This piece is based 99% on a dark fantasy of its author. The one supposed fact in support of his demonization of the somewhat flawed Donald Trump is that he "has been found guilty of sexual abuse in a civil trial" -- which is a distortion of the truth that he was found _liable_ by a preponderance of the evidence. The author's subsequent claim that this (presumably) makes Trump a rapist is contradicted by the fact that the civil jury declined to hold trump liable for rape. Also the case is not closed since the verdict has been appealed. On the so-called "guilty" verdict see: https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/05/09/trump-liable-sexual-abuse/
The rest of the "facts" supporting the demonization of Trump are a litany of the indictments initiated by his political opponents, none of which have resulted in a conviction so far. As for the conclusions the author draws from these facts, suffice it to say that when the accused is the Prince of Darkness himself, no further proof of his evil is required. Once a political disrupter like Trump is fingered by the ruling class, his goose is cooked. As Beria bragged, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
How's the weather up there on the moral high ground?
Very interesting read. Good writing style. I think your basing morality on values is weak. I recommend "Common Morality" by Bernard Gert. The moral rules are the only rules that are publicly known, apply to everyone and entail punishment if they are broken. Moral rules are obligatory. Ethics corresponds more to "moral ideals", ways of life that may lead to good and that we can choose how much or how little we need to follow. Hence they are not obligatory, and not following ethical ideals does not entail punishment. Moral rules we feel, whereas ethical ideals we understand intellectually. There are religious rules that masquerade as moral rules: such as requiring women to wear headscarves and prohibiting abortion, and observing the sabbath. But these rules are not necessarily known by non-adherents so they do not apply to everyone and are not therefore moral rules. Fascists like Trump and Putin encourage violence and the destruction of impartiality and the rule of law in political and social institutions because moral rules are an impediment to their goals of attaining absolute power. By encouraging their followers to break moral rules and use violence they are flattening the moral landscape for everyone else. Example: Krystallnact, widespread immorality against a lower status group that was witnessed and involved almost the entire population of Germany. After that episode of lawlessness and destruction it became that much easier for the Nazi State to steal Jewish property and send Jews to the Concentration Camps and the gas chambers.
This piece is based 99% on a dark fantasy of its author. The one supposed fact in support of his demonization of the somewhat flawed Donald Trump is that he "has been found guilty of sexual abuse in a civil trial" -- which is a distortion of the truth that he was found _liable_ by a preponderance of the evidence. The author's subsequent claim that this (presumably) makes Trump a rapist is contradicted by the fact that the civil jury declined to hold trump liable for rape. Also the case is not closed since the verdict has been appealed. On the so-called "guilty" verdict see: https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/05/09/trump-liable-sexual-abuse/
The rest of the "facts" supporting the demonization of Trump are a litany of the indictments initiated by his political opponents, none of which have resulted in a conviction so far. As for the conclusions the author draws from these facts, suffice it to say that when the accused is the Prince of Darkness himself, no further proof of his evil is required. Once a political disrupter like Trump is fingered by the ruling class, his goose is cooked. As Beria bragged, "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
How's the weather up there on the moral high ground?
I enjoyed this very much. Is it okay to share a link to it on Post?
Very interesting read. Good writing style. I think your basing morality on values is weak. I recommend "Common Morality" by Bernard Gert. The moral rules are the only rules that are publicly known, apply to everyone and entail punishment if they are broken. Moral rules are obligatory. Ethics corresponds more to "moral ideals", ways of life that may lead to good and that we can choose how much or how little we need to follow. Hence they are not obligatory, and not following ethical ideals does not entail punishment. Moral rules we feel, whereas ethical ideals we understand intellectually. There are religious rules that masquerade as moral rules: such as requiring women to wear headscarves and prohibiting abortion, and observing the sabbath. But these rules are not necessarily known by non-adherents so they do not apply to everyone and are not therefore moral rules. Fascists like Trump and Putin encourage violence and the destruction of impartiality and the rule of law in political and social institutions because moral rules are an impediment to their goals of attaining absolute power. By encouraging their followers to break moral rules and use violence they are flattening the moral landscape for everyone else. Example: Krystallnact, widespread immorality against a lower status group that was witnessed and involved almost the entire population of Germany. After that episode of lawlessness and destruction it became that much easier for the Nazi State to steal Jewish property and send Jews to the Concentration Camps and the gas chambers.