Women Protesting Trump

[the]

Its not just women. It's liberals in general. They didn't get what they wanted so naturally rioting is the only choice. Granted it's not rioting yet... but just wait.

It's not just liberals protesting Trump. Many conservatives think he is dangerous as well. My guess is that there are people of +many different labels who do not support Trump.

Starting to resemble the 1960's in America. What ever happened to peaceful protests and sit-ins. :/

They didn't work. Time to step it up.

 

[the]

Sure but my protest won't involve destruction of property unless its my own.

Who cares?

 

[the]

No. That's a created article. If you go out and ask them theyed probably say "Down with Trump!" And that's about it.

All articles are created so what's your point here? Of course if you ask someone who is angry what the problem is they may not be able to articulate why they are so upset. That doesn't invalidate the movement, but it does provide the energy to get something done.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

A surgical scalpel like this is welcome by those who wish to have the clouds of cataracts removed from their eyes. For those who wish to hide though such as the ostrich, clarity like this is to be shunned and fought at all cost.
Otherwise, the real danger comes into focus. At which point they realize they have been staring into a mirror the whole time.

Most spectacles are self indulgent and appeal to narcissistic tendencies, which prefer the adulation of the moment over long term progress. The ubiquitous characteristic of narcissism is a lack of self awareness. Protestors cannot believe that their actions and words can be anything but manifestly sacred, and opponents nothing more than irredeemable blasphemers.

Fascistic leaders are not defined by personal delusion, but by their ability to delude others... and to draw the externalised identity of narcissists to themselves. Hilary became the identity of a self indulgent movement. Upon her demise the only identity left is the movement itself. Rallies of 200K+ would not be possible if they still had a leader because their egos would have no need for the group spectacle.

Such a group is putty in the hands of whoever defines, or embodies their identity. In that chain of ego supply reason, consistency, and results do not matter... only that they and everyone else can hear their own voice and that their rally colours be seen. The message does not matter to them themselves.

 

[invisible]

Most spectacles are self indulgent and appeal to narcissistic tendencies, which prefer the adulation of the moment over long term progress. The ubiquitous characteristic of narcissism is a lack of self awareness. Protestors cannot believe that their actions and words can be anything but manifestly sacred, and opponents nothing more than irredeemable blasphemers.

Fascistic leaders are not defined by personal delusion, but by their ability to delude others... and to draw the externalised identity of narcissists to themselves. Hilary became the identity of a self indulgent movement. Upon her demise the only identity left is the movement itself. Rallies of 200K+ would not be possible if they still had a leader because their egos would have no need for the group spectacle.

Such a group is putty in the hands of whoever defines, or embodies their identity. In that chain of ego supply reason, consistency, and results do not matter... only that they and everyone else can hear their own voice and that their rally colours be seen. The message does not matter to them themselves.

You post your ideas about the unacceptability of petty personal attacks, and then you proceed to post this unrestrained, uncompromising, total dismissal of the voices in protest of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of personal grounds - that they have personality flaws, or whatever.

The ubiquitous characteristic of narcissism is not lack of self-awareness. Plenty of narcissistic type people are self-aware.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You post your ideas about the unacceptability of petty personal attacks, and then you proceed to post this unrestrained, uncompromising, total dismissal of the voices in protest of hundreds of thousands of people on the basis of personal grounds - that they have personality flaws, or whatever.

The ubiquitous characteristic of narcissism is not lack of self-awareness. Plenty of narcissistic type people are self-aware.

If you don't quickly fact check that point, I'll do it for you because I know for certain you are mistaken.

I don't think personal attacks are unacceptable for those on the public stage. I think it doesn't accomplish anything, when negotiating with those in power. It honestly looks as though former Hilary pant-suit-nazionalistas would rather achieve nothing for four years, save to boost their egos with extra-judicial mock-lynchings.

If they could take a break from trying to satisfy themselves, and be willing to negotiate, they might not have to come up with nothing during this presidency.

I would be pleased to see them constructively involved in policy formation.

 

[invisible]

If you don't quickly fact check that point, I'll do it for you because I know for certain you are mistaken.

I don't think personal attacks are unacceptable for those on the public stage. I think it doesn't accomplish anything, when negotiating with those in power. It honestly looks as though former Hilary pant-suit-nazionalistas would rather achieve nothing for four years, save to boost their egos with extra-judicial mock-lynchings.

If they could take a break from trying to satisfy themselves, and be willing to negotiate, they might not have to come up with nothing during this presidency.

I would be pleased to see them constructively involved in policy formation.

No, you do not know that for a certainty. I have previously shared a link to this article on Psychology Today about research that conflicts with this conception of narcissism. You appeared to show no interest in it at that time, so I don't necessarily imagine that you would be interested in it now. Anyhow, I don't really care.

