Jump to content
Ice_nine

For those who defend Trump

Recommended Posts

CatherineM
3 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

There were rumours Trump donated to NAMBLA, but they endorsed Clinton...

Makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luigi
6 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

... the entire "Trump won and now we are going to be overrun by Nazis, SS troops and the KKK" thing is really over the top paranoia and a real form of hateful characterization.  

So, perhaps both sides drink Koolaid, but liberals must have some hallucinogenic drugs mixed in theirs cos they get whacked out silly crazy... 

It's called CATASTROPHIZATION of CATASTROPHIZING - to create a catastrophe in one's mind. Your mother does it when you're supposed to be home by 11 p.m. and you're still not home at midnight so she jumps to the conclusion that you're dead on the highway, with your brains splattered on the pavement. You do it when you botch a project at work and you jump to the conclusion that you'll be fired because of it, and then you'll lose your house, and then you'll have to live on the street and you'll have to eat partial cans of three-day-old cat food. 

It occurs most frequently in people who feel they have no control over their own lives - they're at the mercy of forces much larger than they, and over which they are powerless. It's a kind of cognitive distortion. In this case, it may be a result of unrealistic expectations perpetuated by the mainstream media, resulting in people feeling like they've just had the control rug pulled out from under them. 

So I can explain it. But that doesn't excuse it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax
On 11/22/2016 at 8:46 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Yep, you'll notice I posted that as well. However, like I've tried to make clear, I disagree with both Shea and Armstrong's characterization. Shea, in his usual histrionics, sees Bannon a racist. Armstrong, as we can see, easily disproves that. Then Shea in response brings up the association, which Armstrong dismisses as an example of the association fallacy. However, what I have argued is that Bannon has intentionally emboldened and mainstreamed a movement which has a significant racist underbelly, that he was aware of that racist element, and that he didn't care that he was using racism and race-baiting to further his own political career. It is easy enough to look through the Breitbart archives on race, or the alt-right, and and see this. This wasn't just an accidental feature of Bannon's embrace of the alt-right, it was essential to it.

All that being said, I think Trump and Bannon have done a good job recently of disavowing the Alt-Right. My own personal feelings are too little too late, but now I'd place the blame on the media for exacerbating the situation, rather than on Trump or Bannon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat
32 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Yep, you'll notice I posted that as well. However, like I've tried to make clear, I disagree with both Shea and Armstrong's characterization. Shea, in his usual histrionics, sees Bannon a racist. Armstrong, as we can see, easily disproves that. Then Shea in response brings up the association, which Armstrong dismisses as an example of the association fallacy. However, what I have argued is that Bannon has intentionally emboldened and mainstreamed a movement which has a significant racist underbelly, that he was aware of that racist element, and that he didn't care that he was using racism and race-baiting to further his own political career. It is easy enough to look through the Breitbart archives on race, or the alt-right, and and see this. This wasn't just an accidental feature of Bannon's embrace of the alt-right, it was essential to it.

Just got to that link you sent me, by the way. It was a good read.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. It looks like we are all more or less agreeing here that we cannot characterize Bannon as being explicitly racist. Until this thread I was only getting headlines on Facebook which were saying precisely that, so I think we have made progress here. :P

I do think there is an element to the racism of the alt-right that is basically play-racist. I think some of them are using racism as a tool to offend the people they wish to offend. I agree that in a sense this normalizes racism in the mainstream and that this is a problem. I do not think that this troll-racism is on the same level as literally join-the-KKK-and-lynch-minorities racism. Not just different in degree but also in substance.

There is a sense in which I am just being a bit contrarian. When I disavowed libertarianism I took the opportunity to see what other ideologies had been floating around which I had ignored in the past, and I did some reading of paleoconservative, neoreactionary, and alt-right material. This was a while back now, but I do remember finding racial stuff mixed in here and there which really gave me pause, especially when there was crossover with the really extreme men's rights stuff. Some of those people are truly vile individuals. I find the wide use of the word "cuck" by the alt-right to be absolutely abhorrent.

My primary concern with regards to the debate on this thread is that I think the alt-right movement is broader than we are considering. There is clearly some very troubling racism at the one extreme end, and like you are saying I think it is clear that there are wider parts of the movement which are enabling racism by normalizing it. At the same time I also think that there are elements of the alt-right, probably significant ones, who are either explicitly not racist, or who would would be far happier if there were not racial undertones in the alt-right. To what extent those elements can be sorted I am not sure, but it does at least seem plausible that the alt-right could be divorced entirely from racism, and some of these people who are tainted by their proximity to the racist undercurrents - Steve Bannon possibly being one of these, possibly not - could be rehabilitated if that were the case.

