First, a disclaimer. I am not seeking to insult or label people. My goal is to start a dialogue about a development that deeply concerns me. This development is not US-specific, but is occurring in Russia, Israel, Europe and undoubtedly other countries as well. However, since the US seems to be drawing a lot of attention lately, it seems logical to focus on the Trump administration.
Let’s start with the question in the title. During a previous discussion with TSZ-residents dazz and Erik, I initially resisted the “fascism” label for the Trump adminstration. In my opinion, that label is often applied too eagerly and I wanted to preserve the term for movements that objectively fit the term. The fascists from beginning of the 20th century were militarist and resorted to violence, for example through paramilitary forces such as the infamous Sturmabteilung in Germany. This is way more radical than their modern far-right counterparts, such as the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) or the French Rassemblement National, which mostly seek political influence through democratic and parliamentary means. But what then makes a political party or movement a fascist one? The characteristics of fascism I had to memorize for history class in high school were:
- Ultranationalism
- Admiration for strong charismatic leaders
- Preoccupation with racial purity
- Anti-liberalism
- Populism
- Militarism
The striving for racial purity is currently replaced by nativism, but otherwise the Trump administration is ticking a lot of boxes here. Still, I noted a lack of militarism (The “no new wars” claim). Also the fact that experts were not using that label weighed strongly in my opinion that it was premature to openly call modern far-right movements fascist. That time I said:
Of course, I am not a historian nor a politologist so once the experts start calling the Trump administration a fascist regime I will gladly follow suit.
Fast forward one year. The Trump regime broke its campaign promise and has started two illegal military conflicts, one in Venezuela and one in Iran. It has threatened both Canada and Denmark, two allied NATO members, with military action. The regime has also proved to be hostile towards its own citizens: Two peaceful demonstrants have been executed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Minneapolis protests. Note that ICE is beginning to look a lot like a paramilitary force. Also, i have since learned that the Department of Defense has been renamed “Department of War”. I cannot decide whether that is more creepy or more childish. So far for “no militarism”.
Importantly, I found that professional politologists started openly calling the Trump regime fascist. Recently, I read the book “Dit is Fascisme” (no translation needed, I trust) by Rosan Smits. Smits is a politologist who for years researched radicalization and violence in war zones. Currently, she is adjunct editor-in-chief at the online news platform De Correspondent. Her ideas are strongly influenced by historian Robert Paxton and philosopher Jason Stanley. Robert Paxton has been specializing in Vichy France and fascism. Like me, he initially resisted the “fascism” label for Trumpism, but changed his mind after the Capitol attack. Jason Stanly wrote the book “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them” in which he outlined ten “pillars of fascism”. These people I definitely regard as experts in relevant fields. In the book, Rosan Smits argues that it is not useful to distinguish between radical right, right-wing extremism and fascism. Rather we should think of these movements as consecutive steps in a progression towards ever more radical fascism. She compares this to a plan-of-action (draaiboek) that all proto-fascist movements go through. She has no problem calling the Trump administration fascist. In fact, this is even the title of chapter 2 in the book: “Het fascistische regime-Trump”. Again, I trust this does not need translation.
So now I am not sure whether it is right to call the Trump administration fascist. There is little doubt that Trumpism sports several hallmarks of classical fascism, such as an appeal to a mythical past (Make America Great Again), anti-intellectualism, a culture of victimhood and violent hostility towards critical counterforces. Therefore, it seems defensible to call Trumpism a form of fascism. On the other hand, the term “fascism” seems to generate more heat than light, often rendering reasoned debate impossible. Therefore, it could be more useful to focus on the actions of the adminstration than trying to affix a label to it.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I would appreciate if people could do their best to create a “reasoned debate” in the thread. That is, I would like to hear the reasons you have for agreeing or disagreeing with the premise of the post. A discussion that only feeds on fear and anger will only serve as fertile soil for fascism, whatever you take that to be.
But political resentment and nativism have a different effect in USA. In a country founded by immigrants it does not make sense to have nativism. And the main purpose of politics is to administer law and order, whereas Trump is easily the most lawless and disorderly politician in the American history. So, the foundation of any Trump supporter is an absolute blindness to everything to do with facts and reality, a profound wilful ignorance. This is what “an independent voter” means in colewd’s case: being totally uninformed about everything and completely divorced from the basic observation of reality around him.
