> "The patient is our collective capacity to distinguish sense from nonsense, consistency from contradiction, principle from expediency."
Well, you certainly start out well, particularly with that. Entirely consistent with the "age-old" principle -- at least since the 12th century -- of "from contradiction, anything follows" [Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet]:
However, I think you sort of snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when you insist that the US "threatening to abandon NATO allies unless they “pay their bills' " somehow qualifies as a "protection racket". You might have had a point if that was followed shortly thereafter by Luigi, or Ivan, popping into France to break Pierre's kneecaps.
Seems rather clear from that Telegraph article that most of the other NATO countries are falling far short of their contractual obligations. The US is paying some $900 billion for the upkeep of their military whereas all of the other NATO countries are apparently paying, together, only $500 billion:
Telegraph: "Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO countries for not meeting the current goal of spending two per cent of GDP on defense, arguing that the disparity puts an unfair burden on the United States."
One might reasonably decry what is apparently a waste -- should be beating at least some of those swords into plowshares -- but, given those contracts, one might reasonably argue that the US and Trump might well have a point, some reason to be somewhat "peeved".
Mike, I think Steersman is very elegantly saying something like what I was trying to say in your Reader Survey 2. In my crude way, who made you the Doctor of Logic and Coherence? I think Trump has a very bad answer to a reasonable question, “Why do we pay more than our European allies, primarily for the defense of Europe.” Let’s give the devil his due for consistently asking good questions that we have been avoiding. From his first term, “Why are we willing to hollow out our manufacturing infrastructure and supply chains in order to get cheap prices from China when they don’t play by our rules? Is a flood of cheap shit worth trading our future for.” Again, I think his answers are terrible, but the question did need to be asked. I think Biden’s response could have been the right one, but after opening the door by asking the question, Trump’s now leading us into a very bad solution. Or so I fear. If you still have a finger on the Silicon Valley pulse, I’d rather hear an insider’s view on how truth became fungible and what forward-looking solution there might be to that. Your solution seems to be backward looking and it doesn’t seem to be working.
You're absolutely right—I'm not the Doctor of Logic and Coherence! That was just a stylistic device, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
Your point about Trump asking important questions is well-taken. There is significant value in questioning assumptions about NATO burden-sharing, trade relationships with China, and the costs of certain economic policies. These questions do deserve serious engagement, and I appreciate you highlighting that.
Where I think we might differ is in the assessment of the proposed answers. A valid question doesn't automatically validate whatever answer follows it. We can acknowledge the legitimacy of asking about NATO burden-sharing while still questioning whether threatening conditional defense of allies represents a coherent or beneficial solution.
I'm not advocating for maintaining any particular status quo—I'm advocating for applying consistent standards of assessment to all proposed changes, regardless of who proposes them. That's not backward-looking; it's about ensuring we have reliable tools to evaluate whether any direction (forward, backward, or sideways) actually serves the values and interests we claim to hold.
As for Silicon Valley and the fungibility of truth—that's a fascinating question that deserves its own essay. Having spent years in that environment, I've witnessed how the combination of engagement-driven algorithms, venture capital incentives, and certain cultural factors have contributed to our current epistemological crisis. I'll plan to address this specifically in an upcoming post, as it connects deeply to questions about how we might rebuild shared frameworks for evaluating reality.
Thank you for pushing me to clarify my position. This kind of thoughtful challenge is exactly what helps refine ideas and deepen understanding. I don't claim any special authority on these matters—just a commitment to consistent principles and an openness to revisiting those principles when presented with compelling counterarguments.
And with that said, I will deign to assert that I stand by every damned word in the original post.
"Trump’s now leading us into a very bad solution. Or so I fear."
I've periodically argued, even in the run-up to the election, that Trump may well be a cure worse than the disease, but that as the "patient" was on death's doorstep virtually any new "treatment" or course of action would better than staying with the previous one.
"... an insider’s view on how truth became fungible ..."
"fungible truth"?
Seems like a category error, like an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms. 🙂
Somewhat apropos of which, what really chaps my hide is an issue that has clearly exercised many people and which Trump commendably addressed if not entirely resolved with several of his EOs, notably in putting the kibosh on transwomen -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't -- in women's sports.
Too many people -- including our, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, much of your Democrat Party and Kamala Harris -- have bought transgenderism's article of faith that "trans women are women!!11!!". Barking mad the lot of them; they might just as well proclaim that "2+2=5".
Just the other day I saw someone use the term “Musk Derangement Syndrome”, to describe those - probably including me - who don’t merely condemn Musk’s landslide into drug-addled incoherence while illegally wilding an axe to almost the entirety of the Federal government, but also those who “correct” others when said others offer limp hand-waver forgiving arse-licking to Musk.
I AM THE ENEMY OF POWER
Slandered and abused
Beaten, bruised, but still fighting
For you - I am Truth
Not welcomed by all
To those who would do you harm
I’m the enemy
Behold my allies
Diverse views, skepticism
Inconvenient facts
My foes tell their flocks
“Others will lie to you. I’ll
tell you what to think!”
They’re threatened by me
Their power comes from closed minds
Anger, fear and hate
They will convince you
You didn’t see what you saw
Or hear what you heard
They will vilify
Shout-down, demean and malign
Those who speak for me
Trust your eyes and ears
Trust your power to reason
Trust I am there, but …
May be obscure. There’s
not always a smoking gun.
