Any article that cites Krugman is self-evident bullshit.

Krugman has made an entire career out of carrying water for the ruling class.

That’s more or less the theory I keep coming back to, but I can’t even entirely wrap my head around that one. It’s sort of like a really complex conspiracy theory in that it presumes a particular contrived course of action from seemingly too many people.

I can absolutely imagine some number of writers, editors and publishers self-servingly treating the obviously insane blathering of a lunatic as if it’s legitimate just to further their own careers, and I can absolutely imagine some additional (and likely greater) number of them doing so to protect themselves from retribution. I can even imagine some number who are themselves insane in a way that aligns enough with Trump’s insanity that they treat him seriously sincerely.

But all of that still doesn’t seem enough to account for the near-universal failure to even comment obliquely on how deeply mentally ill Trump so obviously is. Just as with a complex conspiracy theory, I can see the possibility on a limited scale, but it all seems to fall apart if one tries to expand it out to the scale that would seem to necessarily be the case.

And yeah - I keep ending up feeling like the only sane person in the asylum.

Well…

You’re absolutely right, and that was very well-written to boot. But it’s not the part that perplexes me. I likely just did a poor job of explaining myself.

I fully expect his intellectually and/or psychologically compromised supporters to fail or refuse to recognize his glaringly obvious insanity. As you note, he affirms their prejudices and tells them that the condemnation they so deservedly receive is actually some sort of evil conspiracy, and they grovel at his feet, lapping it up.

But that just accounts for a portion of his supporters and none of his opponents, and it’s that remainder I wonder about - all of the people who are certainly rational enough to recognize his glaringly obvious derangement for what it is, but somehow just don’t, or won’t.

I have this recurring experience in which I read an essay or article from some more or less neutral site or even an oppositional site in which someone relates something that Trump said, then parses and analyzes it, as if it’s a legitimate statement of supposed fact rather than the deranged ranting of someone who’s painfully obviously profoundly mentally ill, and I can’t even see how they managed to make it that far - how they didn’t just stop halfway through relating whatever it was he said and throw their hands up and say, “This guy is a fucking lunatic!” Because he so blatantly obviously is.

That’s what I don’t get.

…a perfect, brilliant, beautiful statement that I make…

Doesn’t anyone else notice how often he makes these cringily exaggerated statements, and more to the point, recognize how clearly they illustrate the staggering depths of his delusions?

That’s still the thing I most notably don’t get about Trump - the man is obviously profoundly mentally ill, so why and how is he even taken seriously? How in the world is it even possible for such a painfully obvious gibbering lunatic to not only run for public office, but quite possibly win?

In a somewhat metaphorical but nonetheless very real sense - most politics is effectively snake oil.

There’s a set of people who exhibit a particular combination of mental illness and natural charisma, such that they feel an irrational urge to impose their wills on others, a lack of the necessary empathy to recognize the harm they do and the personal appeal necessary to convince others to let them do it.

There’s another set of people who feel an irrational sense of helplessness - who want to turn control of their lives and their decisions over to others, so they can just go along with a preordained set of values and beliefs and choices rather expending effort on, and taking the risk of, making their own.

And just as in any more standard “snake oil” dynamic, the first group, exclusively for its own benefit, preys upon the weakness and hope of the second. Just as in any other such dynamic, the people of the first group make promises they have no intention of keeping ultimately just so that they can benefit, and the people of the second group continue, irratiomally, to believe those promises, even as all of the available evidence demonstrates that the promises are empty.

Candidates for public office should be required to undergo a mental health assessment as part of the process of getting on the ballot, and those who score beyond (above or below, as may be relevant) particular thresholds are barred from seeking office.

I sincerely believe that there’s no single thing we could do that would provide more benefit to the world than to get sociopaths and narcissists and megalomaniacs out of positions of power. Each and every one of the most notable and contentious politicians in the world today is, if you just take a step back and look at them honestly, blatantly profoundly mentally ill. Enough is enough.

Of course they do.

That’s the central reason that bribes need to be kept out of politics (and don’t feed me any of that shit about lobbying as speech - they’re bribes obviously). It’s not simply that it’s dishonorable or dishonest to base government policy on bribes paid - much more importantly it’s that allowing bribes rewards and thus selects for people who are vile, self-serving scumbags.

It’s not an accident that the billionaires and the politicians are almost entirely foul pieces of shit - it’s because our corrupt political system actually rewards foul pieces of shit and penalizes anyone with actual morals or integrity. It’s not just that politicians can take bribes, but that they essentially have to, just to keep up with the other candidates who do. And similarly it’s not that the wealthy and the corporations can pay bribes, but that they essentially have to, just to compete against the other wealthy people and corporations who do.

Allowing bribes just creates a political system that’s effectively gatekept - “You have to be this corrupt to take part in this system.” And the people who aren’t that corrupt are locked out.

Trump is certainly the most foul, loathsome, corrupt piece of shit in this election (not that Biden isn’t one too - just that Trump has achieved depths virtually unheard of, even in the cesspool of US politics). So Trump is naturally the one who’s going to get the lion’s share of bribes from the foul, loathsome pieces of shit who pay the most and biggest ones.

