4.5 billion dollars.

http://www.forbes.com/donald-trump/#7553bc81790b

I wrote that he has a lot of parliamentary power. And he does. Parliament and congress are synonyms. I clearly wrote the president has to deal with congress.

I know of the Bush junior situation, but that's not what the conversation is about (i.e. it's not about a vote miscount).

Trump has many character flaws (as all people do), but it is unlikely those flaws will lead to a fanciful dictatorship as you have suggested they will.

I didn't write that. Syntaxed, whom you were originally replying to wrote "You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has..."

You're not following the conversation.

You're welcome to prove yourself correct in regards to court outcomes. I'm just not that interested in it. I'm trying to save you the bother. What am I enjoying by myself? You making a statement and not providing proof? Sure, super fun. You can enjoy that I defended both Clinton and Trump as innocent until proven guilty. How it should be.

I'm "still incredibly naïve"! Lol, once again, you were replying to Syntaxed and called him naive. You're not following the conversation.

I'm glad you asked how it is different. I pointed out that the word naive (especially in your usage) does not encompass a lack of knowledge (as in he did not know the facts of the case). You were using naive as a pejorative, as in he was simple, unsophisticated, guileless. I showed you a definition of the common usage of the word naive. You found a definition that included the word "information". I pointed out that this is not the common usage (and as above it was not your intention to suggest he didn't know the facts). You could probably use the word naive, which is still a synonym for simple, unsophisticated and guileless, in the context of being those things, because one lacked "information", but it would of course need to be contextually evident in the statement.

As a kindness I'm going to chalk you being confused down to tiredness. Go have a lie down.

We can only imagine what will happen. Nobody knows.

He is already one of the most powerful men in the world.

He can't seize the reigns. He can only be voted in. I.e., the reigns will be handed to him freely given by democratic vote.

Fascist means such a lot of things nowadays that it is an easy catchall insult. You'll have to elucidate exactly what you mean. Totalitarian? Despot? Anti-democratic? Etc, etc. the list is so long. It's a useless word when it means so many different things. You might as well say "smurf".

"Demagogue". Lol. Yes, he seems pretty good at it too.

Likely is not the same as has. He either has or he hasn't broken as many or more federal laws. And if he has you'd be able to point out the investigations, convictions or some other irrefutably damning evidence. And, just like Clinton, he's innocent until proven guilty.

You forgot an option at the end of your diatribe against Trump. 4) Lacking knowledge of said allegations. Which is not the same as naive.

@bareboards2 Ma'am, I apologize both for the factually untrue statement, which I made without keeping with proper English debate/conversation etiquette, and also for assuming a gender for you title without proper evaluation.

To make clear my position, as I believe many, if not all of you here (@PlayhousePals @newtboy @Januari @bareboards2) mistake my position and/or personal political siding...

Firstly, I DO NOT like Trump, his policies, his manner, his monomaniacal bent towards the topics he figures are worth his time to address, not much of anything, actually.

Secondly, yes, I am conservative, and for a young male in British society, this leaves me at rather an odd way with those of an opposing political bent, particularly those of the Liberal/Progressive variety(Liberal less so, as it is an off-take of Libertarianism). I believe that effectually bending society over backwards to meet the stresses of a brave new world is a brash and undeveloped concept. I believe the perfect society is a logical one, where all that are able are held to an advantageously high level of acumen, education, etiquette, state of public dress, etc. I do not believe in the idea of "Utopia", as basic human psychology(which I have the equivalent of the american bachelors degree in) denies the facet of a cohesive human culture/society.

Thirdly, I arrive in support of Trump not out of a liking for him or his policy, but an awareness of what the enaction of his policies would bring. This awareness is spawned by the awareness of the state of the American Political Establishment, as is governed by people with power beyond reckoning, the face of which happens to be Hillary Clinton. Trump's policies, if allowed to be implemented, would cause such as rift in the political establishment/climate, as well as the hearts and minds of the American people, as to bring about change.

So, in effect, I support Trump for the very reason many of you don't, the Chaos that would almost inevitably ensue. A chaos that would likely go unnoticed, as such shifts occur without common knowledge...

Or... You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has...

If the second part is true the first part is true.

Islam is a cult of totalitarian evil. Its founder was a warlord, a mass murderer, a slaver and a rapist, around the emulation of whom the entire operation is sustained.

Muslims who don't murder are exactly as guilty as muslims who do. Decent, peaceful people don't join nazi cults.

The Kool Aid I'm drinking, @iaui, is education and objective thought.