In (some) European countries, nativism has true relevance in terms of self-preservation and political resentment can grow when this relevance is not recognised. None of this is the case in USA and cannot be. With Trump there is no rhyme or reason or purpose to anything except immediate self-gain and self-adulation.
But of course this is the case in the USA. Yes, we are all immigrants or descended from immigrants, but we do not regard nativism as relating to land of origin of ourselves or our ancestors. We regard nativism in terms of culture, language, religion, and (most of all) color. The Trump voter regards those who are not white, and who did not originally came from white Western European nations, as “not real Americans”. Trump has gladly invited and/or welcomed white people from Norway or South Africa, and has labeled those from “shithole countries” (countries predominately hispanic, black, or muslim) as criminals, murderers and rapists. And it’s become obvious that it doesn’t matter how many generations a minority citizen has lived here – descendants of slaves living in (what eventually became) the US for 400 years are not accepted, white immigrants who came here last week are “real Americans.”
Mitch McConnell:
Thom Tillis:
Andrew Desiderio on X:
Even Senate Republicans think the slush fund is a bridge too far. Bill is fine with it, though.
The ballroom was in the same bill, the ballroom that was originally supposed to cost $200 million and be paid from private donations, but now is said to cost $1b and to be paid from the government budget, so it went into a bill. But colewd has no connection to facts and information, so it is impossible to discuss it with him.
Well, Clinton was gobbled by his secretary, so… shrug. It is odd to see Christians suddenly reticent. about expressing moral outrage. They aren’t normally so shy of telling the rest of us where we’re going wrong.
On a tangential note, the Presidential Pardon is weird. Like, pardon a turkey if you find it quaint, like dressing up at Colonial Williamsburg. But to go through the sainted legal process, jury of your peers, one of the pillars of the Great American Way, all that shit, then the President comes along and says “You know what? Nah…”.
Erik:
The latest scam is that Trump is claiming he doesn’t need congressional approval to build his obscene arch because in 1925 — 100 years ago — Congress approved a different project that was never built.
Bill, what do you think? Should the American people, via Congress, have a say in what happens on that land, which belongs to us? Do you think the American people should have had a say in whether Trump was allowed to demolish the East Wing of the White House, which belongs to us? Or are you happy that Trump is placing his own ego above the people’s will?
That’s a rhetorical question. After being asked over half a dozen times, you still won’t say whether you prefer that America remain a democracy vs becoming a dictatorship under Trump. That says it all.
Allan:
Yeah, it’s way too easy to abuse. I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned anyone as corrupt and brazen as Donald Trump in the presidency. I’d love to see it abolished or sharply limited, but it would require a constitutional amendment and that’s a steep hill to climb.
But don’t blame us — we got the idea from you guys and your “royal prerogatives”. I mean, it wasn’t like we were rebelling against a monarch or anything.
It is not about making sense, but as Flint rightly notes, about national and cultural identity. Fascists, both in Europe and in the US, are always trying to return to a past that embodies some idealized version of their conservative values. The fact that this past never existed is irrelevant of course. Immigrants are perceived as a threat to that identity. I do agree with you that in the US this plays out differently than in European countries due to their history of immigration and segregation.
Careful! Don’t allow yourself to be pulled in, Erik. In Europe nativism is as much bollocks as it is in the US. Migration is no threat to cultural identity (whatever that means). At least, I have never seen anyone flesh out that concern.
I disagree. First, Europe is made of actual different countries where the differences are steep for real reasons, in some cases as steep as between whites and Native Americans in USA, except in USA they do not have separate countries. It would be genuinely better for Native Americans if they had managed to push back the white invadors.
And I guess this is enough said for now, because it’s not on topic. Nativism does not necessarily mean fascism, whereas denial of nativism can easily mean imperialism.
There was so much wrong with colewd’s comment, but this struck me too. You’ve got Donald “grab ’em by the pussy” Trump handy as a rich source of examples of “moral issues” involving sexual assault and abuse, but of course we prefer to mention the Democrat president fondling his secretary.
“Invaders” might not be the frame in which you wanted to paint modern day immigrants.
Very similar things can be said about nationalism and conservatism. But do mind that these are the buttons fascists will push to acquire support from more moderate political actors. They will try to draw you in by appealing to values you might support as well. This is why I keep repeating that the important distinction is no longer “left” versus “right”, but “democratic” versus “undemocratic”, also here in Europe.
