Trump Derangement Syndrome

[Immanuel Can]

Feelings often go wrong...sometimes, badly so. The feeling you had, as a child, that there was a psycho-killer or crocodile under your bed, may have so terrified you that you were afraid to put your feet on the floor. That didn't make it "true." It just made it a real "feeling."

Maybe not true but powerful enough to shape beliefs and actions.

A feeling that a crocodile lies under the bed can lead to a belief that that is so. And that belief can lead to avoiding putting the feet on the floor until a parent looks under the bed and says it’s safe now.

So feelings can shape voting behavior.

That's the problem. Feelings are treacherous. Sometimes they point to something true...but often, they just point to imaginary crocodiles.

[commonsense]

That's the problem. Feelings are treacherous. Sometimes they point to something true...but often, they just point to imaginary crocodiles.

That’s the conundrum with feelings isn’t it? Yet many people rely on feelings at the expense of fact and reason.

[Immanuel Can]

That's the problem. Feelings are treacherous. Sometimes they point to something true...but often, they just point to imaginary crocodiles.

That’s the conundrum with feelings isn’t it? Yet many people rely on feelings at the expense of fact and reason.

This is also the problem with TDS. People are angry against the guy, with no proportionate motive for doing so. They can't tell you exactly WHY they think what they think, or rather feel what they feel...they're just feeling it.

And they aren't aware that the feelings are being ginned up for them by others.

Tillie is a prime example of this: he says he has no particular charge against Trump...nothing court-proven, nothing credible on the terms he swears he sticks to. And yet, he hates Trump more than Clinton, for whom the proof is public, or Biden, whose defects are manifest every day (not even to mention the laptop), or Bush, who was less armed with wit, perhaps, or Reagan, who was far more powerful and influential...

And yet...rage...slander...hatred...complete rejection.

Why?

[mickthinks]

Well, I'll let everybody judge for themselves.

Oooh oooh! Can I?

I judge that nowhere in this thread has tillingborn said anything about their political opinion of Clinton, Trump or Biden.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I'll let everybody judge for themselves.

Oooh oooh! Can I?

I judge that nowhere in this thread has tillingborn said anything about their political opinion of Clinton, Trump or Biden.

Ah, so you're buying that his invoking of Stormy Daniels, or Jan. 6th, or Trump's talk, or the 25 allegations, are just incidental, because he said so?
And have you noticed any comparable dredging up of references to Clinton or Biden's past?

Well, I suppose if you believe the disclaimers he offers, then one might think that.

[commonsense]

That's the problem. Feelings are treacherous. Sometimes they point to something true...but often, they just point to imaginary crocodiles.

That’s the conundrum with feelings isn’t it? Yet many people rely on feelings at the expense of fact and reason.

This is also the problem with TDS. People are angry against the guy, with no proportionate motive for doing so. They can't tell you exactly WHY they think what they think, or rather feel what they feel...they're just feeling it.

And they aren't aware that the feelings are being ginned up for them by others.

Tillie is a prime example of this: he says he has no particular charge against Trump...nothing court-proven, nothing credible on the terms he swears he sticks to. And yet, he hates Trump more than Clinton, for whom the proof is public, or Biden, whose defects are manifest every day (not even to mention the laptop), or Bush, who was less armed with wit, perhaps, or Reagan, who was far more powerful and influential...

And yet...rage...slander...hatred...complete rejection.

Why?

You seem to believe that feelings must be logical to be valid.

Interestingly, but I don’t think you can see it, what describes TDS can be turned upside down to describe DTS.

Your asking why at this point reveals you don’t understand what is said to you. I ask you why that is.

[Immanuel Can]

You seem to believe that feelings must be logical to be valid.

"Valid" is a logic term. But it's not one I ever used. That's yours, in this case.

What I said was that they have to be judged, rationally, in order to know whether or not they're justified. Simply having a "feeling" proves nothing about that, because so many feelings we all have are irrational and turn out to be unwarranted.

Crocodiles under the bed, remember?

The remainder of your message, I don't really profess to understand.

[commonsense]

You seem to believe that feelings must be logical to be valid.

"Valid" is a logic term. But it's not one I ever used. That's yours, in this case.

