News What is the current time on the Doomsday Clock?

[Evo]

You are missing the point: an event that has already happened has a 100% probability. An event that is speculated to happen - no matter how likely one thinks it is - has a probability of less than 100% of happening.

It's not even about whether Trump is lying or not. People have ascribed all sorts of potential future actions to him, many of them mutually exclusive. Right now in this thread he is being accused of planning to start WWIII against Russia while simultaneously in another thread he is being accused of having too close of a relationship with Russia, for mutual enrichment. These two actions cannot simultaneously be true, so between them they cannot both be above 50% likelihood of occurring.

What do you think of this?

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable
Trump’s top adviser thinks we’re in “the great Fourth Turning in American history.”

Kaiser didn’t believe global war was preordained, so he demurred. The line of questioning didn’t make it into the documentary — a polemical piece, released in 2010, called “Generation Zero.”

Bannon, who’s now ensconced in the West Wing as President Donald Trump’s closest adviser, has been portrayed as Trump’s main ideas guy. But in interviews, speeches and writing — and especially in his embrace of Strauss and Howe — he has made clear that he is, first and foremost, an apocalypticist.

In Bannon’s view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

“What we are witnessing,” Bannon told The Washington Post last month, “is the birth of a new political order.”

It’s war. It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war.White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, 2015“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China,” he said during a 2016 radio appearance. “They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat.”

“Against radical Islam, we’re in a 100-year war,” he told Political Vindication Radio in 2011.

“We’re going to war in the South China Seas in the next five to 10 years, aren’t we?” Bannon asked during a 2016 interview with Reagan biographer Lee Edwards.

“We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism,” he said in a speech to a Vatican conference in 2014. “And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it.”

In a 2015 radio appearance, Bannon described how he ran Breitbart, the far-right news site he chaired at the time. “It’s war,” he said. “It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

Well, I can't quote it all. You read it and tell me what you think of this guy.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I took just a few minutes to see what this "Gray Champion" legend is all about. I'm descended from one of the original Puritan families, like in Hawthorne's stories. I never heard of this "Gray Champion" guy and I don't care. I don't believe in legends or messiahs. I believe in common sense. I don't need any strongman. As far as war, yes we certainly are at war in this country. It's a war against stupidity and ignorance. I don't believe in prophecy or historical cycles. We make our own fate.

On the math and physics front, if I wasn't doing what I'm doing now, I would like to help develop weapons, maybe space-based, which could quickly neutralize any nuclear threat from any aggressor nation. We need an alternative to the scenario in the video I posted earlier. This means a quantum leap in weapons, and also some kind of truly effective shield.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's some more Bannonism from a different article:

The fourth great civilizational showdown—a “global existential war,” as Bannon describes it in July 2016—pits the “Judeo-Christian West” against “Islamic fascism”—especially ISIL. But the threat isn’t necessarily limited to ISIL.

Bannon’s remarks and his affiliations with anti-Muslim activists like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer leave the impression that the enemy might well be Islam in general. As Breitbart notes in 2014, the “erudite Bannon” entertains the argument that Islam’s “war” against Christianity “originated almost from [Islam’s] inception.” He endorses the view that, in the lead-up to World War II, Islam was a “much darker” force facing Europe than fascism. Other ideas he has supportedinclude: a US nonprofit focused on promoting a favorable image of Muslims is a terrorist front; the Islamic Society of Boston mosque was behind the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; and Muslim-Americans are trying to supplant the US constitution with Shariah law.

Because Islam is rooted in anti-Christian violence, goes the logic, the only way to ensure that Muslims in America don’t pose a terrorist threat is to make sure they honor the US constitution as the rule of law and accept Judeo-Christian values.

https://qz.com/898134/what-steve-bannon-really-wants/

and,

But this cosmic avenger role Bannon seems to claim as voice-giver to the “forgotten” middle-classes hints at a deeper relish of conflict. A fascination with warfare and violence emerges in, for instance, his frequent allusion to the glory of the amphibious invasion at Normandy, or his taking the time out of his duties as Breitbart’s CEO to pen anobituary for Vo Nguyen Giap, a Vietnamese general who led a war for independence that Bannon described as “one of the bloodiest and hardest fought by all combatants.” In particular, the aesthetic of his documentaries can be nauseatingly violent. Torchbearer is a tour de force of gore. (There are at least six separate shots of falling guillotines, as well as lingering footage of nuclear radiation victims, mass burials from Nazi gas chambers, and various ISIL atrocities.)

