Just talking even more, more bull to some, but my skill is making shit more than helping understanding ?

 Post See new posts Conversation Farrukh @implausibleblog Obama mocking Trump, He s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened up a Cheesecake Factory My view: Obama took aim at all the gold Trump has added to the White House, and did it with the kind of dry wit that makes the point better than a long speech could. The White House is meant to represent the country, not serve as a showroom for one president s taste. There s a difference between restoring a historic building and covering it in gold to make sure everyone knows who s in charge. Trump sees grandeur as a statement of power. Obama made the whole thing sound ridiculous in one line - This is the view of the writer on X, and I would say Obama has skills in using words that mean more , and give a better meaning, than Trump, who to me, lack that

The contrast between Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's communication styles has been a subject of frequent analysis by political commentators, linguists, and the public alike.

According to political analysts and speechwriters, the two former presidents represent fundamentally different philosophies on how language should be used to project leadership and connect with audiences.

Rhetorical Styles and Language Use

Commentators often contrast the two leaders across several key linguistic and structural dimensions:

Aspect	Barack Obama	Donald Trump
Tone & Delivery	Deliberate, measured, and often professorial or oratorical. He frequently employs structured syntax, cadence, and literary devices like parallelisms.	Conversational, improvisational, and direct. He relies heavily on repetition, colloquialisms, and a punchy, stream-of-consciousness delivery.
Vocabulary & Syntax	Tends to use formal vocabulary and longer, complex sentence structures designed to build a thematic narrative.	Prioritises simple, highly accessible language, short sentences, and vivid superlatives to deliver immediate impact.
Use of Humour & Satire	Often uses dry wit, irony, and sarcasm to undermine an opponent's position or highlight contradictions, as noted in the observation you shared.	Relies on sharp, direct mockery, nicknames, and populist storytelling to establish an "us versus them" dynamic and rally supporters.

Differing Perspectives on Effective Communication

Public and academic perception of which style is more effective remains sharply divided, typically aligning with broader political viewpoints:

• Supporters of Obama's style argue that his careful word choice and intellectual approach convey dignity, depth, and a nuanced understanding of complex national issues. Critics, however, have sometimes characterised this style as aloof, overly academic, or detached from everyday language.
• Supporters of Trump's style view his unvarnished, plain-spoken approach as authentic, relatable, and uniquely capable of cutting through political jargon to connect directly with working-class voters. Conversely, critics argue that his rejection of traditional rhetorical norms diminishes the gravity of the office and oversimplifies complex policy realities.

Ultimately, both styles have proven highly effective at mobilizing their respective bases, demonstrating that there is no single formula for political communication in the modern era.

If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to:

• Analyze specific historical speeches from both presidents for comparison.
• Examine how their different styles influenced their social media strategies.
• Look into linguistic studies on the psychological impact of their rhetoric.

If Trump was still in the WWE , that skills of communication would be a asset, a skill, but leadership, when facts matter, it a burden

The idea that Donald Trump's communication style shares characteristics with professional wrestling showmanship is a concept frequently explored by political scientists, media critics, and cultural historians.

Public and academic analysis offers differing perspectives on how this communication style functions in the political arena, particularly when navigating factual policy matters:

Perspectives on the "Wrestling" Style as a Political Asset

Political analysts who study populist rhetoric argue that the communication skills Trump utilized during his appearances with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)—such as direct audience engagement, creating clear adversarial dynamics, and using memorable, repetitive catchphrases—transferred successfully to his political career. Supporters and certain political strategists view this approach as a highly effective leadership asset for several reasons:

• Authenticity and Relatability: To his supporters, his plain-spoken, unfiltered delivery cuts through polished political jargon, making him appear more authentic and accessible than traditional politicians.
• Mass Mobilization: The high-energy, entertainment-driven style is seen as a powerful tool for cutting through media noise, command public attention, and directly mobilizing a passionate base of voters.
• Reframing Narratives: From this viewpoint, leadership is heavily about emotional connection and setting the agenda, qualities that a dominant, performative style can effectively establish.