Where I live, left versus right never made any sense. It was always democratic versus undemocratic or upper class versus lower classes. And also “us” versus others. Insofar as left versus right are a thing here, it is precisely because we were indoctrinated into adopting those terms because they were somehow supposed to make the political discourse more sensible and realistic. Do you see how different different European countries can be? I doubt it.
keiths,
Heh. We curtailed a lot of that nonsense in 1689!
When a nation is dealing with an actual fifth column that is larger in proportion than your host of immigrants ever was (and is), when a nation is facing a real imminent threat of military invasion (think about the Sudetenland scenario, something that has been perfectly real all along since the collapse of the Warsaw pact in a number of countries between Germany and Russia), you might not want to take the side of the imperial bastard with Lebensraum ambitions and accommodate the aggressor the way Chamberlain did. But, idk, perhaps you very much want to, because, given your specific location, it does not concern you and you do not care about the countries whom it might concern because you want European solidarity to be a one-way street – everybody else must think and talk like you, never bring up their own concerns, no matter how vital and essential.
Allan Miller,
It is a little weird. I guess is a final check in the innocent before proven guilty philosophy. What are your current priorities for policies in England. How do you compare the current political situation in the Uk to the US?
Trump’s Greenland Goon Makes Insane Claim After Nightmare Visit
Trump is so clueless that he thought Landry could “go over there and make a bunch of friends, as many friends as possible.”
Not really. It’s an “I don’t care if they’ve been proven guilty, I’m letting them off” kind of thing. In the UK, overturning court decisions is a matter for the courts. There have been a couple of posthumous pardons, which are a fat lot of use. Turng was one. Convicted of homosexuality.
I confess I am not up-to-date on Polish politics. The only time it was in the news here was when PiS was hollowing out the judicial system and after that when Nawocki won the presidential elections. Both party and president are described as “conservative” here. I don’t think it matters to my point though. In order to defeat fascists we need the help of conservatives as well.
I am well aware of the imminent threat of Russian imperialism for east-European nations and the way certain political parties facilitate Russian destabilization strategies. We seem to be in full agreement about that. However, I was referring to the way that far-right parties exploit xenophobia and racism to undermine the influence of political opposition, advisory bodies and the legal courts. For example look at the letter that several European governments, including yours, sent to the European Court of Human Rights in an attempt to pressure the court into stop telling them off whenever they are violating human rights implementing their migration policies. The European Court of Human Rights is the only international court adjudicating violations of human rights in the context of the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. Undermining its independence and impartiality is a dangerous game.
Finally, some advice. If your aim is to persuade your interlocutors, I would advise you to stop condescending to them. You often contribute good arguments and you will find they will carry more weight if you stop polluting them with childish insults.
During the recent local elections, Reform UK became the largest party.
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this isn’t an unfortunate stylistic idiosyncrasy. As far as I can tell, he sincerely believes that no sane, intelligent, or informed individual could sincerely disagree with him. He knows that he is casting pearls before swine.
You (and the journalistic commentary in the West) would do well to evolve from the old terminology. Just a little while ago you said that the “important distinction is no longer “left” versus “right”, but “democratic” versus “undemocratic”” – a good insight on your part (I knew it last century already).
Similarly, I submit that in post-Warsaw pact countries the word “conservative” has no meaning on the political spectrum. There are no conservatives. There are those who have better adapted to West European liberalism – your usual neoliberals, technocrats, eurobureaucrats and the like – versus, idk, more local-minded “national economy” types, often with old establishment background (i.e. nominally former Soviet/Commie/Socialists), who, if they were in the West, they would be called centrists. Except that when a small country between large neighbours makes alliances and is forced to pick one or the other, they may end up in a very controversial position like Orban. The smartest foreign policy path for those types would be to remain non-committal as long as possible, but Orban picked his side.
Good for you. In contrast, I am appalled at how the EU treated RT and Sputnik as “free press” for way too long instead of for what they are – Russia’s subversive propaganda. I am astonished at how many westerners believe things like that Crimea went to Russia by a legitimate democratic process and all would be well if Donbass had been allowed peacefully go the same way. Where I live, the problem of Russian propaganda was understood very early, but countering it took a bit too much time for fear of upsetting the West. Now the West is facing its own very significant gang of pro-Russian fascist-leaning parties because of allowing Putin’s propaganda do its work unimpeded, thus a self-caused problem while failing to listen to those who had alerted of it early.
