wonderingwanderer

I'm not pretending it's likely that we'll have free and fair elections followed by a peaceful transfer of power, but we're also not in "no chance in hell" territory yet, and it is our most likely option.

If midterms come and go and it becomes obvious that elections were not both free and fair, or if there is no peaceful transfer of power in accordance with the will of the people as expressed by a free and fair election, then the third and fifth sentences of the Declaration of Independence come into effect.

Until that time, or under more favorable conditions, the fourth sentence of the Declaration applies.

Do you disagree with something I said? It's totally fine if you do, but it would contribute more to the discussion if you said what and why

From the section in the link you cited:

Several of the Thirty had been students of Socrates, but there is also a record of their falling out.

The reference points to Xenophon's Memorobilia.

Husserl taught Heidegger, and Heidegger became a nazi, but that doesn't make Husserl a nazi. In fact, Husserl was Jewish and had to flee nazi Germany. So you see, a person isn't necessarily responsible for the things one's pupil does.

And from the "Socrates and the thirty" section on the thirty tyrants page:

In his Memorabilia (Bk 1, Ch 2), Xenophon reports a contentious confrontation between Socrates and the Thirty, Critias included. Socrates is summoned before the group and ordered not to instruct or speak to anyone, whereupon Socrates mocks the order by asking sarcastically whether he will be allowed to ask to buy food in the marketplace. Xenophon uses the episode to illustrate both Socrates' own critique of the slaughtering of Athenian citizens by the Thirty, as well as make the case that the relationship between Critias and Socrates had significantly deteriorated by the time Critias obtained power.

The only quotes suggesting he was responsible for the thirty tyrants on either page were from a contemporary writer, and it seems more like speculation than anything else.

There's really no compelling evidence suggesting that Socrates was responsible for the thirty tyrants or their slaughter of Athenian citizens.

"Corrupting the youth" simply meant teaching them to think for themselves. The "pious" aristocrats didn't like that sort of thing back then, any more than their ilk like that sort of thing today.

Everything that I've read so far says the "coup" you're referring to was a result of the Spartans after the Peloponnesian war. You haven't substantiated Socrates or Plato's involvement with any sources that even suggest that.

It's not at all like the civil war because it happened millennia ago with only fragmentary evidence. We have far more records from the civil war era due to it only having been a couple hundred years ago, which isn't that long in the grand scheme of things.

Aristotle was Alexander's tutor, yes, but Plato had no involvement with Alexander and the trial and execution of Socrates happened long before Alexander was even born. Plato and Aristotle are diametrically opposed philosophically, so bringing up Aristotle's involvement with Alexander has zero bearing on the philosophy of either Plato or Socrates.

Plus, the modern sciences owe far more to Aristotle than he's given credit for, so if tutoring Alexander the Great is such a demerit then we have to throw out basically all human inquiry that took place in the western world from medieval scholasticism to the modern scientific method. That would be a pretty severe ad hominem, but I guess if you're going that far then you'd have to throw out the field of logic too, so then you can commit all the fallacies you want because hey, the father of systemic logic tutored a Macedonian imperialist so all the fundamentals of logic must be flawed, right?

There are also accounts by Xenophon. And I'm aware of the limitations of citing Plato's accounts, but that doesn't justify leveling any accusation one can come up with. Also, the satires of Aristophanes hardly count as historical evidence.

Neither of the other two sources you provided say anything about Plato or Socrates being complicit with the regime or guilty of genocide. In fact, it seems like they had some animosities towards the thirty tyrants.

Where are you getting this claim that Socrates was found guilty for the Athenian genocide? It says right here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates) that the charges were impiety and corrupting the youth (by encouraging them to question their elders).

The impious acts cited were "failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges" and "introducing new deities" (apparently Reason (διάνοια) was a deity in their view...)

And the rittenhouse case shows that in america, you can get away with shooting/murdering protesters, if you're a white conservative.

But a liberal counter-protester bringing a gun to a trump rally? Not even white privilege will protect you at that point...

I've never heard that before. Do you have a source for that information?