Edited by Nihil Obstat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Amppax
1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Just got to that link you sent me, by the way. It was a good read.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle here. It looks like we are all more or less agreeing here that we cannot characterize Bannon as being explicitly racist. Until this thread I was only getting headlines on Facebook which were saying precisely that, so I think we have made progress here. :P

I do think there is an element to the racism of the alt-right that is basically play-racist. I think some of them are using racism as a tool to offend the people they wish to offend. I agree that in a sense this normalizes racism in the mainstream and that this is a problem. I do not think that this troll-racism is on the same level as literally join-the-KKK-and-lynch-minorities racism. Not just different in degree but also in substance.

There is a sense in which I am just being a bit contrarian. When I disavowed libertarianism I took the opportunity to see what other ideologies had been floating around which I had ignored in the past, and I did some reading of paleoconservative, neoreactionary, and alt-right material. This was a while back now, but I do remember finding racial stuff mixed in here and there which really gave me pause, especially when there was crossover with the really extreme men's rights stuff. Some of those people are truly vile individuals. I find the wide use of the word "cuck" by the alt-right to be absolutely abhorrent.

My primary concern with regards to the debate on this thread is that I think the alt-right movement is broader than we are considering. There is clearly some very troubling racism at the one extreme end, and like you are saying I think it is clear that there are wider parts of the movement which are enabling racism by normalizing it. At the same time I also think that there are elements of the alt-right, probably significant ones, who are either explicitly not racist, or who would would be far happier if there were not racial undertones in the alt-right. To what extent those elements can be sorted I am not sure, but it does at least seem plausible that the alt-right could be divorced entirely from racism, and some of these people who are tainted by their proximity to the racist undercurrents - Steve Bannon possibly being one of these, possibly not - could be rehabilitated if that were the case.

I think we're probably in agreement then. Which, I tend to think, is more often than not the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat
7 minutes ago, Amppax said:

I think we're probably in agreement then. Which, I tend to think, is more often than not the case. 

VleWJ.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
philothea
7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

My primary concern with regards to the debate on this thread is that I think the alt-right movement is broader than we are considering. There is clearly some very troubling racism at the one extreme end, and like you are saying I think it is clear that there are wider parts of the movement which are enabling racism by normalizing it. At the same time I also think that there are elements of the alt-right, probably significant ones, who are either explicitly not racist, or who would would be far happier if there were not racial undertones in the alt-right.

(Honest question, not a setup.) What do you think the primary ideologies of the alt-right are? Their core belief, as far as I can find, is either "upsetting people for the fun of it" or "white nationalism" depending on which leader you ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihil Obstat
58 minutes ago, philothea said:

(Honest question, not a setup.) What do you think the primary ideologies of the alt-right are? Their core belief, as far as I can find, is either "upsetting people for the fun of it" or "white nationalism" depending on which leader you ask. 

Perhaps upsetting liberals. My perception of the alt-right is that its core values are nationalism, exceptionalism, and anti-political class. The nationalism is what can become problematic, but I am not totally convinced it is necessarily problematic. Patriotism, after all, is a natural virtue. It is the racial identity which is conflated with patriotism that becomes extremist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates
On 11/22/2016 at 5:28 PM, Peace said:

Come on now. You know plenty well that if Hillary won you would be moaning and complaining to everyone and their uncle for the next 4 years, just like you have been griping about president Obama for the past 8.

The fact that most of the racist groups in the USA seem to flock to Trump is a legitimate topic for discussion.

Probably, just like you'd probably spend the next 4 or 8 years defending everything Hillary does, and trying to explain to us benighted right wingnuts how she really isn't all that bad.

But the OP had nothing to do with anything Mr. Trump actually did, said, or proposed.  Instead, it simply linked to a story about some racist losers yelling "Hail Trump!" and gave it the title "For Those Who Defend Trump," declaring "these are the kind of people who support Trump" (as if all Trump supporters are "that kind of people").  This came off as trollish, accusatory, and insulting, rather than as a legitimate criticism of Mr. Trump.  As the election is already over, such tactics will not change anything, and are pointless.

On 11/23/2016 at 3:47 PM, Peace said:

It seems to me that both sides are brainwashed to a large extent. Two sides of the same coin. The left blindly accepts the narrative that the right comprises a bunch of money hungering racists who could care less about homeless people freezing in the streets. The right blindly accepts the narrative that the left comprises a bunch of Godless sodomites who love putting babies to death and taking hard-earned money out of your pocket.

Neither side seems to view the facts as they are because they are either blinded by or have an undue allegiance to a particular political party or ideology. The only difference is that one side is extremely skewed to the left, and the other side is extremely skewed to the right.