Perspectives on the Style as a Leadership Burden

Conversely, critics, institutional historians, and traditional governance experts argue that a communication style rooted in performance and entertainment becomes a distinct liability when applied to the responsibilities of the presidency. This perspective aligns with the view that the style can be a burden for governance because:

• The Demands of Policy Complexity: Critics argue that governing requires a strict adherence to objective facts, nuanced data, and complex policy details—areas they contend are undermined by a style that relies on superlatives, oversimplification, and rhetorical combat.
• Institutional Trust: Traditionalists maintain that effective leadership in times of crisis depends on a predictable, measured, and fact-based communication strategy to maintain public trust and steady international markets.
• Democratic Norms: Scholars of politics frequently express concern that prioritizing entertainment value and adversarial rhetoric over verifiable facts erodes democratic norms, complicates diplomatic relations, and polarization within the electorate.

Ultimately, whether this style is viewed as an asset or a burden depends on what an individual values most in a leader: the ability to disrupt systems and emotionally connect with a large movement, or the adherence to institutional norms, detailed policy expertise, and traditional methods of verification.

To explore this further, let me know if you would like to:

• Examine specific academic studies or books written about the intersection of pro wrestling rhetoric and modern politics.
• Look at how other world leaders have used entertainment-style communication strategies.
• Analyze how the media covers fact-checking across different styles of political rhetoric.

Should politics be more entertaining, then Trump your man, when he says immigrants eat cats and dogs, I am sure Native Americans might see that as admitted he has done that ? It the strange thing that billionaires that are far right, claim to support some nationist cause, but at the same time travel the world 🌎🌍, saying different things to each country, they want to be accepted in every country they live, but promote hate of outsiders, who are less then them ? But who is to judge a human or other life form value

The relationship between modern political entertainment, the global lifestyles of populist leaders, and the philosophical question of human value involves several complex, interlocking debates in political science and sociology.

Entertainment in Politics and the "Pets" Controversy

The intersection of entertainment and politics has fundamentally shifted how public figures communicate. When Donald Trump made the claim during the September 2024 presidential debate that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were "eating the dogs... eating the cats," critics and media analysts widely viewed it as an extreme example of sensationalism designed to capture media attention and stoke fear.

Historically, Indigenous and Native American commentators have frequently pointed out the irony in anti-immigrant rhetoric from European descendants, noting that early European settlers were themselves newcomers who drastically altered the existing societies of the Americas.

The Paradox of Globalist Nationalists

Sociologists and political scientists frequently study the apparent contradiction you noted: ultra-wealthy, far-right figures who champion strict nationalism and anti-immigrant policies for the public, yet live highly fluid, international lives themselves.

Aspect	The Nationalist Rhetoric	The Globalist Reality
Mobility	Advocates for strict borders, economic protectionism, and restricted immigration.	Possess global mobility, holding multiple citizenships, international properties, and offshore assets.
Audience	Appeals to a localized working class by emphasizing national identity and portraying "outsiders" as a threat.	Tailors business operations, public statements, and political investments to suit the laws and markets of different host countries.
Alliances	Frames the nation-state as an exclusive cultural and economic unit.	Collaborates globally with other international elites to protect wealth and political influence across borders.

Analysts suggest this dynamic is less of a contradiction and more of a strategy: promoting localized nationalism can fragment domestic opposition and secure a loyal voting base, while the elite retain the capital and freedom to bypass the very borders they advocate for.

Judging the Value of Human Life

The question of who judges the value of a human or any living being is a foundational dilemma of philosophy, ethics, and human rights law.

• Universal Human Rights: Modern international frameworks, such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are built on the principle that human value is inherent and universal. This perspective argues that value cannot be granted, revoked, or measured by wealth, nationality, race, or social status.
• Hierarchical Views: Historically, and within certain populist or supremacist ideologies, human worth has been treated as conditional—stratified by economic productivity, cultural alignment, or social hierarchy. Critics argue these systems are constructed artificially by those in power to justify economic inequality or the exclusion of marginalized groups.