Athenian democracy was more like "democracy for wealthy athenian landowners." It's not much like modern democracy, so there was a lot to criticize about it. Even modern democracy can be described as "rule of the ignorant" in some places, so it's not like it's impossible to validly criticize.

I don't know what kinds of arguments Jordan Peterson makes because I've never listened to him, but from what I've heard it sounds like he merely tries to rationalize male stereotypes by giving them an appearance of validity. That's definitely not what Socrates was doing; in fact the Athenian elites he criticized were closer to the Jordan Peterson type.

And nothing Socrates or Plato said remotely resembled Nazi propaganda, so unless you cite some textual examples I'm not going to take that seriously.

Also, Plato criticized the 30 tyrants. So I don't see what connection you're trying to draw there.

As far as "non-Platonic contemporary accounts" go, what primary sources are they citing? Or is it just pure navel-gazing? Criticizing old white dudes is the easiest way to get ahead in modern academia, it's the only way to slide through the peer-review process without a defensible critique. Valid criticisms can be made, but they require textual evidence (unless they're criticizing a white dude; then anything goes, apparently).

Sophists made use of wordplay and tautology to seem wise, while mostly reaffirming common assumptions that people already held. Plato and Socrates were rationalists, which is completely different. They used discursive reasoning rather than mere semantics. And if someone doesn't understand the difference, then it's not worth my time to try to explain. Too many people reject rationalism while falling for semantics; how does one reason with someone who's irrational?

You've never heard that Diogenes was a nudist and known for wanking in public? Or possibly even bestiality?

Also, I wonder what you think Socrates was on trial for. He called a lot of standard assumptions into question, and was called impious by the political/religious elite. They didn't like how he was educating people to think rationally instead of believing whatever they're told to believe, so they charged him with "corrupting the youth."

It's comparable to magas today going after public school teachers or college professors, because they teach "science" and other works of the devil.

A lot of people criticize Plato without really understanding him. They think he wanted a rationalist theocracy but that's missing the point entirely. He was against anti-intellectualism in a society that worshipped incestuous gods.

Also, Plato and Socrates made extensive use of elenchus and aporia, deliberately emphasizing the limitations of human knowledge. Instead of asserting what they believed to be true, they would use a series of questions to get their counterparts to examine their own beliefs, while identifying inconsistencies and irrational conclusions.

Their main thing was to point out how much of what people believe they "know," are actually assumptions based on societal conditioning.

Also, this year for example i can count the amount of days below 0°C on one hand

I can count the number of days this year on one hand...

For real though, I knew what you meant. I just couldn't resist the opportunity (after all, there's only five days a year when this joke might apply)

It's not that climate change is causing this change of climate. The change of climate is climate change. That's why it's ridiculous for someone to say "Oh, the climate's changing. But it isn't climate change!"

Oh no, it must be those pesky democrats and their secret government weather control /s. Trying to convince people to believe in climate change so they can... checks notes... promote self-sufficiency through renewable energy...

What's causing it is primarily greenhouse gasses along with several other compounding factors (deforestation, concrete and asphalt coverage, melting ice caps, etc.).

So yes, human-induced. No one would run a gas-powered lawnmower indoors, but somehow they believe that billions of people driving outside every day is totally fine?

Tell that to the person being "unapologetically socialist" whom I responded to.

Anarchists can't even organize a voting bloc or a civil sector, and they think a militia will spontaneously activate when needed? Oh please.

For the record, I am somewhere on the left of the spectrum. I believe both social democracy and democratic socialism have their merits. I'm definitely not an ML, for various reasons including I believe they're too authoritarian and I find them insufferable.

But I also believe that modern social democracies such as are found in western and northern Europe have societies and ways of life that are worth defending, even if that means fighting for them. With the threat looming to the east, I find it imperative for Europe to fund a strong military coalition/alliance.

What other options do you propose?

I'm aware the midterms aren't failsafe, but they're the closest thing to hope that we have.

And if people make the same mistake as last time by boycotting the vote, then their defeatism will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.