Another term Musk is using is referring to political opponents (i.e. anyone who disagrees with him) as "NPCs", non-playable characters; basically dehumanisation.
And 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 wielding an axe to almost the entirety of the Federal government, but also those who “correct” others when said others offer limp hand-wavey forgiving arse-licking to Musk. At first he claimed ignorance on the whole 'recent Musk thing', but being inspired by the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrom' and reapplying it to 'Musk Derangement Syndrome' instantly pathologised him.
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.
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.
Thank you.
Another term Musk is using is referring to political opponents (i.e. anyone who disagrees with him) as "NPCs", non-playable characters; basically dehumanisation.
And 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 wielding an axe to almost the entirety of the Federal government, but also those who “correct” others when said others offer limp hand-wavey forgiving arse-licking to Musk. At first he claimed ignorance on the whole 'recent Musk thing', but being inspired by the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrom' and reapplying it to 'Musk Derangement Syndrome' instantly pathologised him.
Vulcans approve 😁👍
Excellent ! Thank You
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.