4 ms·

What philosophical foundations are left? Even at the very top the president is corrupt and morally depraved.

by dyauspitr 11mo ago

parineum 11mo ago
Leaders are rarely shining moral beacons.
- antonvs 11mo ago
  Are you suggesting that no meaningful distinction can be made in terms of morality between Trump and, say, Biden, Obama, Blair, the Bushes etc.? Some people will point to their supposed crimes or immoral actions while in office, having to do with execution of their duties as president. Large countries tend to do many questionable things. But the current US administration is pretty unique in terms of its corruption, avoidance of accountability, authoritarian and fascist tendencies, etc. It's not a useful contribution to the discussion to essentially claim that "they're all the same" without making some sort of case for it.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - zmgsabst 11mo ago
    I would argue that yes, there’s no meaningful distinction between Biden and Trump. (And perhaps that Trump is more moral than Biden.) I’d find your argument would be more persuasive if you outlined what you believe Trump had done worse than the others — rather than argument-by-name-calling.
    - antonvs 11mo ago
      There’s no point in discussing anything with someone that holds your position, against the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary. The best we can do is take action to prevent you from exerting any influence over society.
      - zmgsabst 11mo ago
        So it should be easy to show me, then. Go ahead, be specific. Rather than accuse me of bad faith based on stereotypes.
        antonvs 11mo ago
        That would be a waste of my time. There are more effective ways to fight positions like yours, and I'm involved in several of those.
    - dyauspitr 11mo ago
      Racist, dishonest, nepotistic, war mongering, anti meritocratic, fraudulent, vindictive, unscrupulous, corrupt, divisive, pedophile etc.
  - silisili 11mo ago
    > But the current US administration is pretty unique in terms of its corruption, avoidance of accountability, authoritarian and fascist tendencies, etc. I've mostly been reading that since the Bush years. Definitely said against Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump. In fairness, I don't remember it about Clinton. That you don't agree with a politician doesn't make him or her particularly worse than others.
    - dyauspitr 11mo ago
      He’s pretty objectively corrupt in regards to universal values of fairness, honesty, empathy etc. by an order of magnitude compared to a lot of recent presidents.
  - parineum 11mo ago
    I'm suggesting that the morality of our leaders is not a barometer for the morality of the populace.
    - dyauspitr 11mo ago
      In a democracy there’s a correlation.
shrubby 11mo ago
The moral comes from the grassroots as power corrupts. As long as we wait for a godlike leader for rescue the end result is same as with Stalin, Hitler, Trump, Thiel, Epstein, Musk, ... The godlikeness can come though in many forms, political (Trump), propaganda (Musk/Zuck7Thiel) or via extortion material and money like Epstein. A good litmus test for a decision maker is the universal ethical principle mentioned in the article put into concrete and compare everything via the lens of "what if all eight billion of current humans and also the future generations would do this". Right now nobody's daring to to this but as long as we start asking "who's afraid of the narcissist zillionaire" the world starts to make sense and the solution appears.
- wildpeaks 11mo ago
  Power reveals rather than corrupt: it's easy to act moral when there are consequences (real or imagined) when you don't, but you see someone's true self when they know they could get away with it. For example, this is why the way someone treats service workers is a good indicator of someone's character.
  - shrubby 11mo ago
    Yup. I'm looking this via the lens of moral development where: Pre-conventional level is the narcissist me-me-me level, that seems to dominate the geopolitics and tech. Conventional is most of us as the sheep. This level follows the loudest crowd that right now is the pre-conventional. Post-conventional is the few that can do standalone thinking and morals. Most conventionals can though understand the difference between and also the outcome we're headed to with the pre-conventional human gods, but we need to build the normalcy for the post-conventional ones together and make it structural. My hunch is that first step could be to start the discussion on what is excessive on personal level. Consumption, wealth, political power. Something like Mamdani or Polanski have showed, only more blunt. The majority of people are waking up that the current trajectory means the end of the world and extinction after the short period of accelerationist-dystopian hellscape.
  - rightbyte 11mo ago
    Ye like a guy at Walmart and a cop. The leeway to mess with you is off by orders of magnitude.

