Thread: Video proves Trump supporters are RACIST NAZIS

Originally Posted by Occipitalred

. But VinceField did not directly harm anyone so there is no need for apology.

I don't think Vince actually owes anybody an apology (as in, actually needs to apologize), but it isn't uncommon to apologize for things that didn't harm anybody. When somebody is rude or deceitful, it's pretty common to apologize for it just to be respectful. You don't have to hurt somebody physically or mentally for an apology to be needed.

I do think that there were a lot of overreactions, I really don't think what he did is a big deal. It's just that saying sorry really isn't that hard, and it's kind of confusing why it wasn't Vince's natural reaction. However, Vince, you did say that if you gave an apology, it would be insincere, so I suppose I can respect the fact that you would rather hold your position rather than be disingenuous. It's not really the socially acceptable decision, but I personally value honesty over social acceptance (lol, kind of ironic since this whole mess came about by being dishonest in the beginning--oh well, better (honest) late than never).

I think you should apologize when you actually feel sorry and not because you hurt someone or because you were rude or because it would be polite to apologize. It would be insincere of him to apologize.

Feeling bad and doing bad overlap but are not the same and in my opinion an apology is only appropriate when you feel bad for what you did, regardless of whether it was actually wrong or not.

It seems that this thread is now about morality. So, when might it be "right" to deceive? For satire? In protest? And when is it "right" to apologize? When others are injured? When it results in some gain for the first party? I am interested in the possible answers, but I tend to kill threads, and maybe that's what this thread needs. I'll roll with any outcome.

Kill it!! Kill it with fire!! A thread about morality!!

Originally Posted by sisyphus

It seems that this thread is now about morality. So, when might it be "right" to deceive? For satire? In protest? And when is it "right" to apologize? When others are injured? When it results in some gain for the first party? I am interested in the possible answers, but I tend to kill threads, and maybe that's what this thread needs. I'll roll with any outcome.

You're right, and yes, these are good questions. I think it's probably "right" to deceive when the intentions aren't malevolent and no harm is done to anyone. It's probably "right" to apologize when the apology is sincere, or maybe when it benefits others.

sORRy SEEMs TO BE THE HARDEST WORD!

Sorry is an easy word, often overused and said without meaning.

Originally Posted by Amedee

sORRy SEEMs TO BE THE HARDEST WORD!

Sorry, i didnt know that.

Admitting that you were wrong is a virtue

lol. this is one of those threads that nobody really cares about but everyone makes a clever comment every once in a while

Do I have to say sorry to geniuses in this thread ,but on second thoughts I will pass ,
There's no comment in my humble point of view could be categorized as clever so far
On the other hand I will say SORRY I overreacted,you see it's all about being polite
Nothing super clever just childish.In French I would say , un vrai case tête chinois!

This Trump insanity is an illustration of the social psychology issues that allow dictators to get powerful. It is extremely scary. I have always been disturbed by how the most successfully manipulative sociopaths are so much better at persuasion than the people who are the most logical. It is the downfall of humanity. The masses tend to be influenced by personality much more than reasoning. The world is screwed up mainly because of that terrible human flaw.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This Trump insanity is an illustration of the social psychology issues that allow dictators to get powerful. It is extremely scary. I have always been disturbed by how the most successfully manipulative sociopaths are so much better at persuasion than the people who are the most logical. It is the downfall of humanity. The masses tend to be influenced by personality much more than reasoning. The world is screwed up mainly because of that terrible human flaw.

Uh huh. Did you read the thread, besides the title? I thought I killed this already.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This Trump insanity is an illustration of the social psychology issues that allow dictators to get powerful. It is extremely scary. I have always been disturbed by how the most successfully manipulative sociopaths are so much better at persuasion than the people who are the most logical. It is the downfall of humanity. The masses tend to be influenced by personality much more than reasoning. The world is screwed up mainly because of that terrible human flaw.

As long as he doesn't get elected, I'm actually glad Trump is making a mockery of modern politics. You made a good point about sociopaths/psychopaths (or according to DSM V, both are now anti-social personality disorder), but what makes it most "scary" (I'm not scared simply because this can and does happen, it's just a fact of life) is the fact that people can't or won't spot most sociopaths. It takes somebody who is as offensive, unqualified, and with as much money as Trump for people to label him as a sociopath who should be feared if he gains political power. These same types of people make up a significant portion of the politicians (not to mention (co)workers, bosses, leaders of industry or other "institutions" for lack of a better word, etc.), yet they, trying to appear like legitimate politicians who are capable of leading the country or at least holding some sort of office in the government, simply have enough tact and understanding of basic human behavior to go by unknown and unsuspected by the people that vote for them.

