Some of the most sincere true believers have been the most dangerous humans we have spawned.
Lots of them spoke clearly their beliefs.
Just honestly speaking ones true feelings and thoughts no matter how well phrased is not grounds for applause.
This critique should obviously be applied to psychopathic liars like Trump, misguided kooks that have gone astray like RFK and in this case to CE himself as he writes about these other two.
I was flabbergasted that CE presents as an some kind of meaningful argument for Trump that Trump told RFK he wouldn't implement project 2025 or a nationwide abortion ban. This just demonstrates to me that CE has no ability to see the man for what he is. He so wants to bolster his main thesis at all turns that he wants us to believe Trump is trustworthy!!
What does this say about CE as someone that folks here seem to be looking to for answers? Charles would be well served to go back to just doing moral theorizing rather than failing at understanding the most obvious of "what you see is what you got" people. A backstage pass doesn't seem to have helped.
yes it is totally mindboggling... perhaps Charles ultimately has a touch of that ol' infectious narcissism. I edited and published his Sacred Economics, but over the years I began to recoil from how he developed. A combination of willful naivete about humanity as a whole and individual humans like Putin or Trump, and a huge amount of grandstanding. As in the climate book, where he couldn't acknowledge that despite all of the rhetoric about nature, we also need radical reductions in CO2 to avert our extinction. He has led his followers down the garden path, to a Trump-ian outhouse. Perhaps they will re-evaluate the entire intellectual trajectory that led them here.
Some say willful naivete. Some same purposeful idealism. Not everyone is here to argue a position or assert their dominance. CE presents a certain meta perspective that is highly useful for when we inevitably become too zoomed-in on details.
Nobody here is getting all their political info from CE. It's an auxiliary learning tool, not the be-all end-all.
Your tug of war attitude serves the war machine and the forces of authoritarianism more perfectly and more thoroughly than anything either of these clown candidates might do.
You do not disagree with Charles. You merely find him off narrative, from which flows an explosive reaction, devolving immediately into labeling and dismissal. Both pretend sides of this essentially silly non-politics of ours display this substitute for thinking millions of times every day. This is the nature and soul of partisanship. It is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-everything the American experiment ever hoped it might become.
A sane person cannot slip a razor’s width of rational difference between Trump and any Democrat since the party apparatus selected that Arkansas huckster in ‘92. Please reconsider.
Some of the most sincere true believers have been the most dangerous humans we have spawned.
Lots of them spoke clearly their beliefs.
Just honestly speaking ones true feelings and thoughts no matter how well phrased is not grounds for applause.
This critique should obviously be applied to psychopathic liars like Trump, misguided kooks that have gone astray like RFK and in this case to CE himself as he writes about these other two.
I was flabbergasted that CE presents as an some kind of meaningful argument for Trump that Trump told RFK he wouldn't implement project 2025 or a nationwide abortion ban. This just demonstrates to me that CE has no ability to see the man for what he is. He so wants to bolster his main thesis at all turns that he wants us to believe Trump is trustworthy!!
What does this say about CE as someone that folks here seem to be looking to for answers? Charles would be well served to go back to just doing moral theorizing rather than failing at understanding the most obvious of "what you see is what you got" people. A backstage pass doesn't seem to have helped.
yes it is totally mindboggling... perhaps Charles ultimately has a touch of that ol' infectious narcissism. I edited and published his Sacred Economics, but over the years I began to recoil from how he developed. A combination of willful naivete about humanity as a whole and individual humans like Putin or Trump, and a huge amount of grandstanding. As in the climate book, where he couldn't acknowledge that despite all of the rhetoric about nature, we also need radical reductions in CO2 to avert our extinction. He has led his followers down the garden path, to a Trump-ian outhouse. Perhaps they will re-evaluate the entire intellectual trajectory that led them here.
Some say willful naivete. Some same purposeful idealism. Not everyone is here to argue a position or assert their dominance. CE presents a certain meta perspective that is highly useful for when we inevitably become too zoomed-in on details.
Nobody here is getting all their political info from CE. It's an auxiliary learning tool, not the be-all end-all.
Your tug of war attitude serves the war machine and the forces of authoritarianism more perfectly and more thoroughly than anything either of these clown candidates might do.
You do not disagree with Charles. You merely find him off narrative, from which flows an explosive reaction, devolving immediately into labeling and dismissal. Both pretend sides of this essentially silly non-politics of ours display this substitute for thinking millions of times every day. This is the nature and soul of partisanship. It is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-everything the American experiment ever hoped it might become.
A sane person cannot slip a razor’s width of rational difference between Trump and any Democrat since the party apparatus selected that Arkansas huckster in ‘92. Please reconsider.