Sometimes, only smoke
But connect the dots
The proof is in the picture
Yes, that’s me you see
I’ve nothing to hide
I can stand your scrutiny
Because I am Truth
©2020 HHThorpe. All rights reserved.
> "The patient is our collective capacity to distinguish sense from nonsense, consistency from contradiction, principle from expediency."
Well, you certainly start out well, particularly with that. Entirely consistent with the "age-old" principle -- at least since the 12th century -- of "from contradiction, anything follows" [Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
However, I think you sort of snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when you insist that the US "threatening to abandon NATO allies unless they “pay their bills' " somehow qualifies as a "protection racket". You might have had a point if that was followed shortly thereafter by Luigi, or Ivan, popping into France to break Pierre's kneecaps.
Seems rather clear from that Telegraph article that most of the other NATO countries are falling far short of their contractual obligations. The US is paying some $900 billion for the upkeep of their military whereas all of the other NATO countries are apparently paying, together, only $500 billion:
Telegraph: "Mr. Trump has repeatedly criticised NATO countries for not meeting the current goal of spending two per cent of GDP on defense, arguing that the disparity puts an unfair burden on the United States."
https://archive.ph/VnHxp
One might reasonably decry what is apparently a waste -- should be beating at least some of those swords into plowshares -- but, given those contracts, one might reasonably argue that the US and Trump might well have a point, some reason to be somewhat "peeved".
Mike, I think Steersman is very elegantly saying something like what I was trying to say in your Reader Survey 2. In my crude way, who made you the Doctor of Logic and Coherence? I think Trump has a very bad answer to a reasonable question, “Why do we pay more than our European allies, primarily for the defense of Europe.” Let’s give the devil his due for consistently asking good questions that we have been avoiding. From his first term, “Why are we willing to hollow out our manufacturing infrastructure and supply chains in order to get cheap prices from China when they don’t play by our rules? Is a flood of cheap shit worth trading our future for.” Again, I think his answers are terrible, but the question did need to be asked. I think Biden’s response could have been the right one, but after opening the door by asking the question, Trump’s now leading us into a very bad solution. Or so I fear. If you still have a finger on the Silicon Valley pulse, I’d rather hear an insider’s view on how truth became fungible and what forward-looking solution there might be to that. Your solution seems to be backward looking and it doesn’t seem to be working.
You're absolutely right—I'm not the Doctor of Logic and Coherence! That was just a stylistic device, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.
Your point about Trump asking important questions is well-taken. There is significant value in questioning assumptions about NATO burden-sharing, trade relationships with China, and the costs of certain economic policies. These questions do deserve serious engagement, and I appreciate you highlighting that.
Where I think we might differ is in the assessment of the proposed answers. A valid question doesn't automatically validate whatever answer follows it. We can acknowledge the legitimacy of asking about NATO burden-sharing while still questioning whether threatening conditional defense of allies represents a coherent or beneficial solution.
I'm not advocating for maintaining any particular status quo—I'm advocating for applying consistent standards of assessment to all proposed changes, regardless of who proposes them. That's not backward-looking; it's about ensuring we have reliable tools to evaluate whether any direction (forward, backward, or sideways) actually serves the values and interests we claim to hold.
As for Silicon Valley and the fungibility of truth—that's a fascinating question that deserves its own essay. Having spent years in that environment, I've witnessed how the combination of engagement-driven algorithms, venture capital incentives, and certain cultural factors have contributed to our current epistemological crisis. I'll plan to address this specifically in an upcoming post, as it connects deeply to questions about how we might rebuild shared frameworks for evaluating reality.
Thank you for pushing me to clarify my position. This kind of thoughtful challenge is exactly what helps refine ideas and deepen understanding. I don't claim any special authority on these matters—just a commitment to consistent principles and an openness to revisiting those principles when presented with compelling counterarguments.
And with that said, I will deign to assert that I stand by every damned word in the original post.
Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the dialog, also.
Thanks. Re:
"Trump’s now leading us into a very bad solution. Or so I fear."
I've periodically argued, even in the run-up to the election, that Trump may well be a cure worse than the disease, but that as the "patient" was on death's doorstep virtually any new "treatment" or course of action would better than staying with the previous one.
"... an insider’s view on how truth became fungible ..."
"fungible truth"?
Seems like a category error, like an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms. 🙂
Somewhat apropos of which, what really chaps my hide is an issue that has clearly exercised many people and which Trump commendably addressed if not entirely resolved with several of his EOs, notably in putting the kibosh on transwomen -- compound word like "crayfish" which ain't -- in women's sports.
Too many people -- including our, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, much of your Democrat Party and Kamala Harris -- have bought transgenderism's article of faith that "trans women are women!!11!!". Barking mad the lot of them; they might just as well proclaim that "2+2=5".
Just the other day I saw someone use the term “Musk Derangement Syndrome”, to describe those - probably including me - who don’t merely condemn Musk’s landslide into drug-addled incoherence while illegally wilding an axe to almost the entirety of the Federal government, but also those who “correct” others when said others offer limp hand-waver forgiving arse-licking to Musk.
Vulcans approve 😁👍
Excellent ! Thank You