What philosophical foundations are left? Even at the very top the president is corrupt and morally depraved.

parineum 11mo ago

Leaders are rarely shining moral beacons.

antonvs 11mo ago
Are you suggesting that no meaningful distinction can be made in terms of morality between Trump and, say, Biden, Obama, Blair, the Bushes etc.? Some people will point to their supposed crimes or immoral actions while in office, having to do with execution of their duties as president. Large countries tend to do many questionable things. But the current US administration is pretty unique in terms of its corruption, avoidance of accountability, authoritarian and fascist tendencies, etc. It's not a useful contribution to the discussion to essentially claim that "they're all the same" without making some sort of case for it.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- zmgsabst 11mo ago
  I would argue that yes, there’s no meaningful distinction between Biden and Trump. (And perhaps that Trump is more moral than Biden.) I’d find your argument would be more persuasive if you outlined what you believe Trump had done worse than the others — rather than argument-by-name-calling.
  - antonvs 11mo ago
    There’s no point in discussing anything with someone that holds your position, against the enormous amount of evidence to the contrary. The best we can do is take action to prevent you from exerting any influence over society.
    - zmgsabst 11mo ago
      So it should be easy to show me, then. Go ahead, be specific. Rather than accuse me of bad faith based on stereotypes.
      - antonvs 11mo ago
        That would be a waste of my time. There are more effective ways to fight positions like yours, and I'm involved in several of those.
  - dyauspitr 11mo ago
    Racist, dishonest, nepotistic, war mongering, anti meritocratic, fraudulent, vindictive, unscrupulous, corrupt, divisive, pedophile etc.
- silisili 11mo ago
  > But the current US administration is pretty unique in terms of its corruption, avoidance of accountability, authoritarian and fascist tendencies, etc. I've mostly been reading that since the Bush years. Definitely said against Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump. In fairness, I don't remember it about Clinton. That you don't agree with a politician doesn't make him or her particularly worse than others.
  - dyauspitr 11mo ago
    He’s pretty objectively corrupt in regards to universal values of fairness, honesty, empathy etc. by an order of magnitude compared to a lot of recent presidents.
- parineum 11mo ago
  I'm suggesting that the morality of our leaders is not a barometer for the morality of the populace.
  - dyauspitr 11mo ago
    In a democracy there’s a correlation.

shrubby 11mo ago

The moral comes from the grassroots as power corrupts. As long as we wait for a godlike leader for rescue the end result is same as with Stalin, Hitler, Trump, Thiel, Epstein, Musk, ... The godlikeness can come though in many forms, political (Trump), propaganda (Musk/Zuck7Thiel) or via extortion material and money like Epstein. A good litmus test for a decision maker is the universal ethical principle mentioned in the article put into concrete and compare everything via the lens of "what if all eight billion of current humans and also the future generations would do this". Right now nobody's daring to to this but as long as we start asking "who's afraid of the narcissist zillionaire" the world starts to make sense and the solution appears.

wildpeaks 11mo ago
Power reveals rather than corrupt: it's easy to act moral when there are consequences (real or imagined) when you don't, but you see someone's true self when they know they could get away with it. For example, this is why the way someone treats service workers is a good indicator of someone's character.
- shrubby 11mo ago
  Yup. I'm looking this via the lens of moral development where: Pre-conventional level is the narcissist me-me-me level, that seems to dominate the geopolitics and tech. Conventional is most of us as the sheep. This level follows the loudest crowd that right now is the pre-conventional. Post-conventional is the few that can do standalone thinking and morals. Most conventionals can though understand the difference between and also the outcome we're headed to with the pre-conventional human gods, but we need to build the normalcy for the post-conventional ones together and make it structural. My hunch is that first step could be to start the discussion on what is excessive on personal level. Consumption, wealth, political power. Something like Mamdani or Polanski have showed, only more blunt. The majority of people are waking up that the current trajectory means the end of the world and extinction after the short period of accelerationist-dystopian hellscape.
- rightbyte 11mo ago
  Ye like a guy at Walmart and a cop. The leeway to mess with you is off by orders of magnitude.