[FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance

[glen]

 From a postmodern position, "the law" emerges from finer grained power dynamics. He who has the gold rules. So, from that perspective there are gradations that allow both your rhetoric and "no one is above the law" to be true at the same time. It's just that "the law" is not this math-envy thing we see in Constitutional governments. Those who believe that a Constitution can be something like a Foundation for any subsequent inference honestly believe there's a coherent "law". Those of us who think it's pretense, don't.

Maybe the Federalist Society can be likened to those who argue in bad faith for the Law of Noncontradiction. They'll pull out the old trope of "anything proceeds from absurdity" when they want to coerce you one way. Then they'll pull out the "imperfect republic" "checks and balances" tropes when they want to coerce you another way.

On 7/17/24 07:17, Prof David West wrote:
> Forgive me, but it seems to me incomprehensible that anyone could believe that "no one is above the law."
> 
> How many laws explicitly exempt members of Congress? How many do not apply to members of the armed forces when carrying out their official duties? Similarly, with police.
> 
> Can anyone point me to a law that has zero exceptions, zero context dependencies, that applies to everyone exactly equally?
> 
> davew
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, at 1:52 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>> A president who murders his opponents would not be better than an evil dictator in an authoritarian state. Putin's opponents like Navalny, Litvinenko and Nemtsov were all brutally poisoned and/or murdered.
>>
>> But you are right, this possibility exists after the recent decision of the supreme court. It seems to be a result of democratic backsliding. Nobody should be above the law if the rule of law has any meaning in a democratic society.
>>
>> -J.
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Russ Abbott <russ.abbott at gmail.com>
>> Date: 7/16/24 7:48 PM (GMT+01:00)
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] tolerance of intolerance
>>
>> Why has no one pointed out the possibility that if Trump wins, Biden could take advantage of his newly declared immunity and have him assassinated?
>>
>> -- Russ
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024, 6:24 AM glen <gepropella at gmail.com <mailto:gepropella at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Yeah. It's one thing to wish it or want it. It's another to think more in Marcus' terms and come up with a more complex strategy not involving stupid 20 year olds and no violence at all. I still hold out hope for my own personal conspiracy theory. Biden becomes the nominee. After the convention fades, the Admnistration announces Biden has gone to the hospital for bone spur surgery. Kamala takes over temporarily and campaigns furiously for Biden-Harris. Biden is re-elected. Biden recovers and gets through the Oath (fingers crossed). Then he goes back to the hospital with some minor thing like a dizzy spell. Kamala takes over again. Biden's condition worsens. First Female President. Biden recovers and becomes America's Grandpa.
>>
>>     Come on Deep State. Make it happen. 8^D
>>
>>     On 7/15/24 17:30, Russ Abbott wrote:
>>     > I wonder what Scott's response would have been to those of us who, in response to the shooting, thought: better luck next time.
>>     > On 7/15/24 17:28, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>     >> It ignores the option of doing things quietly and indirectly.
>>     >> On 7/15/24 16:46, glen wrote:
>>     >>> [Scott's] Prayer
>>     >>> https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117 <https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8117>
>>     >>>
>>     >>> I'm currently surrounded by people who believe intolerance is properly not tolerated. Scott's message, here, seems extraordinary Christian, to me. (Real Christian, not the Christianism displayed in things like megachurches and whatnot cf https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/ <https://raymondsmullyan.com/books/who-knows/>). This faith that "going high" will, in the long run, win out, seems naive to me. The temptation to "hoist the black flag and start slitting throats" isn't merely a thresholded reaction, it's an intuitive grasp of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, tit-for-tat style strategies, and Ashby's LoRV. But I'm open to changing my mind on that. Maybe I'm just too low-brow?
>>     >>>

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