So here’s the crux of the little conflict we are having. You clearly don’t even realise how condescending and off base you were when you said, ““Invaders” might not be the frame in which you wanted to paint modern day immigrants.” The shape of the immigrant problem in the eastern European countries, certainly in the Baltic countries, is exactly that they are invaders, they are an actual fifth column from Russia, and failure to call them that fails to recognise the threat they pose.
Was your aim to persuade me? If so, you were trying to persuade me to stop knowing what I know much better than you. If you now know it too, then I have done my job well.
Besides, to call you a Chamberlain is not an insult. It is a very apt and long overdue warning to the entire Western European attitude that allowed Crimea to happen after South Ossetia had happened, who never resolved Transnistria, who after taking no lessons from their failures in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo also refused to learn any lessons from the Chechen wars and thought for a very long time that Putin was some sort of a democrat akin to Gorbachev (and Gorbachev was no democrat either, by the way). And now the western side of Europe is facing emerging fascism at home more acutely than eastern countries do on average. Being woke or snowflakey (and, frankly, condescending while having no clue) about describing problems was always the wrong way. Clear identification and accurate labelling can lead quicker to an appropriate solution.
Thank you very much for your attention.
It’s not a matter of belief who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s a matter of factuality and verification.
Until recently, politicians used to be “politically correct” about their disagreements. This has devolved into where we are now. Those who have the courage to call Trump fascist can more decisively address and counter the havoc that he wreaks, while all others are different degrees of conformists to him. There is no way to be politically correct about it. This happens to suit me because I never was a politician and never had any commitment to being diplomatic. But you suit yourself.
So you contend that there is no such thing as genuine disagreement, it’s always the case that one side has the verified facts and the other does not. And you never miss an opportunity to boast that you always have the facts, and everyone else fails to achieve your level of understanding, usually because they lack the certain knowledge you have, or the experience, or the intelligence, or whatever is required to make your view not just superior but beyond rational debate.
But I think keiths characterized your approach very well:
1) Assume your conclusions
2) Conclude that your assumptions are correct
This approach is generally unpersuasive.
Depends on the topic and some other factors. For example, Corneel saw fit to give me advice to stop being condescending while failing to realise that he was condescending first. I am the tolerant one here – I have no problem someone being condescending. However, when the condescending one starts calling others condescending, it’s probably best to address the hypocrisy firmly.
Being persuasive is the least priority in my world. For example, whenever propaganda is persuasive, it makes it worse, not better.
I come online to learn, for knowledge, so it is very disappointing and frustrating when there is none of it to be found here. Too many people here are too eager to unlearn what little they perhaps used to know and not eager at all to correct or even acknowledge the gaps in their knowledge.
ETA: By the way, just today I saw The Pianist by Polanski. It is far more pointed – accurately so – than Schindler’s List about the plight of Jews under Nazis. So, if anybody has been postponing this one (like I did), give it a go now.
You actually manage to beat colewd in this regard. And you have demonstrated condescension and ignorance long before any was directed at you.
I always welcome corrections. It’s good for learning. Your attempted correction back then was to insist that I was confusing primaries and elections when I was actually explaining the role of each in proper terms and keeping them apart. So, nice try, but there was little value in it then and it is not worth re-reading now.
Got anything to say about the actual topic? Got an opinion on whether Trump is a fascist and why?
Thank you for the demonstration of “not eager at all to correct or even acknowledge the gaps in their knowledge”.
Trumpism is a flavor of Fascism. D’oh.
I don´t think the problem was failing to recognize the threat of Russian trolling and propaganda but rather a lack of an efficient counterstrategy.
Sorry, but I am not following. Who are “the fifth column”? Are you talking about the migration crisis that is caused by the deliberate trafficking of migrants from Belarus?
I do not mind your directness and I acknowledge some of your criticisms of Western European attitude. I simply told you that your posts would be taken more seriously if you forego the insults. If you were offended by that, I apologize. But if you decide to ignore that advice, it’s no skin off my back.
You’re welcome
keiths,
What is the source of this part of the quote?
colewd:
You didn’t follow the link? Here it is again:
Here’s a New York Times article on the visit:
Keep in mind that these two geniuses, Trump and Landry, were also the ones who in February thought it was a great idea to send a hospital ship to Greenland. Trump posted this:
Working with the fantastic Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, we are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there. It’s on the way!!! President DJT
Two problems:
1) Greenland didn’t want or need the help. As the Greenlandic prime minister said, pointedly:
2) The ship (the USNS Mercy) wasn’t on the way, because it was (and still is) in maintenance, until September. It was physically impossible to send it.
