Saturday, September 16, 2017

Words at odds: compatibilist and incompatibilist

   The “incompatabilist” sees a world that can be logically determined and is totally at odds with the non-logical “compatibilist.”

   This 21st century has so far produced a world of major powers with philosophical beliefs at odds with the silent majority of individuals, who are increasingly thinking of pursuing an illogical sense of freedom to act in favor of their motives, without regard for the direction dictated by the established institutions.
   Thereby guaranteeing the anti-establishment “compatibilist” at odds with the institution bound “incompatabilist” globalist, at least until mid-century. 

   In 2015, the UK was struck with a “Brexit” vote of “compatibilist” individuals with the freedom to vote for their motives.
   Then the 2016 US Presidential election was another win for “Compatabilist” free spirits, who were intuitive when it came to chose the kind of candidate with a team to scour for voters in the states needed to win the Electoral College vote.
   Enough individuals with “free will to act according to one’s motives without arbitrary hindrance from individuals or institutions” resided in the states where the voters elected a Presidential candidate the polls predicted as the certain loser.

   *Wikipedia’s definition of the “compatibilist” provides the reason why the 2016 election result is still such a shock.

   At odds with the US 2016 result, now the bi-coastal elite class who have the money to fund their “inconpatabilist” beliefs are into the fall of 2017, and they have spurred the minority political party loser to empower “incompatabilist” voters to resist and protest.
   There are plenty of California silicon valley “determinedly incompatabilist” donors to fund seminars created to lure “incompatabilist” individuals who will gather others to secure a 2020 landslide electoral College vote for the “incompatabilist” candidate in addition to the popular vote.
   Other wealthy donors like George Soros fund “incompatabilist” groups like, and others like-minded also fund paid organizers who specialize in gathering all “incompatabilists” in the 1-party majority states where the losing candidate won the popular vote—these organizers pay social media experts to post an “incompatabilist” calendar of protest marches providing information about the time, date and place.
   As well, the losing political party has rich “incompatabilist” donors who are funding groups that specialize in uncovering the kind of evidence that will sour “compatibilist” voters, and convert them to voters who vote for "incompatabilist" candidates.

   The “incompatabilist” major newspapers have hired teams of reporters to dig into every uncovered nugget of grounds for impeachment—the stories produced  quote “unnamed sources” but provide fodder for the “incompatabilist” agenda major TV networks to endlessly pick at with glee.
   However, even when personal opinion becomes the basis for headlines, nine months into the first term of POTUS 45, evidence proves elusive for an indisputable impeachable offense that will drive the nation’s 2016 legally elected POTUS out of office.

   The results of all of the above have yet to prove any of the suppositions presented in great detail.

   Perhaps the 2018 US Congressional and Senatorial elections will determine whether free will versus dogmatic logic can win enough votes  to change the balance of power in a nation divided.

No comments:

Post a Comment