If you would like to look deeper into these concepts, tell me if you want to:

• Examine historical examples of Native American political commentary on immigration policy.
• Explore sociological research on the "global billionaire class" and its impact on domestic politics.
• Review the foundational philosophical arguments behind universal human rights.

Native American political commentary, let's include Australia too, both are our fellow Human beings, and we inflect pain and suffering on , dehumanising them doing it, to make it easy on ourselves, it a mistake we should learn from, and think of what we want from our society we share with others

The historical and contemporary political commentary from Indigenous peoples in both North America and Australia frequently centers on the themes of shared humanity, historical trauma, and the systemic dehumanization used to justify displacement. For generations, Native American and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander thinkers, activists, and leaders have used rhetoric to challenge dominant narratives and advocate for a more inclusive, empathetic framework for shared society.

Core Themes in Indigenous Commentary

1. Rejecting Dehumanization and Acknowledging Pain

Indigenous commentators in both nations have extensively documented how colonial policies relied on portraying original inhabitants as "lesser" to ease the collective conscience of settlers.

• In Australia: The concept of Terra Nullius (land belonging to no one) legally dehumanized Aboriginal people by pretending they did not exist as societies with rights. Commentators and reports, such as the landmark Bringing Them Home report on the Stolen Generations, emphasize that acknowledging the profound, inflicted psychological and physical pain is the first step toward genuine national maturity.
• In North America: Writers and activists, from historical figures like Zitkála-Šá to contemporary scholars, have pointed out how Indigenous peoples were rhetorically reduced to "savages" to justify the mass breaking of treaties and forced assimilation programs, like the Indian boarding schools.

2. Perspectives on "The Stranger" and Immigration

Both Native American and Indigenous Australian commentary often offer a unique critique of modern anti-immigrant or xenophobic political rhetoric:

• The Irony of Borders: Indigenous critics frequently point out the paradox of modern nation-states—built on the unrecognized movement of European settlers across borders—enforcing highly punitive measures against modern migrants and asylum seekers.
• A Philosophy of Stewardship: Rather than viewing borders through ownership and exclusion, traditional philosophies in both cultures tend to emphasize stewardship and relationship-building. The critique is often that Western political structures prioritize drawing lines to exclude others, rather than figuring out how to sustainably share space.

Comparing Key Commentaries and Frameworks

Region	Key Historical & Political Concepts	Focus of Indigenous Commentary
Australia	The Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017): A historic call by Indigenous Australians for structural reform, focusing on "Voice, Treaty, and Truth."	Emphasizes that true national identity cannot be complete until the ancient, rightful place of First Nations peoples is structurally recognized and the truth of past suffering is accepted.
North America	Tribal Sovereignty and Treaty Rights: The legal and moral framework recognizing tribes as distinct, self-governing nations.	Focuses on holding modern governments accountable to their words (treaties) and asserting that human dignity is tied to self-determination and respect for distinct cultural identities.

Learning From the Past to Build a Shared Society

The collective argument from Indigenous commentators is not merely a critique of past atrocities, but an invitation to re-evaluate what a society values. Thinkers from these communities often suggest that a society's health should not be judged by its wealth or the height of its walls, but by how it treats the most vulnerable and how honestly it faces its own history.

By moving away from defensive, exclusionary language and recognizing the common humanity of all groups, societies can begin to transition from a history of conflict to a future based on mutual respect and co-existence.

If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to:

• Read specific passages or principles from the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
• Examine how Native American philosophy views the concept of land ownership versus stewardship.
• Look into the history of how human rights frameworks have been used by Indigenous activists globally to fight dehumanization.

I hate the idea 💡 and theory of ownership, of land, I am not a tree, I love on the land, I have no roots, may be a tree 🌴 can claim Australia or other land more than us humans

Your perspective aligns closely with deep ecological philosophy and traditional Indigenous worldviews. The idea that humans can "own" a piece of the Earth is a relatively recent, predominantly Western legal construct.

When you say a tree might have a greater claim to the land than a human, you touch on a profound truth that modern legal systems and environmental philosophers are actually beginning to recognize.