He's a crusader (just about literally: Christianity vs Islam), the man with the plan, the guy whose got it all figured out; an elaborately developed political crackpot with an academic bent, not unlike Karl Marx or the Unabomber.

In the video here, Bannon says, sounding like something between an 18th Century French Revolutionary and a 20th Century Russian Bolshevik:

"...and this is going to be a very long, protracted fight. There is a permanent political class in this city (Washington) that dominates it and by that dominates the country. And there is a dedicated group of libertarians, and grass roots conservatives, and tea party conservatives, and limited government conservatives, that are here to destroy that. And that is going to be ugly, tough work. That's just the reality of it. People are not going to give up an aristocracy willingly. And we're on the right side of history and victory begets victory." https://egbertowillies.com/.../trump-steve-bannon-roadmap/

 

[russ_watters]

What do you think of this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

Well, I can't quote it all. You read it and tell me what you think of this guy.

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...but I'm not sure what that has to do with what you were responding to...

 

[collinsmark]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...but I'm not sure what that has to do with what you were responding to...

 

[russ_watters]

@collinsmark, I guess at this point I don't have much of an idea of what this thread is about anymore, but I'll respond to your post anyway:

I am not a fan of comedy treated as news, but I am a huuuuuge fan of irony, which appears lost on its purveyors who complain about our figurative joke of a President on their literal joke news programs...not to mention the rise of joke news over the past few years leading to today when its purveyors and consumers complain about fake news! That's pure deliciousness squared.

 

[collinsmark]

@collinsmark, I guess at this point I don't have much of an idea of what this thread is about anymore, but I'll respond to your post anyway:

I am not a fan of comedy treated as news, but I am a huuuuuge fan of irony, which appears lost on its purveyors who complain about our figurative joke of a President on their literal joke news programs...not to mention the rise of joke news over the past few years leading to today when its purveyors and consumers complain about fake news! That's pure deliciousness squared.

The sentiment that Bannon, a warring conspiracy theorist, is positioning himself as behind-the-scenes leader of the nation (USA) is not limited to comedy news programs.

Here's something from the editorial board of the New York Times:

But a new executive order, politicizing the process for national security decisions, suggests Mr. Bannon is positioning himself not merely as a Svengali but as the de facto president.​

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/president-bannon.html

Things like this explain the recent updates to the doomsday clock -- the point of this thread.

 

[russ_watters]

The sentiment that Bannon, a warring conspiracy theorist, is positioning himself as behind-the-scenes leader of the nation (USA) is not limited to comedy news programs.

Ok...so given that you had other options, do you think the choice to use a joke news site increases or decreases the irony?

Things like this explain the recent updates to the doomsday clock...

Not unless the Bulletin has a time machine they don't.

But since we're on the subject of joke/fake news, that NYT article on the executive order putting Bannon on the NSC contains a key falsehood in that it is not true that the CJCS and NSA were demoted.

[copied from a pm conversation I recently had]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-national-security-council-shakeup/

Yes, Trump added someone who wasn't previously an attendee, but he didn't remove anyone who previously was an attendee from either the NSC meetings or the NSC Principals meetings - he didn't remove the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or the national security advisor. CJCS himself appears to think the controversy is a nothingburger.

So for additional irony, the media is responding to Trump's blathering don't-care-about-facts style by mirroring it.

Sorrynotsorry about my tone, but my basic point in this thread has been this: the general tone of the national dialog is unserious discussion of what are supposed to be serious issues. If people want others to take these issues seriously, when reporting them they have to be reported/analyzed seriously. Two negatives make a positive, but two jokes don't equate to serious analysis.