From what I've seen and experienced throughout life, the way situations work when politics is involved (by politics I mean the general term--it can include political office and what not, but I mean when you have to maintain some sort of diplomacy in your place of work or wherever in order to succeed or at least prevent being stepped on or destroyed by others for their own personal gain), the people at the top are the group with the most significant proportion of sociopaths per capita. Some sociopaths aren't very successful in being devious, aren't as capable of detecting threats to their position or make poor diplomatic decisions, etc... and these ones are obviously the least successful of the sociopath population. These ones are used by the more cunning and manipulative sociopaths to do their dirty work, evoke specific reactions, or otherwise help them achieve a greater or maintain their current position. Similar, these top-tier sociopaths use people who legitimately try and do the right thing the same way. Based on whether these people trying to do the right thing are flat out dumb, unable to tell when they're being manipulated or set up, or if they are capable of detecting that pattern of behavior and are able to somewhat defend or protect themselves in someway, the top-tier sociopaths have to make the right decisions in how to use these people to their advantage. Those people who do the right thing and are most capable of protecting themselves are typically put on some sort of "shit" list that groups of these bad people who work with themselves to maintain or achieve greater power will form temporary alliances (well, most of the time they probably don't make it sound like it will be temporary... it may go on for some time, but given the right circumstances it will be dissolved regardless of one's awareness of it having been dissolved) to keep demote, smear, slander, or otherwise keep these people at the bottom rung of office, rank, or what have you. It may even go as far as ruining someone's career or life.

As for the more naive good people, they are used and disposed of in much the same way that unsuccessful sociopaths are, only they are considered (and rightfully so) less of a threat and are considerably easier to manipulate. Sometimes sociopaths will put people like this in places of power (not too much power), expecting that these people will act with some sort of honor or integrity towards them for helping them out, so long as the situations aren't so morally corrupt that they have to refuse. Actually, I'm sure they face enough pressure at times that it doesn't matter how morally corrupt something they have to do is, because they are often being forced to do it for their livelihoods. They also can be put on front to make a cause or group seem more legitimate. Sometimes it would go as far as making them a figure head.

In the end, the sociopaths with the greatest ability to manipulate, the best instincts, the best control of their behavior, the most willing to do anything to get what they want, and the most awareness of the situation are who wind up in the highest positions. Every once in a while there is an outlier, but if you are capable of recognizing manipulative behavior and spotting sociopaths, it's quite plain to see that they come out on top in our (or just about any) system. Trump is obvious to spot, but he has money, knows what to say, who to say it to, and when to say it. Unsurprisingly, he is quite popular and at the same time extremely polarizing and divisive. A lot of candidates, most of whom are sociopaths with more tact, appeal to people's feel-good emotions, convictions, etc. They prefer to take a much less direct route of polarizing their supporters. They let the supporters divide the country for them, whereas Trump takes it a step further and divides the country himself as well. All of them prey on ignorance and irrational appeals to emotions, beliefs, faiths, you name it. None of them come up with fully sound logical arguments. They may make some, but they're often extremely vague, and quite insignificant when it comes to making a positive difference in this country's future. They point out and attack their opponents' policies, rhetoric, who supports them, who in the past supported a few of the ideas they do who did some bad stuff therefore they will do bad stuff too. They don't make solid promises (many times they are flat out impossible to achieve), and when it comes to talking about their own policies, they stick to the appeals I mentioned rather than make relevant logical arguments about what they are going to do, how they will do it, or why they believe it's the right choice to make.

What's scary isn't Trump, or the people who support him. What's scary is that this is typical behavior in a political environment and people are only now noticing (or at least making a big deal about) that at least one of the candidates is a legitimate sociopath every bit as much as Trump. He isn't much different from anybody else running. He's just more vocal about how much of a flippant bigot he is (in addition to how much of an arrogant jackass he is). He isn't getting votes by magic or because people in America are suddenly stricken with terrible stupidity, bigotry, and nationalism. He's following the same basic formula everyone else follows.

I agree, and I am disturbed by all sociopathic politicians who get anywhere. What is extra scary about Trump is that he is so incredibly obvious about what kind of person he is but is still going outrageously far. He is not the first, but he is the most extreme example I have ever seen among U.S. presidential candidates who have run in my lifetime.

For just one example, the fact that he can physically mock a disabled reporter on television without the masses of his fans having the first bad thing to say about it shows something deeply disturbing about what sociopaths are capable of doing to millions of minds. I have seen lots of sociopathic politicians be smooth as glass and have their evil go unnoticed, but with Trump, it is noticed. It is widely noticed, but he is the nominee for one of the two major parties. I am shocked by it, but that is because I have to look look far away in the world or far back in time to see other examples of such situations that are as extreme. It shows that humanity is not as evolved past the level of the chimpanzee as it might seem on the surface.