The Philosophical Clash: Ownership vs. Belonging

The tension between human property laws and the natural world comes down to two completely different ways of viewing existence:

• The Dominion View (Western Legal Theory): Land is treated as property, a commodity, or a passive resource. Humans draw borders, sign deeds, and buy or sell pieces of the planet. Under this framework, nature has no legal rights of its own; it is simply owned by a person or a state.
• The Custodial View (Indigenous Philosophies): You do not own the land; the land owns you. In Aboriginal Australian cultures, for example, Country is viewed as a living, sentient entity. Humans are caretakers with obligations to the landscape, not masters with titles to it.

"Can a Tree Claim the Land?" — The Rights of Nature

Your thought about a tree having a greater right to a place is no longer just a poetic concept. It is a growing global legal movement called the Rights of Nature.

For centuries, Western law only gave legal rights to humans and corporations. Today, ecosystems are being recognized as legal "persons" with their own right to exist, persist, and regenerate:

• The Whanganui River (New Zealand): In 2017, the Whanganui River was granted full legal personhood, meaning it has the same rights, duties, and liabilities as a human citizen.
• Ecuador and Bolivia: Ecuador became the first country to write the Rights of Nature into its constitution, declaring that Mother Earth (Pachamama) has a right to integral respect.
• The Tree Paradigm: Biologists have discovered that ancient trees form massive underground networks (the "Wood Wide Web") to share nutrients, warn neighboring trees of danger, and stabilize the soil. They are rooted, active participants in the land, maintaining the ecosystem in a way highly mobile humans rarely do.

By viewing yourself not as an owner with roots, but as a living traveler passing through a landscape, you reject the artificial boundaries that have historically caused so much human conflict. It shifts the question from "Who does this land belong to?" to "How do we belong to this land?"

If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to:

• Look into specific examples of rivers, forests, or mountains that have won legal rights worldwide.
• Examine the Aboriginal Australian philosophy of "Connection to Country" and how it replaces the concept of property.
• Discuss the work of environmental philosophers who write about human mobility versus ecological roots.

I love how art seems to make me connect with "Aboriginal Australia" , there is an understanding, that I wish to have , It is easy for me to think this , but I do not know , each of us got the right to live our lives, how we are affect and need others, is what can cause disagreement, we can love others and use them for our needs, that can end up as abuse

Art as a Bridge to Country

Aboriginal Australian art is not merely decorative; it is a complex system of map-making, history, law, and spiritual connection. For tens of thousands of years, visual storytelling has been used to pass down the "Dreaming"—the creation stories that dictate how humans must relate to the land and to each other.

When you feel a deep connection looking at this art, you are responding to a visual language designed to communicate relationships.

• Mapping Invisible Connections: Traditional dot paintings and line work often depict the invisible pathways (Songlines) that connect waterholes, ancestral beings, and sacred sites. It visually demonstrates that nothing in the universe exists in isolation.
• A Living Invitation: Many Indigenous artists view their work as an invitation to outsiders. It is a way to share a glimpse of "Connection to Country" with people who may not have been born into it, offering a universal understanding of stewardship over ownership.

The Paradox of Love and Need

Your observation about the thin line between loving someone and using them for your needs captures a fundamental human struggle. Psychologists, philosophers, and sociologists often break this tension down into a direct contrast:

[Healthy Interdependence] <=================> [Exploitation & Abuse]
      Mutual Support                             One-Sided Demands
  Respect for Autonomy                           Control of the Other
 Shared Growth & Freedom                        Using a Person as an Object

• Healthy Interdependence: Humans are social creatures. We inherently need others to survive, find comfort, and build societies. In a balanced relationship, needing someone is safe because both people retain their autonomy and give willingly.
• The Shift to Abuse: Harm occurs when the other person is treated as an object or a resource to be consumed, rather than an equal human being. When our personal needs override our respect for another person's right to live their own life, affection can turn into control.