 

[collinsmark]

Ok...so given that you had other options, do you think the choice to use a joke news site increases or decreases the irony?

I chose the comedy central link because it's less depressing.

 

[collinsmark]

Ok...so given that you had other options, do you think the choice to use a joke news site increases or decreases the irony?

Not unless the Bulletin has a time machine they don't.

But since we're on the subject of joke/fake news, that NYT article on the executive order putting Bannon on the NSC contains a key falsehood in that it is not true that the CJCS and NSA were demoted.

[copied from a pm conversation I recently had]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-national-security-council-shakeup/

This is a quote from your link that you provided:

"As PolitiFact has reported, the Trump administration https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Intelligence (or the CIA director, the position’s pre-2004 equivalent) as regular members of the principals committee, and also gave Trump’s chief strategist, Bannon, a seat on the council and principals committee."​

Also, the link within that link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-misleading-claim-trumps-national-security-/) rates Sean Spicer's take on the controversy as "mostly false."

Sure, the link does say that much of negative reaction to the security council shakeup might be overblown. But I don't see any falsehoods in the New York Times article that I linked to in 57.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Bannon is at the steering wheel of the US right now. That merits pushing the clock closer to doomsday.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, the link does say that much of negative reaction to the security council shakeup might be overblown. But I don't see any falsehoods in the New York Times article that I linked to in 57.

The falsehood is what makes it overblown: it's the implication that they won't be in meetings they should be in and were in under Obama - that they were "demoted" - their role reduced. Saying "regular members" is a relatively meaningless distinction (which is why removing it makes sense): They didn't go to meetings they weren't needed for and did go to meetings they were needed for under Obama and that will be true under Trump as well.

The title "role usually reserved for generals" is also, at best, sensationalism if not an outright falsehood (not specific enough to be an explicit falsehood).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...

The problem I have with your corrections of the media slant is that they don't correct Steve Bannon out of the NSC or out of the White House. You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

 

[Buckleymanor]

No I think you are ignoring the obviouse.

Russ seems to do that.
It has been noted.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ seems to do that.
It has been noted.

What "obviouse", specifically, am I ignoring? I'll address it. I may disagree about what is important and what isn't or how to interpret certain facts, but I do try pretty hard to address - and not ignore - all issues.

I also think it should be noteworthy and respected that I am willing to criticize my own side of the fence, like I have done here. In my experience, people tend to try to avoid that.

[edit] If you're referring to my lack of overall "Doomsday Clock" concern, I'll be blunt: I think that many people think they are being serious about their fears when they really aren't being serious. How can a person not know that they aren't being serious? It really isn't hard if people don't know what "serious" looks like. So I'll provide the benchmark: do you have or are you building yourself a bomb shelter? If not, then your fear of Trump starting a nuclear war is not serious. Because that's what "serious" fear of nuclear war looks like.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem I have with your corrections of the media slant is that they don't correct Steve Bannon out of the NSC or out of the White House.

Ok...nor does anyone else criticizing Bannon here either. Do I have a power to exercise here that I'm not aware of (I'll have to check the mod control panel...)? Or are you suggesting that no tactics are out of line when fighting a righteous cause? Because I've heard that from liberals here too -- that lying is ok if your cause is just (which the liberal cause, of course, always is).

You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

There are at least two different problems, which you seem to accidentally acknowledge here: Bannon tells things from a right-leaning perspective and the "media slant" from a left-leaning perspective. These are not equivalent perspectives, as the media is supposed to be informing us about reality, not telling a story from a certain slanted perspective. Bannon is one person, one problem -- as are Trump, Clinton and Obama. What is common to all of them is that they have been interpreted through "the media slant". E.G., right leaning stories filtered through a left leaning perspective gives a distorted - but at least balanced - view. But a left leaning story filtered through a left leaning perspective gives a double-left "slant". So I suppose in that way, the slant is a bigger problem when the Democrats are in power. Anyway...

The fact - which you seem to agree with - that all of our news is filtered through a certain "slant" means everything we hear is potentially being manipulated, not just certain things from certain individuals. Perhaps you consider that "the wrong problem" because you agree with "the media slant", but I think everyone should consider the more pervasive problem to be the bigger problem.