Trump and Landry were either deliberately lying or else too stupid to check whether the ship was available before Trump made his post. Even if they had sent it, it would only have antagonized the Greenlanders, who hate Trump and do not want to be part of the US.
Trump may have been confused, or just embarrassed, by the fact that the Danish military conducted the medical evacuation of a US submariner, taking him to a hospital in Nuuk.
Jock:
Good point. Trump sending a hospital ship might have been his way of saying “you need us more than we needed you for that one submariner, which is why you should let us annex your country.”
keiths,
These are the only possibilities given the article you are sourcing?
colewd:
First, I’m not relying on a single article. This story was widely covered.
Let’s consider the possibilities. If they knew the ship was unavailable, then Trump was lying when he said “It’s on the way!!!”
If they didn’t know the ship was unavailable, then either they stupidly failed to check, or they did check but got the wrong answer from the Navy, which seems unlikely given that the military is far more competent than Trump or Landry, especially when responding to a presidential request. And if the Navy did give the wrong answer, then they would have discovered the error quickly when Trump gave the order to set sail for Greenland and the captain replied “Um, we can’t.”
If the third scenario happened, then Trump was an asshole for not immediately posting something saying “Sorry, Greenland, I jumped the gun. We can’t send the ship after all.”
That appears to exhaust the possibilities. So either Trump was lying, was incredibly stupid, or was an asshole, or some combination of the three.
Which do you think it was, or can you think of other possibilities?
Trump’s intetest in Greenland explained: no more Nuuks. I’ll get my coat.
keiths,
Can you site other sources that you find credible?
Can you sealion keiths in one of his own OPs?
Or possibly engage with his arguments?
Corneel,
This has nothing to do with seasoning it is about making credible claims based on trusted sources. The problem is there are few trusted or truth based sources in our country.
When the sources of information are suspect our discussions become about alternative facts which is not very productive IMO.
If you question keiths’ source, then say so. Give your alternative explanation for why Trump and Landry claimed that the ship was on its way when it wasn’t and state your reasons and/or sources for believing so. This will give keiths the opportunity to react to your position.
Relentlessly asking questions without ever engaging with the answers is sealioning.
colewd,
It’s easy to obtain reliable, true information from the internet. I’m willing to show you how it’s done, but you have to actually want the truth. If you assure me that you’re seeking the truth and that you’re willing to learn, I will gladly teach you some of my methods. What I won’t do is spoon feed you sources on dermand, since you should be capable of checking the information yourself.
Do we have a deal? Do you seek the truth, and are you willing to learn?
The solution is very easy then. Name the few trusted or truth-based sources in USA and let’s examine them. It should not be too hard because there are only a few of them.
So, Grok is one of them, because that’s the (only!) one you have quoted. What’s the other one?
Seriosuly, you do not know what sources are or even what the word means. This is why you invariably spout nonsense. You have outsourced your thinking to Trumpite propaganda and AI. You have no facts because you have given up reality.
Good that you now recognise that not all (im)migrants are the same. Belarus – and Russia – used migrants to upset the border situation with Poland and Lithuania, even Finland. Not the fault of the migrants, but they are not a mere accounting or census problem. They are pawns in an international diplomatic crisis.
As to fifth column, this is a rather old and established term in international relations with its own Wikipedia page that you should look up, if you have not already. The most notable fifth-column Russians are in Estonia and Latvia. Based on observing the demographic trends – in 1935 there were below 300k Russians in Latvia, 10% of the overall population, but in 1989 there were over 900k Russians, 34% of the overall population in Latvia. This change in demographics occurred under USSR occupation, so it is not just an invasion of immigrants, but a bigger invasion, undeniably an invasion. And many of these Russians are an actual fifth column in that they think that Moscow is their (true) capital and Putin is their (true) president. So, invasion and fifth column are the appropriate terms here.
But a fifth column does not necessarily have to be a different ethnicity. Assuming that e.g. AfD in Germany is to a significant degree a product of RT propaganda and Russian troll factories manipulating social media, then supporters of AfD – who are national-minded Germans in their own mind – operate as a fifth column of Russia.