What I said was that they have to be judged, rationally, in order to know whether or not they're justified. Simply having a "feeling" proves nothing about that, because so many feelings we all have are irrational and turn out to be unwarranted.

Yes, “valid” is a logic term. It is also—and this is the sense in which I used it—used to signify the state of feelings. One can validate another’s feelings simply by listening and nodding affirmatively. This is something that happens IRL.

You are also right that a feeling cannot prove anything. Proof is logical. Feelings are not. Feelings cannot be evaluated using rationality.

The remainder of your message, I don't really profess to understand.

Just as I predicted.

[commonsense]

Let’s say that a person is scared of puppies.

That that person is scared is a fact. Being scared is his true feeling.

There’s no sufficient reason, logic, proof or rationale for being scared of puppy dogs.

Nonetheless, this person feels scared.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, “valid” is a logic term. It is also—and this is the sense in which I used it—used to signify the state of feelings. One can validate another’s feelings simply by listening and nodding affirmatively. This is something that happens IRL.

That sort of "validation" is not worth anything, unless it is accompanied by good judgment.

If you are speaking, and you see all the criminals "validating", one might want to think about saying something different.

Feelings cannot be evaluated using rationality.

Sure they can. That's what we do all the time.

We have a feeling...say, of apprehensiveness, or of unexpected elation, or of suspicion...and we say, "What's behind this feeling? Is it just a feeling, or is it alerting me to some actual fact?

And it's our rational faculties that tell us which it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 8:07 pm
The remainder of your message, I don't really profess to understand.

Just as I predicted.

Well, it was, indeed, "predictable." The language itself wasn't clear. I don't really think anybody could understand it.

So yes, you correctly predicted that what you were saying was incomprehensible, as it stands.

But you can clarify, if you wish.

[commonsense]

A lot of decisions are made in an attempt to rationalize the irrational.

A person might say that he is afraid of puppies because one ate his twin brother.

Probably delusional and certainly irrational, but it is what it is.

[Immanuel Can]

A lot of decisions are made in an attempt to rationalize the irrational.

A person might say that he is afraid of puppies because one ate his twin brother.

Probably delusional and certainly irrational, but it is what it is.

That's again the problem with feelings.

They can be very strong, very viscerally powerful, and completely unjustified at the same time.

How many of us jump when the killer in a horror film jumps out of the closet?

But why? We're not a frightened girl trapped in a midnight mansion; we're a huge group of people sitting in a movie theatre, eating popcorn, and expecting to get ice cream after the show. Nevertheless, in the moment, those feelings can be most jarring, most compelling...

Strength of feeling is no signal of truth.

[commonsense]

A lot of decisions are made in an attempt to rationalize the irrational.

A person might say that he is afraid of puppies because one ate his twin brother.

Probably delusional and certainly irrational, but it is what it is.

That's again the problem with feelings.

They can be very strong, very viscerally powerful, and completely unjustified at the same time.

How many of us jump when the killer in a horror film jumps out of the closet?

But why? We're not a frightened girl trapped in a midnight mansion; we're a huge group of people sitting in a movie theatre, eating popcorn, and expecting to get ice cream after the show. Nevertheless, in the moment, those feelings can be most jarring, most compelling...

Strength of feeling is no signal of truth.

I think you’re beginning to get it.

Now if you’ll just realize that for many people feelings are how they choose a candidate to vote for…

[Immanuel Can]

Now if you’ll just realize that for many people feelings are how they choose a candidate to vote for…

You're kidding, right? You think I didn't get that?

It may be true; but it can be manipulated, because feelings are not rational. They can be right, but they can as easily be wrong. If people vote on their feelings, rather than on the facts, they can be made fools...tools of those who are expert at emotional manipulation.

If you're right, though, you're implying an explanation for TDS. You're also suggesting the democratic process is at serious threat.

[commonsense]

Now if you’ll just realize that for many people feelings are how they choose a candidate to vote for…

You're kidding, right? You think I didn't get that?

It may be true; but it can be manipulated, because feelings are not rational. They can be right, but they can as easily be wrong. If people vote on their feelings, rather than on the facts, they can be made fools...tools of those who are expert at emotional manipulation.

If you're right, though, you're implying an explanation for TDS. You're also suggesting the democratic process is at serious threat.

BINGO!

(and the same explanation applies to DTS)