Totalitarianism is creeping closer each year.

To be fair to Zizek, he has said quite a lot about China and its new model of "Totalitarian Capitalism" as mentioned in other comments here - this idea that free markets don't necessarily go hand in hand with free people, and that actually totalitarian capitalism is probably a more "efficient" form of capitalism. One can perhaps foresee a world where it is the West learning from China in order to stay competitive...

ps. Bananas.

Capitalist totalitarianism is a term I'll have to remember, nice.

Being China, the exploitative companies and the repressive regimes are the same people, are they not? Even Hong Kong is no longer free of total government control, is it? I was under the impression that everything is 'owned' by the state in China, although some entities are given more autonomy than others to give an illusion of capitalism.

@Asmo
capitalist totalitarianism.
nice man,i like that one!

Oh I'm fully cognisant of the nature of the system, but it's telling that it originates from an entertainment company and a retailer rather than the Chinese gov...

It's capitalist totalitarianism. Using your customers as your advertising/enforcement, and as you said, playing on peoples selfishness. A viral promotion of obedience and conformity (because viral marketing started in China right? \= )

One of the most repressive regimes on the planet got schooled on invasive social engineering for better control by a couple of exploitative companies. Speaks volumes.

@Asmo
i get what you are saying but i think you are missing the insidious implications that this new system of indoctrination represents.

i think @ChaosEngine's term 'stealth totalitarianism" is rather clever..and apt.

i agree with you on the points of peer pressure and how people can easily be manipulated.we are all,to varying degrees,subjected to a plethora of propaganda and targeted rhetoric,all meant to mold and shape our opinions in order to sustain the status quo while giving the impression that somehow our conclusions are an organic and natural response,when in reality we have been duped.

on that point we agree that this is not actually something new or novel but an old,tried and true method of social control.

what is new about this 'gaming" system,is that it is not taking the more subtle and passive approach of what current and supposedly "free" societies now implement to control public opinions and attitudes in order to either remain in power,sway the public into policies against their own interest,or create an atmosphere of fear to foment opposition.

this new system is actually aggressive.
this system will actively use its own population to do the oppressing,manipulating and controlling FOR them.

it is brilliant in it's simplicity.
it will use very human attributes we all possess in order to enact a better system of control,all the while having the appearance of being a harmless and innocuous social media competition.

but it is anything but harmless.
nor innocuous.
it will and can affect every facet of someones life.from their job to where they will be able to live,to even HOW they live.

think back to the times of east germany and the stasi,or the weimar republic,or even the soviet union of the 80's.

all used elements this new gaming system is representing,but those systems of control,while relying on the public to do much of its surveilling,all had one thing in common that they ALL relied heavily on:fear.

fear of reprisal.
fear of exposure.
fear and suspicion were the driving forces that kept those systems in power and the people in a perpetual state of paranoia.

the dread of the midnight knock.
of jackboots and black bags.

but those systems of control were fragile and once even a little resistance was exerted those systems crumbled incredibly fast.

this new system is far more subtle and devious in my opinion,because it removes the spectre of an imposing and oppressive government that will respond with violence and replaces it with the citizen to do the work for them.

the government does not have to do anything.
your neighbor will,and not because of some fear-based reason but rather for points to propel their own ambitions.their own selfish desires.

the wholesale implications are absolutely terrifying if you really think about it.

i would speculate that within a very short amount of time dissent and criticism of the chinese government will all but have vanished.replaced by a obedient and compliant population.

not because they are afraid of reprisal from the government but rather fueled by their own selfish desires for a better job,better living quarters,more privileges etc etc.

so a seemingly benign system utilizing social media will become of a self-propelled system,where those who do not tow the party line soon face joblessness,homelessness and ostracization.

not because the government strong armed them into submission,but rather their own neighbors.

so you are right.
there is nothing new here,but this system has taken the old forms of social control and brilliantly utilized one of humanities greatest weaknesses:selfishness.

it is the simplicity that makes this so brilliant and yet so horrifying at the same time.

Yeah, this really is beyond horrifying.

"PC is more scary that open totalitarianism"? Nope, here's your real villain: stealth totalitarianism. Fuck over your fellow man in the name of a higher score.

"Chairman, oppressing the citizenry is hard work!"
"Fear not! I have a cunning plan to make them oppress each other"

And by god will it work.... put a number beside a name and people will do anything to make that number go up.

As an example: my wife got a new car recently that shows your average fuel consumption in l/100km. I didn't pay any attention to it until I was playing in the settings and found I could switch the units to km/l. A completely innocuous change, right? Except now it's a number that can go up, and I am obsessed with making it go up everything I drive her car.