Let’s recall our exchange again:
Surely you are not saying that Europeans did *not* invade the Americas? From the Native American point of view, the discovery of the Americas was absolutely an invasion. And, if you think about it a little more seriously, you would not want to deny that in terms of “modern day”, the time where we live right now, there are invasions. I mean, the Ukraine war is happening, is it not? And with what argument did Russia start the war? To protect Russians who want to join Russia, that’s the argument. Where I live, this is “modern day immigrants” for you. It has been happening throughout the last century and it is not subsiding, quite the opposite.
Let’s be clear: The reason why westerners are touchy on the topic of invasions and prefer to not use the word is that they were the invaders not too long ago. UK, Spain, Portugal, France, and the Netherlands were the main colonists in the world not too long ago, and the remnants of their colonial empires are still around reminding us all of it. Germans tend to think that they were unjustly pushed aside from participating in the lovely era of colonialism, but if they knew their history, then they’d know that they actually started their colonial push in the Baltics in the 13th century, so Germans actually got a headstart before the Americas were discovered. So, since westerners have been the invaders all along but they frown upon being called invaders, they tell others to stop using the word. Well, sorry, but I prefer to stick to facts and reality.
Sticking to facts and reality, the “invasion” admittedly does not apply to immigration in USA. Nobody is invading USA and nobody ever has, not since 1812 at least. Whoever calls American immigrants invaders, or sees immigrants in USA as a problem that should be solved by deportation, instead of cracking down on human trafficking (of which Trump has been a notable perpetrator, as is easily seen from his trophy wife), is a fascist.
keiths,
I am very interested in your methods. Thanks.
colewd:
Excellent. Be advised that I’m on a multi-day trip and won’t always be able to reply promptly.
You’re being too pessimistic about the availability of trustworthy sources. They’re available, but I’ve seen you reject many of them on purely ideological grounds. What matters is the quality of the reporting, not whether the outlet leans right or left.
Take three of the top newspapers in the US: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. The Times and the Post lean left and the Journal leans right, but all three are highly rated for accuracy in reporting. You’ll see some bias in the opinion pieces, of course, and sometimes in their choice of what to cover, but the news stories themselves are almost always factually accurate. These papers and their reporters have reputations to maintain and want readers to trust them. They’re careful about getting their facts straight. It’s rare that they have to retract stories, and when they do, that itself makes the news because it’s so unusual.
That said, you don’t want to blindly trust any news source. Even the best ones make mistakes. The nice thing about the internet is that it’s easy to check multiple sources. The greater the number of outlets reporting a fact, the more likely it is to be true.
In the case of the Greenland hospital ship story, I googled “Trump Greenland hospital ship” and got.dozens of sources including top-tier ones. I checked several and they all agreed on the facts. One of them linked to Trump’s Truth Social post, so I read that too.
At that point I had all the details that I presented above: Trump had said the ship was on its way, the Greenland prime minister had said that they didn’t want or need it, and Trump couldn’t have sent it anyway since both US hospital ships, the Mercy and the Comfort, were undergoing maintenance in a Mobile Alabama shipyard. I did see a report that the Mercy sailed three days later, which seemed odd since it was supposed to be undergoing maintenance, so I googled “USNS Mercy maintenance” and found that the reason it sailed didn’t have anything to do with Greenland. It was just headed to Portland Oregon for more maintenance. That’s where it is currently.
What is the probability that all of those news outlets got the story wrong? Close to zero, and note that I didn’t need to depend on the reliability of any particular one of them. The fact that they all agreed was enough. There’s strength in numbers.
To sum up, trustworthy news sources are available, but it isn’t necessary to rely on any particular source if they all back each other up.
More tips later, but I wanted to explain why I’m so confident that the story I gave you is correct.
Agreed. This is why I think this is a different situation from the European immigrants in the Americas, who claimed the territory as their own.
That sounds similar to the situation in the Donbass. I wasn’t aware that there was such a large portion of ethnic Russians in the Baltic states. Still, I imagine a large portion may not be so eager to join the Russo-fascist motherland. This will be influenced by the balance between Russian propaganda and accurate reporting from independent journalists.
Then you are talking about something different. I was referring to labour migrants and fugitives into Europe and US, not to Russian immigrants into previous member states of the USSR.