Except that it's an undeniable fact that the Left heavily and consistently supports abortion, as well as homosexual activity and other perversions, in its legislation, judicial rulings, and public rhetoric, as well as in the Dem Party platform itself.  That is not paranoia or propaganda, but obvious reality.  (Do I really need to give examples?)  

On the other hand, for all the leftist hysteria, I have yet to see an example of a mainstream conservative or Republican policy or proposal that is in fact racist, nor of anyone on the right who actually wants homeless people to freeze on the streets.

(Though both major parties love to take hard-earned money out of your pockets.  The majority of GOP "conservative" politicians are complete phonies.)

Obviously, people of all parties and ideologies have their problems, but to say that left and right are exactly the same in this regard is quite simply false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates
On 11/23/2016 at 5:06 PM, dominicansoul said:

I agree to this to some extent...but what we do with the brainwashing is vastly different... lol

Rarely do I see mobs of conservatives rioting in the streets and calling for the death of certain groups of people...

What happened to Pence for example, I doubt conservatives would ever do that to a liberal president or vice president.  And even if conservatives did such a thing, they would be reprimanded severely by the media.

It seems to me that liberals act out more aggressively than conservatives do.  What Trump did throughout his election...mouthing off stupid insults and putting his foot in his mouth was not what I would consider an example of an angry violent white supremacist.   Most of the hate I see these days comes from liberals...  the Black Lives Matter protests chanting death to cops (which proves effective by the way,) the way our Little Sisters of the Poor were treated by the media and liberal commentators, the way Scalia was scorched by the left at his passing, the way conservative women are called shame shames by liberal talking heads without fear of reprimand, the manner in which Trump supporters get beat up, the way all those "defenders" of Trump are called deplorables, bigots, homophobes, racists, misogynists, (when all we really wanted was to make sure Hilary LOST,) the entire "Trump won and now we are going to be overrun by Nazis, SS troops and the KKK" thing is really over the top paranoia and a real form of hateful characterization.  

So, perhaps both sides drink Koolaid, but liberals must have some hallucinogenic drugs mixed in theirs cos they get whacked out silly crazy... 

 

Very true.  Conservatives were obviously not happy with either Obama win, but there were no destructive and violent mass riots, and people did not skip work or school en masse to riot and burn stuff, or wallow in their own misery.

Given the behavior of much of the left, it's ironic that it's conservatives that are routinely decried as the "hateful" ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
2 hours ago, Socrates said:

Probably, just like you'd probably spend the next 4 or 8 years defending everything Hillary does, and trying to explain to us benighted right wingnuts how she really isn't all that bad.

But the OP had nothing to do with anything Mr. Trump actually did, said, or proposed.  Instead, it simply linked to a story about some racist losers yelling "Hail Trump!" and gave it the title "For Those Who Defend Trump," declaring "these are the kind of people who support Trump" (as if all Trump supporters are "that kind of people").  This came off as trollish, accusatory, and insulting, rather than as a legitimate criticism of Mr. Trump.  As the election is already over, such tactics will not change anything, and are pointless.

Except that it's an undeniable fact that the Left heavily and consistently supports abortion, as well as homosexual activity and other perversions, in its legislation, judicial rulings, and public rhetoric, as well as in the Dem Party platform itself.  That is not paranoia or propaganda, but obvious reality.  (Do I really need to give examples?)  

On the other hand, for all the leftist hysteria, I have yet to see an example of a mainstream conservative or Republican policy or proposal that is in fact racist, nor of anyone on the right who actually wants homeless people to freeze on the streets.

(Though both major parties love to take hard-earned money out of your pockets.  The majority of GOP "conservative" politicians are complete phonies.)

Obviously, people of all parties and ideologies have their problems, but to say that left and right are exactly the same in this regard is quite simply false.

I meant that they are the same in principle, not degree. 

I woud say that the Republican resistance to public health insurance is in the direction of allowing people to freeze. 

As for racism, you can read the Wikipedia article "Southern Strategy" to start.

That's all the time I have for you today.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 10:57 PM, Ice_nine said:

These are the kind of people that also support him http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Thoughts?

While we're at it, we also should link to the story about the people who blew up an abortion clinic as a "birthday present to baby Jesus" and say "these are the kind of people that also believe in Jesus Christ.  Thoughts?"

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Josh said:

 

FB_IMG_1479829117251.jpg

For a second I thought Tab was back......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anomaly
6 hours ago, Peace said:

I meant that they are the same in principle, not degree. 

I woud say that the Republican resistance to public health insurance is in the direction of allowing people to freeze. 

As for racism, you can read the Wikipedia article "Southern Strategy" to start.

That's all the time I have for you today.

Peace

Saying Republicans are against public health insurance is ridiculous.     They are against the high premium, high deductible, can't keep you doctor, convoluted, pass it so we can find out what's in it, failure we have now.  