I set cruise control at the speed limit and brake as little as possible.

A/C? Not unless I am actually melting!

Corners? You'd be amazed at how fast you can round them if you let a machine control your speed!

Red lights? Er, yeah, I suppose I should stop, but then I'll have to accelerate again!

And that number doesn't even matter! FSM only knows what I'd do if it affected my mortgage rate or something....

Quite true, and it's a risk you take when you do that and suffer the consequences if it bombs, comedians push these boundaries all the time (the good ones at least, IMHO). When he joked with that disabled person about the sign language was that person genuinely offended or did they connect over the joke which might have occurred to them as well?

And I honestly can't see how hidden racism/sexism/ or any other isms I can think of is an improvement. You can't fight an enemy you can't see, you have movements like Black Lives Matter and others having to first convince everyone that there is actually a problem before they can even begin to address the problem itself. So, no, not fantastic, pretending you don't have cancer doesn't make the cancer go away, it just festers and eventually spreads throughout the whole system.

I'm glad we both agree it was a stupid decision and while it may be their stupid decision to make it doesn't mean that Zizek and others can't criticize that decision and explain why they think it's stupid.

And censorship comes in many forms, Governmental is only one of the easiest to recognize. The tyranny of the majority is a very real thing, maybe they can't throw you in jail, but they can make your life very difficult and that can be enough to silence many. And that can make it into a totalitarianism of it's own kind, I find a lot of Left Wing extremism to be equally as dangerous and crazy as the Right Wing brand.
It's been shown time and time again that even without the law behind you you can pretty much destroy someone's life just because they said something you didn't like, all I'm saying is "maybe you SHOULDN'T".

I listen to the Intelligence Squared debates sometimes and I thought this seemed relevant, interesting debate.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/1310-liberals-are-stifling-intellectual-diversity-on-campus

@Zawash
PC Master Race, checking in!

Your video, Slavoj Zizek: PC is a more dangerous form of totalitarianism, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Man, how is this even an issue in this day and age? The PC crowd at the university campuses can do their thing, and the Mac crowd can do theirs.

(Seriously, totalitarian dictatorships are much less dangerous than political correctness, because you can fight totalitarianism but how would you ever fight political correctness? Between myself and Anne Frank, I'm actually the real victim, because she had the chance to fight the nazis, but I don't even get to call people faggots D: )

In the case of this particular example the airline did cite that reason (I remember the forum buzz about it at the time).

But, I still agree with your point there. I've never been keen on the vapers who like to belligerently assert their "right to vape" everywhere they can without engaging their brains, or a bit of basic consideration.

Doubly so when snus so easy to order online & "stealth vaping" in public spaces is so easy to do.

That said, most of the negativity I've had & seen personally over the subject has been largely moralistic in nature. Specifically either "still bad for you!" or "think of the children!".

This may have been a bad example, but I could dig you up about as many media & campaign group hit pieces as you'd care to read.

Right now it's resulting in some deeply ill conceived legislation. I recognise that some sensible legal regulation is needed, but that is not what's happening at the moment. It seems like a double pronged shafting from the tobacco/pharma cartel and the morality police.

Maybe I'm just too emotionally invested on that one.

As for the other bit's. Your dealing with classic scattershot Slavoj. He writes in a much more ordered way than he speaks, but he is still very much a stream of consciousness when he gets going.
I enjoy "truffle hunting in the forest of knowledge" like that, but I understand why it rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

I this case, I don't think the specific examples are as important as the idea he is expressing (to him or myself).

That said, couldn't said health organisation be seen as pushing a moral position there? I guess your arguing it was beneficial to their business in some way? (not informed enough to have a strong position either way on that, but I think I can see where your coming from)

As for it being more dangerous than overt totalitarianism. The argument would be that you can see and fight overt ideologies, as such they are considerably less of a threat in modern developed countries.

Here I think, it would be "more dangerous" simply in the sense that there is a greater danger of anything significant actually happening.

Naturally the jackboots and piano wire kind is infinitely worse in practice. But there seems considerably less danger of that kind of totalitarianism gaining a serious foothold in most of our cultures than in times past.

The policing of peoples thoughts, language and consensual behaviour on the other hand (epitomised by the PC gone mad crowd). Could perhaps be said to be more dangerous, simply in the sense that it has more potential to do actual damage.

You could accuse that of being a bit hyperbolic, but that's our Slavoj.