Either way, what it means is that if someone doesn't pursue a right-leaning angle to the story, it won't be reported. That's why Fox News serves such a critical purpose, in opposing the rest of the "media slant". You can't get a balanced picture without viewing the news through both filters.

And again: you can't fight fire with gasoline. So even if I were to agree that Bannon is "the right problem", attacking false with false is still the wrong approach.

 

[mheslep]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

Granted -- I'm aware that on credentials he's actually relatively good - despite the misleading picture painted by the media. I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...and yeah, I'm also aware that those aren't disqualifying factors. Indeed, the list of actual required job qualifications is rather short (for President too).

 

[mheslep]

... I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Granted -- I'm aware that on credentials he's actually relatively good - despite the misleading picture painted by the media. I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...and yeah, I'm also aware that those aren't disqualifying factors. Indeed, the list of actual required job qualifications is rather short (for President too).

Well that let's him of the hook a relatively nice guy all round "obviously".
Especially when you take this into consideration.

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

Obviously a huge mistake the man is a kitten being portrayed as a extremist monster how dare they!

 

[zoobyshoe]

So even if I were to agree that Bannon is "the right problem", attacking false with false is still the wrong approach.

Repeating: You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem. Apparently the media garbled the story at first in the sense it made the mechanics of the actions seem extraordinary. Within a day or two corrections came out. After the corrections, though, Bannon was still on the NSC, which was the single most alarming part of the story. So, the corrections hardly improved anything (they did not correct Bannon out of the White House or NSC, as I wittily phrased it). In your mind, it seems, the whole problem consisted of the garbled mechanics. You seem to think that was the whole problem. And, while that needs to be corrected for rigor's sake, it does not change what's important about this news. The facts corrected, we still have a huge problem.

As for left-slant/right slant media, you just plain suffer a really serious case of Hostile Media Effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect

The problem with the media is not that it's slanted left or right, it's that it's slanted towards sensationalism. Sedate, boring stories don't get clicks or bring in the subscriptions. It's been this way since the invention of the town cryer, who was, himself, probably a formalization of the town gossip.

 

[russ_watters]

Well that let's him of the hook a relatively nice guy all round "obviously".
Especially when you take this into consideration.

Obviously a huge mistake the man is a kitten being portrayed as a extremist monster how dare they!

Ok...so now it seems like you are being purposely unserious. In a thread basically about seriousness, it seems like you are arguing against your point.

I am always open to a serious discussion, if you want one -

 

[russ_watters]

Repeating: You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

Zoobyshoe, you should learn the difference between opinions and facts.

You seem to think that was the whole problem.

No. I was clear and concise in my agreement with the other problem. I can't fathom how you could have missed it given that you quoted me on it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

Also, compare it to Ted Kaczynski:

Kaczynski was born and raised in Evergreen Park, Illinois. While growing up in Evergreen Park he was a child prodigy, excelling academically from an early age. Kaczynski was accepted into Harvard University at the age of 16, where he earned an undergraduate degree. He subsequently earned a PhD in mathematics from the University of Michigan. He became an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley in 1967 at age 25.

Kaczynski wrote, among other things:

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. ... Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.[59]

So far, it looks like they should be able to find a place for him in the Trump administration.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoobyshoe, you should learn the difference between opinions and facts.

I know the difference.

No. I was clear and concise in my agreement with the other problem. I can't fathom how you could have missed it given that you quoted me on it.

What a person thinks is important is revealed by what he choses to emphasize and spend energy on. You admit Bannon is a nut case, but only as an aside, and you then go back to pounding the media at length. It's clear from that that it is much more important to you to correct the media than to focus on the real dangers of Bannon being where he now is.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ok...so now it seems like you are being purposely unserious. In a thread basically about seriousness, it seems like you are arguing against your point.

I am always open to a serious discussion, if you want one -

You and I have had this discussion before, and I was under the impression I had corrected your misunderstandings about the uses of humor in the service of serious matters. It was the discussion where I asserted, "Humor is serious business."