Perhaps you think it is quite acceptable to attack others personally as long as long as that attack comes from some particular perspective, although you seem to be going to some sort of complicated lengths to explain it. I'm not sure I'm capable of understanding the nuances, but you seem to understand all of it very well, including the general inner thought processes of some rather large number of individuals. That's great I guess.

I was sure that political activism has been an effective means of promoting policy change in the past, for people who are not directly involved in political policy production. Oh dear, I am so silly, I must have completely imagined it all.

 

[acd]

If you don't quickly fact check that point, I'll do it for you because I know for certain you are mistaken.

I don't think personal attacks are unacceptable for those on the public stage. I think it doesn't accomplish anything, when negotiating with those in power. It honestly looks as though former Hilary pant-suit-nazionalistas would rather achieve nothing for four years, save to boost their egos with extra-judicial mock-lynchings.

If they could take a break from trying to satisfy themselves, and be willing to negotiate, they might not have to come up with nothing during this presidency.

I would be pleased to see them constructively involved in policy formation.

Maybe you should earnestly try to see things from the other side if you are going to ask questions about what motivates people to act. Otherwise, this thread is pointless.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

No, you do not know that for a certainty. I have previously shared a link to this article on Psychology Today about research that conflicts with this conception of narcissism. You appeared to show no interest in it at that time, so I don't necessarily imagine that you would be interested in it now. Anyhow, I don't really care.

Perhaps you think it is quite acceptable to attack others personally as long as long as that attack comes from some particular perspective, although you seem to be going to some sort of complicated lengths to explain it. I'm not sure I'm capable of understanding the nuances, but you seem to understand all of it very well, including the general inner thought processes of some rather large number of individuals. That's great I guess.

I was sure that political activism has been an effective means of promoting policy change in the past, for people who are not directly involved in political policy production. Oh dear, I am so silly, I must have completely imagined it all.

That article doesn't add anything new, except to make the case that being aware of their narcissism, can qualify as a type of self knowledge. It's study was focused on awareness of their condition, and not on awareness of their intentions/desires/motivations/thought processes/etc. It does not rewrite anything of their practical/dynamic lack of self knowledge: they cannot assess their own actions and have no awareness of their own motives within dynamic situations. ...
I don't give much time to articles arguing semantics, except to pay due acknowledgement to your interest in it.

Historical movements are innumerable. There must be a dozen a week in the world. The only movements which actually amount to anything are those which can unite opponents into one purpose. This requires a coherent, constructive focus: the right to vote, the freedom of slaves, the reversal of nuclear proliferation, etc. The alternative is coups... but there are too many armed people on the wrong side for that to happen in this situation.

You seem to think political karaoke is important: that making voices heard is virtuous in itself. If that's the extent of your goals, I'll send you a megaphone. If you want change, you're going to have to speak rationally with republicans: with you opponents: with those who have the power to do something. Something you can both agree on, and not some crazy boo-boo move like the electoral college protests.

 

[invisible]

That article doesn't add anything new, except to make the case that being aware of their narcissism, can qualify as a type of self knowledge. It's study was focused on awareness of their condition, and not on awareness of their intentions/desires/motivations/thought processes/etc. It does not rewrite anything of their practical/dynamic lack of self knowledge: they cannot assess their own actions and have no awareness of their own motives within dynamic situations. ...
I don't give much time to articles arguing semantics, except to pay due acknowledgement to your interest in it.

Historical movements are innumerable. There must be a dozen a week in the world. The only movements which actually amount to anything are those which can unite opponents into one purpose. This requires a coherent, constructive focus: the right to vote, the freedom of slaves, the reversal of nuclear proliferation, etc. The alternative is coups... but there are too many armed people on the wrong side for that to happen in this situation.

You seem to think political karaoke is important: that making voices heard is virtuous in itself. If that's the extent of your goals, I'll send you a megaphone. If you want change, you're going to have to speak rationally with republicans: with you opponents: with those who have the power to do something. Something you can both agree on, and not some crazy boo-boo move like the electoral college protests.

They actively describe themselves by stable characteristics that relate to their existence in the world as narcissistic people. Narcissism is a cluster of these traits. How can their existence in the world be separated from performance related to the traits? I really don't know what kind of dynamic evidence you are hoping for.

Anyway, labelling a mass of people as categorically narcissistic is nonsense, and has nothing to do with addressing any points or purpose they raise by what they're doing. It's a personal attack.

Yes, I think that individual voices are important. Generalising is fundamental to all types of prejudice. It makes it easy to dismiss what people are saying. Just cut them all down to a manageable size - the differences are of no consequence.