The Southern Strategy was essentially race based fear mongering done over 50 years ago, officially recognized and apologized for 10+ years ago by the Republican Party.

The technique of fear mongering as a tactic still being used by both parties.  Secure borders=xenophobic hate;  Anti-abortion=anti-women; anti-gay discrimination = pro child molestation; business profit = worker exploitation; 

Just the fact that the few fringe nut jobs were used to broadly stereotype large segments of society is evidence of this continued fear based political manipulation that is used by BOTH sides.   Next round of tit-for-tat, exaggerated misrepresentation response...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
1 hour ago, Anomaly said:

Saying Republicans are against public health insurance is ridiculous.     They are against the high premium, high deductible, can't keep you doctor, convoluted, pass it so we can find out what's in it, failure we have now.  

I think you are wrong here. Sorry.

Quote

The Southern Strategy was essentially race based fear mongering done over 50 years ago, officially recognized and apologized for 10+ years ago by the Republican Party.

The technique of fear mongering as a tactic still being used by both parties.  Secure borders=xenophobic hate;  Anti-abortion=anti-women; anti-gay discrimination = pro child molestation; business profit = worker exploitation; 

Just the fact that the few fringe nut jobs were used to broadly stereotype large segments of society is evidence of this continued fear based political manipulation that is used by BOTH sides.   Next round of tit-for-tat, exaggerated misrepresentation response...

"It was a thing of the past". That's all good except that a variation of the same strategy played a large part in Trump's election. Why is it you think that these right wing racist groups seem to be so excited by Trump's election? Just a coincidence? Or is it because they can hear the dog whistle (e.g. not being able to clearly disovow an endorsement from the KKK, saying a judge cannot do his job because he is of Mexican ancestry, etc.)?

It ain't rocket science.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luigi
1 hour ago, Peace said:

I think you are wrong here. Sorry.

"It was a thing of the past". That's all good except that a variation of the same strategy played a large part in Trump's election. Why is it you think that these right wing racist groups seem to be so excited by Trump's election? Just a coincidence? Or is it because they can hear the dog whistle (e.g. not being able to clearly disovow an endorsement from the KKK, saying a judge cannot do his job because he is of Mexican ancestry, etc.)?

It ain't rocket science.

Politicians (of any party) who campaign for public office make statements - some of them are not accurate, or nuanced, or kind, or whatever.

The people also project their own dreams, wishes, legislative agenda, etc. onto politicians who campaign for public office. What the people want may not be what the politician is selling. What the people hear may not be what the politician said. (Miscommunication in public discourse? Who'da thunk it?!?!) The people may interpret what they hear the politician say, perhaps twisting it to satisfy their own goals and agenda. Some politicians intentionally play to the people's wishes, thinking it will garner votes; some try very hard to speak accurately, but their statements are misinterpreted nonetheless.

The same thing happened when Obama ran; the same thing happened when Name-Any-Candidate ran in any presidential race in American history. The people who voted for Clinton projected their fondest hopes onto her, but are now projecting their worst nightmares onto Trump, whether there is any basis for doing so or not. The people who voted for Trump - including many people with whom he probably disagrees - projected their worst nightmares onto Clinton during the campaign and are now projecting their fondest desires onto Trump.

No politician, of any stripe, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters say or do. Because whether we like it or not, the supporters have free will, and the politicians don't have a chokehold on each supporter. The politician, to some extent - perhaps a very large extent - is riding a wave of sentiment that s/he can't control; at best, s/he can direct some of that energy. Maybe a better analogy is that the politician is riding a bucking bronco while simultaneously trying to get it to go in the direction s/he prefers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CatherineM

I voted American Solidarity Party, so for neither side in the present debate. However, as an observer with more than the average understanding of the political process and the constitution, thus far I am pleased with his announced appointments. He could have come in with a complete one sided push, but I think he might truly be trying to represent the middle as well as the right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
1 hour ago, Luigi said:

No politician, of any stripe, can be held responsible for what certain of their supporters say or do. Because whether we like it or not, the supporters have free will, and the politicians don't have a chokehold on each supporter. The politician, to some extent - perhaps a very large extent - is riding a wave of sentiment that s/he can't control; at best, s/he can direct some of that energy. Maybe a better analogy is that the politician is riding a bucking bronco while simultaneously trying to get it to go in the direction s/he prefers.

Sure, but if you fan the flames should you be surprised when the fire spreads? It ain't like Trump is some babe in the woods who has no idea how people perceive his words. Trump says "I would like to punch that protester in the face. In the good old days someone would have carried him out on a stretcher." At a subsequent rally a Trump supporter punches a protester in the face.You can't then sit there and then say "Oh I can't be held responsible the actions of my supporters. I had nothing to do with that." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×