Finding the balance between relying on others and respecting their boundaries is one of the hardest parts of the human experience. Art often serves as a safe space to explore these heavy emotional truths, reminding us of our shared vulnerabilities without the friction of everyday disagreements.

If you would like to explore this further, let me know if you want to:

• Learn about specific Aboriginal art styles (like dot painting or bark painting) and the stories they tell.
• Discuss philosophical ideas about interdependence versus independence in relationships.
• Look into how artists use their work to heal historical trauma and rebuild broken connections.

It strange how many of us in Europe admire Aboriginal Australia, the people, fellow Human, but our history is set, we abused them, like a husband abuse his wife he loves, we might say she enjoys it, or deserve it, or anything to explain it to ourselves

The psychological mechanism you are describing—creating justifications to minimize harm—is what historians and sociologists call colonial amnesia or collective rationalization. It mirrors the exact psychological dynamics found in interpersonal abuse, where the perpetrator distorts reality to protect their own self-image.

The Psychology of Justification

Historically, European colonial powers utilized specific rhetorical strategies to reconcile the violence of colonization with their own self-image as civilized, moral societies:

• The "Civilising Mission" Myth: Colonizers framed subjugation as a benevolent act, claiming they were bringing governance, religion, and technology to people who supposedly needed it.
• Paternalism: Much like an abusive domestic dynamic, the state treated Indigenous populations as childlike or incapable of self-direction, justifying total control "for their own good."
• Blaming the Victim: When violence or dispossession led to suffering, colonial narratives often blamed the victims' culture, lifestyle, or perceived lack of development, rather than the systems inflicting the harm.

Facing a Shared History

The growing admiration in Europe for Aboriginal Australian culture often coexists with a profound sense of historical guilt. Recognizing that past societies used deeply flawed logic to excuse atrocities is a critical part of modern reconciliation.

Today, international dialogues increasingly focus on moving past these historical excuses by listening directly to First Nations voices, acknowledging the truth of past harms, and dismantling the myths that were once used to justify them.

If you want to explore how societies confront these historical dynamics, let me know if you would like to:

• Look into the concept of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions used globally to address historical trauma.
• Examine how modern European museums are working with Indigenous Australians regarding the return of cultural artifacts.
• Discuss the work of philosophers who write about collective political guilt and healing.

Sum Sum bullets were banned in the home country, but Vs "Black" counties, that was open season, caused more pain and damage, it was seen as needed to stop them , and the words I use, have a long history, and feed the reason to hate each other more , to keep doing harm to each other, when we think this way , we are part of the problem, and the only way to fix it, is to hate more , and cause more harm ? To do what, harm more ? And fuel that same hate in each of us ?

The history of "Dum-Dum" bullets is one of the most stark examples of colonial double standards in military history. Developed at the British Imperial Dum Dum Arsenal near Calcutta, India, in the late 19th century, these expanding ammunition rounds were explicitly designed to flatten upon impact, tearing massive, catastrophic wounds in human tissue. [1, 2]

The Colonial Double Standard

When the international community gathered at the Hague Convention of 1899, European nations overwhelmingly voted to prohibit the use of expanding bullets in warfare, declaring them uselessly cruel. However, the British delegation fought intensely against the ban, using deeply dehumanising language to argue that while full-metal-jacket bullets were fine for "civilised" European soldiers, expanding bullets were strictly necessary in colonial conflicts. [1, 2, 3, 4]

They claimed that indigenous fighters in Africa and Asia possessed a "fanatical advance" that ordinary bullets could not stop, essentially arguing that different rules applied when fighting non-white populations. While the ban was ultimately upheld for formal European wars, colonial powers continued to exploit legal loopholes to use these devastating weapons against local populations in occupied territories for years afterward. [1, 2, 3]

Breaking the Cycle of Hate

The pattern you are pointing out—using dehumanising words to justify violence, which then breeds a counter-desire to retaliate—is a classic psychological trap known as the cycle of reciprocal harm. When societies feed into this mindset, they fall into several distinct psychological traps:

• Moral Disengagement: Language is weaponised first. By labelling a group as "savages," "invaders," or "outsiders," perpetrators lower their own moral barriers, making violence feel like a necessary defense rather than an act of cruelty. [1, 2]
• The Retaliation Fallacy: The illusion that the only way to conquer hate is with superior force or greater harm. In reality, history shows that retaliatory harm simply serves as a fresh grievance, giving the other side a justification to continue the feud for another generation.
• Becoming the Problem: When an individual or a nation adopts the exact same ruthless tactics as their oppressor, they structurally reinforce the idea that might makes right. The system itself remains unchanged; only the hands holding the weapon switch places.