Political movements form and mobilise in different ways. I don't know what you expect from these people or why you seem to hate them so much. Most of them are there specifically because they are having no power to effect change and can't make their individual voices heard. This is their mobilisation through which other efforts can form and be directed.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Maybe you should earnestly try to see things from the other side if you are going to ask questions about what motivates people to act. Otherwise, this thread is pointless.

Is anyone able to speak about this in a coherent way, without repeating slogans, campaign quips, or nonsensical assertions (like claiming that Trump is obsessively anti-human rights and wants to send minorities to gas chambers)?

I don't know how to prod a cogent wish-list for the new government out of liberal forum members, without presidential cardio-infractions being brought up. I can't help others to argue that this recent march has thing everyone can come together on... and that there are issues loftier that calling an obese billionaire nasty things, trying to rain on his parade.

It is not for lack of asking, or confronting, or agreeing/encouraging, that I give up on looking for something constructive in the left: it is because the left is unwilling to find a constructive will in itself (when out of power).

My attitude is deepening that the only thing to do is to send the pitchfork hoard some effigies, a can of gasoline, a spotlight, and a loudspeaker.... The just do my best to ignore the spectacle and my own wish to dialogue meaningfully with those who want no agreement.

 

[invisible]

*eyeroll*

 

[Flavus Aquila]

They actively describe themselves by stable characteristics that relate to their existence in the world as narcissistic people. Narcissism is a cluster of these traits. How can their existence in the world be separated from performance related to the traits? I really don't know what kind of dynamic evidence you are hoping for.

Anyway, labelling a mass of people as categorically narcissistic is nonsense, and has nothing to do with addressing any points or purpose they raise by what they're doing. It's a personal attack.

Yes, I think that individual voices are important. Generalising is fundamental to all types of prejudice. It makes it easy to dismiss what people are saying. Just cut them all down to a manageable size - the differences are of no consequence.

Political movements form and mobilise in different ways. I don't know what you expect from these people or why you seem to hate them so much. Most of them are there specifically because they are having no power to effect change and can't make their individual voices heard. This is their mobilisation through which other efforts can form and be directed.

I hate them?
I want to be able to cooperate with them on whatever points we can agree on: it benefits us both. But the only point the left pursurs is accusation and denunciation.

You obviously get something out of saying I hate the left, but it's not going to be anything useful.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Maybe you should earnestly try to see things from the other side if you are going to ask questions about what motivates people to act. Otherwise, this thread is pointless.

Most of it is not very coherent, but it is passionately animated. I think much of it is emotional... and you know that's not an area where I can empathize. The intellectual version of empathy is agreement... but that's pretty hard to get to if there's nothing beyond condemnation.

 

[invisible]

I hate them?
I want to be able to cooperate with them on whatever points we can agree on: it benefits us both. But the only point the left pursurs is accusation and denunciation.

You obviously get something out of saying I hate the left, but it's not going to be anything useful.

You obviously feel a need to focus on the idea that I get something out of what I said. Was "hate" too strong a word? Maybe my other points were more articulate - or was it just that one word that penetrated your mind?

They're not beholden to reach agreement with you. They're representing their political voice. That doesn't have to be good enough for you. You don't have to hear their voice if you don't want to. That's for you to decide.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You obviously feel a need to focus on the idea that I get something out of what I said. Was "hate" too strong a word? Maybe my other points were more articulate - or was it just that one word that penetrated your mind?

They're not beholden to reach agreement with you. They're representing their political voice. That doesn't have to be good enough for you. You don't have to hear their voice if you don't want to. That's for you to decide.

Hate is a pet flag word of the left. It jumps out and it was accusatory. In fact it stood out because it was not cogent.

WTF "They're not beholden to reach agreement..."
That's so disjointed, pulling the theme of moral imperative out of your ass makes no sense..... Unless... Are you implying that the left doesn't want people to agree with them? They don't want dialogue... they just want to make noise? Is that what you're implying?

 

[invisible]

Hate is a pet flag word of the left. It jumps out and it was accusatory. In fact it stood out because it was not cogent.

WTF "They're not beholden to reach agreement..."
That's so disjointed, pulling the theme of moral imperative out of your ass makes no sense..... Unless... Are you implying that the left doesn't want people to agree with them? They don't want dialogue... they just want to make noise? Is that what you're implying?

This disastrous word "hate". I wish I never mentioned it. It was a knee-jerk response to your tendency to make sweeping negative generalisations about a vast number of people. Is it because I am leftist that I produced this word? Or maybe I am leftist because I used this word? The word has created havoc on the thread! I will never mention it again.

Tell us. What kind of agreement would be acceptable to you? Would it be acceptable for women to agree that they do not want to have abortions anymore? Should they be saying "Alright then, we are willing to compromise and listen carefully to why we should not be allowed to have abortions." Are they all so silly and naive as to have never considered why people do not want them to have abortions?

