it takes is to make an example of one (newspaper, business, congressman, general, ...) and the rest fall into line."?
Is that not you?
It should be obvious to anyone who understands that much that strongmen have, since the beginning of time, made examples of one and the rest have fallen into line to save their own heads.
People have not chosen how to organize their societies. Strongmen have chosen how to organize their kingdoms. People have chosen to save their individual necks by keeping their heads down and saying, "Yes, sir."
well a big point of what I am saying is that over and over and over human society has formed itself on a king/subject basis. I think there is a deep human need to have a boss and know your place in society. Sure, men with weapons enforce that structure. But mostly they don't have to. We are seeing that need for someone to be in charge in real time in the USA.
I have to run now. Literally. I am going to run.
Cheers - fun talk.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