This is do not completely agree with. I will give you that the Netherlands were a colonial nation until quite recently: The colonial war against Indonesia ended in 1949 with the acceptance of Indonesian independence. But the reason I resist the term invaders for immigrants is because that frame is used by far right parties to dehumanize these people.
keiths,
Thanks Keith.
colewd,
My second tip, and this one is harder: make a deal with yourself that you’re going to accept the truth, whatever it is. Let the evidence dictate what you believe. Sounds obvious, and it is, but it takes effort. The more committed you are to your current beliefs, the harder it is to change them even when the evidence warrants it. Temporarily pretend that you’re an impartial reporter who has no enotional skin in the game but just wants to get the facts right.
I thought Biden was a decent president. He was, for most of his term. He was also the guy who was going to be running against Trump, and I knew it was crucial for him to win in order to avoid exactly the situation we now find ourselves in. I pinned my hopes on the guy. When I saw his debate performance — his deer in the headlights look, his mouth agape, his “we finally beat Medicare” gaffe — it was the worst possible outcome. That was tough to swallow, but I couldn’t deny what I saw with my own eyes. He wasn’t fit to be president. I’m still angry that he didn’t drop out of the race sooner.
It was hard emotionally, but I was forced to change my opinion of Biden. I didn’t want it to be true, but I had to accept it. You’re in the same boat right now. The evidence against Trump’s fitness for office is undeniable. You’re emotionally invested in him, but can you deny what you’re seeing? The hospital ship fiasco is just one of many. Do you care about the truth enough to accept it even when it paints Trump in a bad light?
Third tip: when you use AI, consult more than one model. Not for every question, of course, but for the important ones. As with news sources, your confidence will increase if alll of the models are telling you the same thing. I actually have five AIs on my Windows taskbar for quick access if I need it (Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Grok) . I’ll copy and paste my prompt into more than one of them depending on the importance of the question. You can do it quickly so that they’re working in parallel.
Fourth tip: Follow some of the links the AI gives you. That way you can confirm that what it’s telling you is right, plus you may get additional useful info from the articles themselves.
Fifth tip: Write your prompts as impartially as possible. Regarding the Los Angeles National Guard deployment, you asked AI to list the property damage that had occurred. You were looking for a way to justify Trump’s action when what you should have been asking about was how serious and widespread the unrest was and whether it warranted a federal intervention. If you had done that, you would have found that the trouble was confined to just a few blocks, that Tump was lying about it, and that state and local authorities including the police chief had determined that federal help wasn’t needed,
Sixth tip: Give the AIs instructions to disagree and push back on you if they think you’re wrong about something. Ask them to put that instruction in long-term memory so that it applies to all future chats. They have a tendency to agree too much with you unless you tell them not to.
That’s it for now.
This one is a lot harder than it looks. It’s easy to smuggle the goal into the question. I think it’s related to a source’s choice of items to cover – they are often reporting accurately on what they cover, but carefully not mentioning events or stories contrary to their ideology. For example, Fox News is oriented toward reporting crimes performed by minorities, but it’s hard to find news of a white man doing anything wrong.
Granted, Trump takes this tip to an extreme, demanding that evidence be found against his enemies but never asking if his enemies have done wrong. Or demanding that some way be found to enrich himself or his family at government expense that hasn’t yet been ruled illegal, or that’s illegal but no enforcement capability was included in the law. Or finding some reason why the Constitution doesn’t mean what it clearly says (the Supreme Court is doing this a lot).
When Bill did his thing earlier, I asked why he had failed to mention even one of the thousands of protests where no property was damaged or people injured. Now I understand why he ignored this – his Fox News protest model was baked into his questions.
keiths,
First I think your recommendation on being careful with AI in asking questions and using multiple LLM models is right.
You said you thought he was a decent President. What do you think he accomplished?
Do you have any positive accomplishments you can attribute to the Trump administration?
colewd:
Well, he fixed Trump’s lackluster Covid response, united NATO in defense of Ukraine, and got at least three major pieces of legislation through Congress, for starters.
The one that immediately springs to mind is that he eliminated the penny. I hate frikkin’ pennies. That was long overdue.
Also, there was an anti-revenge porn bill that I believe the White House was pushing.
I’d like to give him credit for reducing the number of illegal border crossings, but the problem is that his immigration policies as a whole are horrendous and I don’t know how much of the reduction is due to things I would consider morally objectionable
All of which leads to the seventh tip: don’t try to change the subject. Stick with the issue at hand and resolve it before moving on.
The topic is the Greenland hospital ship fiasco, not Biden’s accomplishments versus Trump’s. Having seen how it’s done, what did your research show you? Will you now acknowledge that the facts I cited are correct? How do you feel about Trump’s performance in this episode?