You say that this group of women - of some particular political persuasion - are denouncing and accusing you. What are you doing to listen to them - are your assertions that they are narcissistic, unself-aware and whatever else you have said about them to dismiss them - are those things parts of your effort to reach agreement with them?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

...

Tell us. What kind of agreement would be acceptable to you? Would it be acceptable for women to agree that they do not want to have abortions anymore? Should they be saying "Alright then, we are willing to compromise and listen carefully to why we should not be allowed to have abortions." Are they all so silly and naive as to have never considered why people do not want them to have abortions?

You say that this group of women - of some particular political persuasion - are denouncing and accusing you. What are you doing to listen to them - are your assertions that they are narcissistic, unself-aware and whatever else you have said about them to dismiss them - are those things parts of your effort to reach agreement with them?

The kind of agreement which is desirable is the kind that is reached through mutual dialogue (tautology for emphasis), compromise, and agreement.

Since you raise abortion, let's go down that road. I don't think abortion is as desirable as bearing the child to term. Funnily, all of the arguments for not expelling illegal aliens (not holding current visa approval), can be applied for not expelling a fetus... with the difference that aliens can survive outside the US borders.

Nevertheless, if women are to claim absolute rights to their uteri, I would argue that abortions, if allowed, should be about ending the pregnancy and never about killing the infant. (I've used both terms fetus and infant). Ie. That one a woman has rights over her uterus, but she does not have life/death rights over the fetus.

What is the implication of this: that the pregnant woman manifest the intention of freeing her uterus and not of killing her child as part of pro forms paperwork; and that the fetus not be damaged in the process, but be removed intact. If the infant is developed sufficiently for survival outside the uterus, the usual procedures should be followed, including the option to adopt out the child, or to keep it.

....

The women are denouncing the president, not me.

 

[invisible]

The kind of agreement which is desirable is the kind that is reached through mutual dialogue (tautology for emphasis), compromise, and agreement.

Since you raise abortion, let's go down that road. I don't think abortion is as desirable as bearing the child to term. Funnily, all of the arguments for not expelling illegal aliens (not holding current visa approval), can be applied for not expelling a fetus... with the difference that aliens can survive outside the US borders.

Nevertheless, if women are to claim absolute rights to their uteri, I would argue that abortions, if allowed, should be about ending the pregnancy and never about killing the infant. (I've used both terms fetus and infant). Ie. That one a woman has rights over her uterus, but she does not have life/death rights over the fetus.

What is the implication of this: that the pregnant woman manifest the intention of freeing her uterus and not of killing her child as part of pro forms paperwork; and that the fetus not be damaged in the process, but be removed intact. If the infant is developed sufficiently for survival outside the uterus, the usual procedures should be followed, including the option to adopt out the child, or to keep it.

....

The women are denouncing the president, not me.

I find your analogue of pregnancy to immigration totally bizarre and don't know how to answer it.

We could discuss the meaning of abortion but I really prefer not to because it's not part of this thread.

This presidency has direct relevance for the women's lives. There is a policy approach to deny them access to abortion. This is not an approach to allow women to decide for themselves whether abortion is morally permissible in their own bodies, it is to deny all women, categorically, abortion services. They disagree absolutely with this, and so they mobilise politically and protest. For this, among other reasons that have to do with the current presidency.

You aren't denouncing the president. You're just denouncing the women, calling them names, generalising about them, and expecting them to somehow engage in a dialogue with a process of absolute legal denial of a service that they want and believe in. But the denial is fundamentally not open to exchange or reasoning or compromise of this nature. It simply proposes to deny the women access to the service. Therefore, the women use the political voice that is available to them in the circumstances, and mobilise to protest, and form a political movement against the political changes.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I find your analogue of pregnancy to immigration totally bizarre and don't know how to answer it.

We could discuss the meaning of abortion but I really prefer not to because it's not part of this thread.

This presidency has direct relevance for the women's lives. There is a policy approach to deny them access to abortion. This is not an approach to allow women to decide for themselves whether abortion is morally permissible in their own bodies, it is to deny all women, categorically, abortion services. They disagree absolutely with this, and so they mobilise politically and protest. For this, among other reasons that have to do with the current presidency.

You aren't denouncing the president. You're just denouncing the women, calling them names, generalising about them, and expecting them to somehow engage in a dialogue with a process of absolute legal denial of a service that they want and believe in. But the denial is fundamentally not open to exchange or reasoning or compromise of this nature. It simply proposes to deny the women access to the service. Therefore, the women use the political voice that is available to them in the circumstances, and mobilise to protest, and form a political movement against the political changes.

Actually, Trump has commented on late term abortions, specifically mentioning last trimester abortions.

Allegations, exaggerations, and escalation doesn't help dialogue. Forget Trump: What is your response to the notion that women should have rights over their uteri, but not over the life/death of the fetus?