Do not let perfect evidence to become thy enemy, we don't need more blood as proof

I do not need to see blood in the streets before I propose that Trump is a menace that needs to be impeached. I have an epistemic reason to believe this. My proposition is analytic. My understanding of philosophy, behaviorism, history, and political science brings me to this belief. My conclusion is a priori rather than exclusively a posteriori.

A priori  (“from what is before”)  is coming up with a conclusion from a theoretical deduction, obtained through reading about various subjects. A priori is how people often come up with conclusions for multiple scenarios in the humanities. 

A posteriori (“from what is after”)  is coming up with a conclusion from actual observations or experiences. What they call empirical evidence.   A posteriori is how people come up with a conclusion for various scenarios in the sciences. 

The United States is currently in a period where observing to “wait and see blood” is dangerous. I don’t need to literally see the dead people to understand that the current administration is dangerous.

I have noticed about this situation amongst some of my associates who were political science, history, or philosophy majors is that they seem to want to put strict a posteriori conditions on what is currently happening in our political arena before they act. Not only that, but they want to mock and laugh at anyone who presents them with historical evidence or has the audacity of thinking independently from what they view as valid empirical evidence.

We actually do have a posteriori evidence on how fascism happens, but certain individuals dismiss this evidence, since it did not happen in the United States and conditions were slightly different, you know “not being in the United States.”

So owing to the “philosophy” of American exceptionalism, these individuals put no credence to how Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, or Vichy France, Chile under Pinochet, Argentina under Perón, and Brazil under Vargas became authoritarian dictatorships.

While this is infuriating, we actually don’t necessarily need that evidence to predict what will happen if Trump gets to continue to violate our laws with impunity. If he is not removed via the impeachment process, he will not leave.

We can use a priori to come up with a reasonable conclusion for a man who has engaged in stochastic terrorism, violated repeatedly the  Constitution,  actively infecting others with a contagious disease the first time he was President a disease he contracted owing to his rampant narcissism.  

In this case a priori thinking could lead to the same conclusion as a posteriori thinking.

Both ways of thinking are valuable, and they both have times and places. 

Empirical evidence is not the only evidence that offers a valid path to come up with a reasonable conclusion.  Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” To have your thinking ruled exclusively by empirical evidence is to allow yourself to be manipulated by liars who use data points to peddle ideas such as scientific racism. But if you’re going to dismiss data and history, the conclusion can’t be waiting until you come up with present empirical evidence that fits ideas that you feel to be true like a glove, it certainly can’t be the answer if people’s lives will shortly be on the line.

Blood on the streets evidence is what we want to avoid.

Sometimes you have to think independently, to save lives.

Right now, we need to be thinking deductively and independently.

Just because we have never seen a specific scenario occur within the United States, it does not mean a scenario could never happen. 

We need to act before we get overwhelming empirical evidence, which will look like (more) mass death and (more) explicit human rights violations.

Our current state of affairs is not going to suddenly level up with a signed letter and heart stickers that say, “I’m taking away your voting rights and then shoot you in the head in the middle of the night.”

I do not understand how people with libraries full of philosophers from Kant to Fanon cannot pivot in their thinking during this current time simply because “this never happened before.”

Political purity on human made concepts seems to forget that humans in their very nature are infallible. 

It’s almost as if some people have a lack of situational awareness. I have to wonder if they understand that it isn’t actually another person there when their own face stares back at them in the mirror. 

How is anyone still discussing “is he a fascist” at this point? The current administration has repeatedly broken the law, violated our laws, invoked violence, and threatening the United States’ democratic process.

How can we entertain enabling a fascist? How can we continue to dismiss historical evidence and deductive thinking?

This administration will take any opportunity to exploit any fragile point in his opposition.

Politics do not work like biology. Politics don’t follow a static law.

There is no “if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C” in politics. 

To me, it is the highest insult to the humanities and math for a person to mock the idea of thinking deductively. Outside of communicable diseases, thinking deductively and independently saves lives. 

Pure reason is how we decide how to proceed in practice with the least amount of blood shed. 

There is absolutely no reason that we should all have to wait until a military marches in and starts “disappearing people” before calling Trump a fascist dictator. We must take full control of this situation before it gets any worse. If certain individuals want to dismiss both deductive logic and historical evidence, then I have to begin to suspect their true motives. A person who dismisses all evidence during this time is either ignorant or accelerationist and both groups are dangerous to the unorganized and unprepared left and the United States public generally. Anyone who enables a fascist is a fascist.

Pure reasoning and deduction are not games. They are paths to guide us in a practical situation.

To me, as a philosopher, what we are experiencing now is what anyone who studied philosophy has been trained to do. Our philosophy degrees are not to look back and quote the dead, but to look forward and, through thought, guide humanity to continue on the path of life and peace. Everyone needs to learn to pivot. After we remove this fascist we can continue to have discourse on improving society, but if we do not get rid of him, this will all be a moot point.

I’m not ready for silence are you?