Buckymanor's cracks were pretty good in that sense, functioning as reducio ad absurdam arguments. Mheslep, I will note, has several times used exactly the same device in conversations that I've seen.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

We should hate war and indeed all violence, but as the saying goes, if you want peace, then prepare for war. I find the scenario in Power of Decision unacceptable, in terms of American casualties. How can we defend ourselves, destroy the aggressor, and keep the country intact? From a physics point of view, we need to find a technological solution to this problem.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

This is why I think they jumped the shark when they changed the definition of their "clock". I think they've gone a little nuts. Maybe the people who remember the 1950s and 1960s no longer work at BAS and the people who work there now have never read any history? In the 1950s and 1960s, people literally believed that the US and USSR might exchange ten thousand nuclear weapons a half hour from now. We're nowhere close to that now; maybe 6:45? They'd have to re-design the clock for that...

The types of risks behind climate change are very, very different from nuclear war. Even the language they use in the statement doesn't jive. But ultimately, moving the clock has only one real purpose: they are just saying they don't like Trump. And that makes them and their clock a joke.

You're right, of course, Russ.

But if the sky isn't falling, it's hard to pound our fist and demand the government DO SOMETHING.

 

[Evo]

I think Russ has a very good grasp on things and when he says that Steve Bannon is a

conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house

I believe him.

What Leonard Susskind has to say on Steve Bannon

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...out_donald_trump_s_first_weeks_in_office.html

Bannon is at the steering wheel of the US right now. That merits pushing the clock closer to doomsday.

 

[OCR]

Zoobyshoe, you should learn the difference between opinions and facts.

I know the difference.

So far, it looks like they should be able to find a place for him in the Trump administration.

I believe him.

...

...

 

[DiracPool]

What Leonard Susskind has to say on Steve Bannon

Wow, thanks for that link, Evo. Very powerful. To me that means something with Lenny coming out with that statement. You can be sure that a career academic of his stature who from my understanding has been relatively apolitical over the years to make this kind of statement really means something.

You can run through the perhaps 100 or so of my posts on the Trump situation and see that my views are essentially consistent with Lennys.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

Well does this go some way beyond the HuffPo schlock, what Leonard Susskind has to say in his video does it give you a gain of insight.
Says it all really or are you prepared to ignore.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Well does this go some way beyond the HuffPo schlock, what Leonard Susskind has to say in his video does it give you a gain of insight.
Says it all really or are you prepared to ignore.

I'm prepared to ignore. I would of course pay attention to whatever Susskind has to say about physics, but politics, not so much. I will listen to his views on such matters, but I would take into account the political bias of the institution that he belongs to. It's pretty well known that elite academia in the US is extremely left leaning.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-faculty-donations-favor-democrats-9acd1748c3ce

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm prepared to ignore. I would of course pay attention to whatever Susskind has to say about physics, but politics, not so much. I will listen to his views on such matters, but I would take into account the political bias of the institution that he belongs to. It's pretty well known that elite academia in the US is extremely left leaning.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-faculty-donations-favor-democrats-9acd1748c3ce

Here's a well known right leaning paper opining the same thing (more subdued; no nazi references):

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ders-reflect-steve-bannons-political-strategy

If Trump had given agency professionals 30 days to review his order on refugees, he could have avoided the confusion at airports, not to mention the media hysteria and the protests. And if his communications team had been given time, they could have pre-empted some of the wild claims made by Democratic detractors.

They went another way: The Bannon Way.

According to CNN, when lawyers at the Department of Homeland Security concluded that the executive order banning travelers from seven countries did not include legal permanent residents — a.k.a. green card holders — senior strategist Steven Bannon led the charge to countermand the ruling. Hence the airport mess.

Over the weekend, Bannon also succeeded in getting himself put on the National Security Council’s principals committee.

And:

Bannon has said he’s a “Leninist” but he’s really more of a Trotskyist because he fancies himself the leader of an international populist-nationalist right-wing movement, exporting anti-“globalist” revolution. In that role, his status as an enabler of Trump’s instinct to shoot — or tweet — from the hip seems especially ominous.

