[FRIAM] Trump, truth, and politics: Why do we still think Trump is acting with respect to the truth?

[Marcus Daniels]

Let me put aside Putin or any other boogeyman.   There is the separate question of how to cope with people -- powerful or not -- who make frequent or outrageous accusations.   Do you sit there with the moral high ground and do nothing due to the objections you cite?   You can do that, but I say that is a form of wishful thinking; it is pacifism.  Or do you progress the social arms race?  Do you make pre-emptive attacks instead of playing defense?   Do you modulate your rules in light of the fact your opponent demonstrates no regard for any sort of civil behavior?  I read you to say that you would not.

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Vladimyr Burachynsky
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 4:12 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump, truth, and politics: Why do we still think Trump is acting with respect to the truth?

I think I am responding to Eric Charles,

It appears as you suggest  rather trivial… Yet it does contain a rather startling component.
Accusation
This need not be based on truth it seems or context. Accusation by itself draws to itself Gullible believers
that then they are encouraged to riot , abuse others, or start phony wars. The demagogue uses these people
as Vicious Weapons for a time then he loses control and perishes or slinks off stage.
Is the Accusation a convenient excuse for brutality , lynching or riots. No one much discusses the Accusation’s properties itself. Always leaving a
false binary between truth or falsehood.  The accusation serves a purpose even if the truth-state is unclear.
Just why do people choose to believe an accusation without evidence…
To believe a false accusation or clouded insinuation seems to give license to vile actions against arbitrary targets.
Is an Accusation  then a Social Weapon regardless of truth.
Once an Accusation is unleashed does anyone escape unharmed.
vib

From: Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: January-04-17 12:15 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Trump, truth, and politics: Why do we still think Trump is acting with respect to the truth?

Is it a lose if your kid goes to the principal’s office for abusing his classmates, or goes to jail for a night for drunken bad behavior?

Sure... the situation would be improved, and we would call it a win, if we could send Putin to the principles office... Part of my point was exactly that it seems unlikely a public accusation by Trump would do anything towards getting Putin to "learn there are consequences to things and stop doing those things." Does anyone think Obama's sending home a handful of diplomats did that?

This is especially true as there is not any suggestion that votes were altered. If there were implications of that, it would necessarily throw the election into question, and have huge political implications. But that isn't among the things Russia is accused of. Instead, they are accused (by some) of an effort to selectively search for and release true reproductions of material authored by people in the inner circle of the Democratic Party, which is not itself a state entity. While there is reason to think the released material had implications for how the election played out, the material doesn't even rise to the level of a propaganda effort in the traditional sense of the spreading of false information or even false implications, and it is not a direct attack on the democratic process. In terms of its criminal nature, such an act should be viewed similar to hacking the email system at a start-up company, and releasing embarrassing (but accurate) materials regarding ongoing operations, shortly before an IPO.

That said, I fully agree with your take that this is a sideshow compared to many more important issues that could be covered by the news.



-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:
“Even if the intelligence community had iron clad proof, that everyone could understand and believe beyond a reasonable doubt (which they don't), it would only heighten questions about the legitimacy of Trump's win. At this point, that wouldn't be a win for Trump, or the country.”

For some narrow, short-sighted, definition of “win for the country”.  Is it a lose if your kid goes to the principal’s office for abusing his classmates, or goes to jail for a night for drunken bad behavior?   In the long term it is a win if we learn there are consequences to things and stop doing those things.   The supposed Russian hacking thing is a sideshow to the real problem of Trump’s conflict of interests in so many countries, esp. his outstanding debts to foreign banks.  Who really has their finger on him and how does his intend to use his new power in relation to that?  No one wants to dig into the hacking thing very deep because at the end of the day it proves nothing.  States do nasty things.  Yes, we get that.  Our networks and infrastructure are not particularly secure and like our shipping ports there are productivity consequences to being more cautious.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170105/62e8e72c/attachment-0002.html>