Well of course he wants to keep it in “vague terms” - he’s too canny of a politician to come right out and say that the plan is and always has been the conquest, occupation and eventual annexation of the whole of Gaza.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” - H.L. Mencken

This is what an utter lack of integrity, ethics, scruples and reason looks like.

They like the idea of somebody they think is on their side not giving a shit about the law, and they’re too dull-witted and emotionally invested to recognize the simple fact that somebody who doesn’t give a shit about the law doesn’t give a shit about them either, and will betray them to get what he wants exactly as easily as he broke the law to get what he wants.

That’s the thing with tyrants. They pretty much never come to power entirely on their own. It’s nearly always the case that they come to power because some significant number of people ignored the clear warning signs and supported them anyway - actually believed that supporting this transparently power-hungry lying sack of shit was a good thing.

And then by the time those people figure out the score, it’s too late.

That Was the Day by The The

Imagine Israel, of all countries, crying to the UN, of all organizations, about a purported “flagrant violation of narional sovereignty, international law and Security Council resolutions.”

I laughed out loud when I read that. As if that isn’t exactly what Israel does virtually on a daily basis, and has done for decades now, and while thumbing their nose at the UN the entire time.

I’ve sometimes compared politics to professional wrestling, in the sense of “faces and heels in mostly staged battles to entertain the masses.”

This is the first time I’ve been tempted to compare it to professional wrestling in the sense of “heavily made-up freaks shouting threats into microphones.”

They’re sort of like the old Italian man in Catch-22:

“I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top, and I am an anti-fascist now that he has been deposed. I was fanatically pro-German when the Germans were here to protect us against the Americans, and now that the Americans are here to protect us against the Germans I am fanatically pro-American.”

The only difference is that, as you note, NYT’s focus is on their own gravitas. Their goal isn’t merely survival, but to maintain their image as an authoritative voice in national affairs. And they do that in large part simply by currying favor with whoever currently has the biggest coattails.

Many think that cogito ergo sum somehow says or at least implies something about the nature of existence, when it in fact does not. So in that sense, it’s not the “big hitter it’s made out to be,” but that’s not a failure of the principle, but a failure of people to understand what it in fact says, or more precisely, does not say.

I suspect that the problem is that when people consider “I think, therefore I am,” they think that that “I” refers to the entirety of their self-image, and therefore says that the entirety of their self-image, in all its details, objectively exists.

That’s very much not what it means or even implies. It never did and was never intended to stipulate anything at all about the nature of this entity I call “I.” Not one single thing. All it ever said or intended to say was simply that whatever it is that “I” am, “I” self evidently exist, as demonstrated by the fact that “I” - whatever “I” might be - think I do.

It’s not a coincidence that Descartes himself formulated the original version of the brain-in-a-vat - the “evil demon.” He was not simply aware of the sorts of possibilities you mention - of the ramifications of the fact that we exist behind a veil of perception - he actually originated much of the thinking on that very topic. He was a pioneer in that exact field.

Cogito ergo sum doesn’t fail to account for those sorts of possibilities - it was explicitly formulated with those sorts of possibilities not only in mind, but at the forefront. And that’s exactly why it only stipulates the one and only thing that an individual can know for certain - that some entity that I think of as “I” self evidently exists, as demonstrated by the simple fact that “I” think I do, since if “I” didn’t exist, there would be no “I” thinking I do.

And more to the point, that’s exactly why it very deliberately says absolutely nothing about the nature of that existence.

No.

I self-evidently have a consciousness (cogito ergo sum), but logic, reason and the available evidence all point to that consciousness being a manifestation of brain activity and shaped by my genetics, environment and experiences, as opposed to an entity unto itself.

If consciousness is an illusion, then what is it that’s experiencing that illusion?

deleted by creator

Electric kettle for the water, poured over a bag of strong black tea in a glass, with a bit of sugar. As far as brand goes, I’m not all that picky, just so long as it’s black and plain and relatively strong. Mostly it’s Tetley or Twining’s English Breakfast.

I drank coffee pretty much exclusively for years. I’d drink tea occasionally, and I always liked it well enough, but it just couldn’t hold my interest. The thing that made the difference was drinking it out of a glass.

One day, some years ago, I noticed a scene of Russians drinking tea in a restaurant in a movie and started thinking about it. I was aware that they drank hot tea in glasses, but I’d never really considered it before. I had a nice set of institutional quality highball glasses that I’d gotten from a restaurant that went out of business, so I decided to give it a try. And I’ve never looked back.

As near as I can figure it out, using a glass just made it a complete and satisfying experience. I think that’s part of the reason that tea had never held my interest before - I didn’t have a satisfying way to drink it, day in and day out. I never liked teacups - they’re just too small and dainty to be satisfying. And trying to drink it out of a mug was sort of weird - as if my mouth was expecting coffee and was surprised, and a bit disappointed, to get tea instead. But the glass makes it its own thing, and makes it satisfying in and of itself.