Presumably at Bannon’s insistence, Trump didn’t even consult his secretaries of defense and homeland security, on the grounds that this was a need-to-know operation requiring secrecy, lest the “bad dudes” — Trump’s term — find out and rush into the U.S. In other words, two decorated retired generals couldn’t be trusted with the information.

The Bannon Way might work on the campaign trail, but it doesn’t translate into good governance. It’s possible — and one must hope — that Trump can learn this fact on the job.

But what if he doesn’t? He could put the country in serious peril.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I'm prepared to ignore. I would of course pay attention to whatever Susskind has to say about physics, but politics, not so much. I will listen to his views on such matters, but I would take into account the political bias of the institution that he belongs to. It's pretty well known that elite academia in the US is extremely left leaning.
https://stanfordreview.org/stanford-faculty-donations-favor-democrats-9acd1748c3ce

I find it quite profound that you would listen but because of the political position that the institution he belongs to takes you are prepared to ignore.
Why he is not a politician.
It is obvious he is not comfortable in making such a statement and totally sincere.
In other words a thought full caring person who would like to share his concerns about a dangerous situation and eminent physicist to boot.
You would rather take notice of a couple of other non- politicians with different political affiliations.
To me it's a no brainer.

 

[TurtleMeister]

@zoobyshoe, I was not necessarily approving of Bannon just stating that I take Susskind's views on this matter with a grain of salt.

I find it quite profound that you would listen but because of the political position that the institution he belongs to takes you are prepared to ignore.

You would not be prepared to ignore statements made by someone belonging to a right wing organization? You are not prepared to ignore reports on Breitbart news? In my opinion, elite academia is even more biased to the left than Breitbart is to the right.

It is obvious he is not comfortable in making such a statement and totally sincere.
In other words a thought full caring person who would like to share his concerns about a dangerous situation and eminent physicist to boot.

I'm not doubting his sincerity but I find it hard to believe that he would be uncomfortable making such statements given that he appears to be on campus in the video. The chances of anyone disagreeing with him would be very slim.

The link in my previous post is a little out of date. Here's a more up to date one:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04

 

[Buckleymanor]

@zoobyshoe, I was not necessarily approving of Bannon just stating that I take Susskind's views on this matter with a grain of salt.

You would not be prepared to ignore statements made by someone belonging to a right wing organization? You are not prepared to ignore reports on Breitbart news? In my opinion, elite academia is even more biased to the left than Breitbart is to the right.

I'm not doubting his sincerity but I find it hard to believe that he would be uncomfortable making such statements given that he appears to be on campus in the video. The chances of anyone disagreeing with him would be very slim.

The link in my previous post is a little out of date. Here's a more up to date one:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=W04

Of course I would be prepared to ignore some statements from right wing organizations, it would depend on who what and the context .
I don't think Susskind was uncomfortable because anyone might disagree with him I reckon that his discomfort originated from him being usually a political and the fact he felt that evil flourishes when good people don't speak out so he had no option.
He had thought long and hard on the subject and you should respect that.
Elite academia might well be more biased to the left than Breitbart is to the right.
But that should not automatically make you ignore.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Of course I would be prepared to ignore some statements from right wing organizations, it would depend on who what and the context .

Well does this go some way beyond the HuffPo schlock, what Leonard Susskind has to say in his video does it give you a gain of insight.
Says it all really or are you prepared to ignore.

emphasis mine
But are you prepared to ignore some statements from the left? Much of Susskinds views are extreme. Even zoobyshoe noticed it.

Here's a well known right leaning paper opining the same thing (more subdued; no nazi references):

emphasis mine

 

[zoobyshoe]

Much of Susskinds views are extreme. Even zoobyshoe noticed it.

emphasis mine

By saying the National Review editorial was "more subdued," I wasn't calling Susskind "extreme." The particular Nazi reference Susskind made was actually apt. Too few people understand the actual way Hitler acquired the amount of power he ended up with, which was by means of some incredible, devious maneuvers between the time he was appointed Chancellor and when Hindenberg died, 9 months later. (Stalin was the same, incidentally: by devious maneuvering and deal making, he acquired a level of power that shouldn't have been permitted one man according to the way the Communist party was intended to work.) Both Susskind and Jonah Goldberg are warning that Bannon seems to be doing that same dangerous kind of maneuvering, though Goldberg eschews any potentially off-putting historical allusions in saying it. So, Susskind's views are not really more extreme than Goldberg's, it's more that his tone is less subdued. Goldberg, the conservative here you should note, warns that if Trump continues to let Bannon cut important advisors out of the decision making process, he could lead the country into "peril."