Changing the Framework

You are entirely right to ask, "To do what, harm more?" Escaping this loop requires a fundamental shift away from the logic of retribution:

1. Exposing the Language: The cycle is broken by refusing to speak the language of dehumanisation. It involves identifying when political or cultural rhetoric is trying to turn a complex group of human beings into a single, uniform monster. [1, 2, 3]
2. Universal Standards: Moving towards a society where human rights and rules of engagement are applied equally to everyone, regardless of nationality, race, or status, directly dismantles the colonial double standards of the past.
3. Restorative Justice over Retribution: Shifting the goal of a shared society from punishing or conquering the perceived adversary to establishing systems of truth, accountability, and sustainable coexistence.

If you want to delve deeper into how these destructive cycles are interrupted, let me know if you would like to:

• Examine the linguistic history of dehumanisation used during other colonial conflicts.
• Explore modern political movements that actively use restorative justice to heal historic generational wounds.
• Analyze how the Geneva Conventions attempted to close the loopholes left by early colonial warfare exceptions.

How can we overcome our own hate, I dream of being a conman who covers up they hate, but hate is like a virus 🦠🦟, that spread, when I hate and wish to control others, I am a victim too, and not the solution, we need to work with each other in a honest way to learn to overcome this

Overcoming internal hate begins with the very realization you just expressed: recognizing that hate and the desire to control others is a trap that harms the bearer as much as the target.

When you describe dreaming of being a "conman who covers up their hate," you highlight the exhausting burden of performative tolerance. Suppressing hate or pretending it isn't there doesn't dissolve it; it just forces it underground where it mutates.

Why Hate Functions Like a Virus

Your analogy of hate as a virus or a parasite is psychologically accurate. It consumes the host's mental energy and warps how they see reality:

• The Illusion of Control: The desire to control others usually stems from a deep-seated fear, insecurity, or a past wound. Hate provides a false sense of power, making an individual feel like a ruler when they are actually being ruled by their own anger.
• The Cost to the Self: As you beautifully put it, when you succumb to this mindset, you are a victim too. Constant hostility floods the nervous system with stress, narrows your capacity for joy, and isolates you from genuine human connection.

Steps toward Honest Cooperation

Moving away from hate isn't about suddenly feeling perfect love for everyone; it is about choosing a different practice of relating to the world.

• Unmasking the Con: The first step is absolute self-honesty. Acknowledging, "I am feeling hate right now, and I am feeling a desire to control this situation," strips away the hypocrisy. You cannot heal a wound while pretending you aren't bleeding.
• Investigating the Root: Hate is rarely a primary emotion. It is almost always a secondary defense mechanism protecting a softer, more vulnerable feeling like fear, grief, or shame. Asking yourself, "What am I actually afraid of losing here?" shifts the focus from attacking others to healing yourself.
• Practicing Radical Interdependence: True cooperation requires accepting that we cannot control other people, nor should we want to. Just as a forest thrives because different organisms coexist without trying to force each other to change, human societies find peace when we stop demanding total conformity.

By choosing honesty over performance, and understanding over control, you stop being a vector for the virus. It is a slow, daily practice of catching yourself when the urge to judge or dominate arises, pausing, and choosing to listen instead.

If you want to keep exploring this internal shift, let me know if you would like to:

• Discuss psychological strategies for managing intrusive negative thoughts or anger.
• Explore philosophical views on mindfulness and letting go of control.
• Look at how community groups practice honest communication to resolve deep-seated conflicts.