 

[Buckleymanor]

emphasis mine
But are you prepared to ignore some statements from the left? Much of Susskinds views are extreme. Even zoobyshoe noticed it.

emphasis mine

Without a doubt I probably ignore as many statements from the left as the right.
Extreme statements from the left and right can be similar the problem is the ability to discriminate between them.
I don't think Susskinds views in this case were extreme given the circumstances and were very brave.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The latest news is that North Korea tested another ballistic missile. North Korea has nuclear weapons technology. Perhaps North Korea will develop ICBMs with nuclear warheads, which will be capable of hitting targets in the USA. In addition, we know that North Korea is cooperating with Iran, which has a very large missile force. Iran has also conducted missile tests recently.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I will admit that I know very little about Steve Bannon. I did a little research tonight but not enough for me to condemn him the way everyone here is doing. Keep in mind that I have very little trust in the news media. So for right now I will reserve judgement.

Edit by mod: Deleted the Op-ed piece

But one thing that I will continue to do is ignore the argumentum ad Hitlerum. I won't have much time for posting after this one, so thanks for the replies everyone.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

But one thing that I will continue to do is ignore the argumentum ad Hitlerum.

"Argumentum ad Hitlerum.' That's a clever phrase. It's a bit like the boy who cried wolf, isn't it? After a while, people no longer pay attention.

Before I weaned myself from TV, I used to watch a Fox program called "Red Eye." Greg Gutfeld liked to poke fun at this tendency towards "argumentum ad Hitlerum" by saying "if you disagree with me, you are worse than Hitler."

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Speaking of Doomsday, here's an interesting article about China.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-weapons-reaching-near-parity-west-study-135238342.html

 

[Stavros Kiri]

What is the probability that what is posted in this thread will actually influence actual Doomsday?

Also, what is the probability that the notion of Doomsday Clock itself could, in a cyber feedback sense, influence the actual Doomsday?

IMO, the second pretty high, the first perhaps small, but not non-existent ...

Thus, I think, Doomsday Clock is a fairly risky thing, depending on which way the feedback goes ...

 

[Evo]

"if you disagree with me, you are worse than Hitler."

Lol, so anyone that disagrees with me is worse than Hitler? Do I even need to say how dumb that is? I don't think he knew what that meant.

Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for "reduction to Hitler"; sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, "argument to Hitler", or ad Nazium, "to Nazism") is the attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,[1] for example: "Hitler believed in eugenics, X believes in eugenics, therefore X is a Nazi".[2]

Coined by Leo Strauss in 1951, reductio ad Hitlerum borrows its name from the term used in logic, reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd).[1] According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent, as Hitler and Nazism have been condemned in the modern world.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

 

[TurtleMeister]

Lol, so anyone that disagrees with me is worse than Hitler? Do I even need to say how dumb that is? I don't think he knew what that meant.

He said it was to "poke fun at the tendency", not meant to be taken seriously.

Sorry about that Washington Post opinion link Evo, at the time I posted it I didn't even notice it. The way the media has been recently it's hard to tell the difference between news and opinion.

 

[Evo]

He said it was to "poke fun at the tendency", not meant to be taken seriously,

it was in reference to David's post, not yours.

Sorry about that Washington Post opinion link Evo, at the time I posted it I didn't even notice it. The way the media has been recently it's hard to tell the difference.

Don't worry about it, that's why I didn't issue a warning, even I am having a hard time.

 

[TurtleMeister]

it was in reference to David's post, not yours.

Good catch Evo. But did you have to look it up to know that I had misused the term?