What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?

[LetterRip]

It's the latest and most popular debate method oozing down from Trump, LR - the tried and true "I know you are, but what am I" pre-school of argumentation.

For other examples, see "there is no collusion - the Dems colluded!"

Look at the timeline of the Clinton scandal.  There was zero credible evidence of any rape, let alone rapes in 1992.  All we had evidence of in 1992 was that he was unfaithful.  The earliest the public could have even suspect Clinton had ever raped anyone was during the Lewinski trial - and that was only if you refused to believe that woman that was alleged to have been raped - who signed affidavits and gave testimony to the fact that it never happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

So again - BS - he made a complete and utterly false allegation that is divorced from reality and facts.

[TheDeamon]

Alternatively, assertions that both sides are similarly engaging in inappropriate behavior ("Perception is now king, for both sides") might be a false premise asserted by the right because it justifies actions that are otherwise undefendable.

Uh, have you been living under a rock where you've missed the rhetoric where the United States is less than two steps away from becoming 1930's Nazi Germany headed by Donald Trump?

Obviously the right-wing of the political spectrum doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole.

[Fenring]

AntiFa and its ilk are in their face

I gotta ask, where do you guys see this AntiFa surge/prominence?
I swear 75% of my AntiFa exposure is what people here say.  The other 25% is in the news when they are at a white supremacist rally.  If the left is prone to making a much bigger deal out of KKK or Nazi prominence than is deserved given their numbers, then the obsession over AntiFa has got to be exponentially more irrational. 

In what part of the country are these people even worth talking about?  Are they active anywhere accept as a brand name / label to counter protest under?

I think Antifa is a fringe minority and don't matter that much in terms of being a force unto themselves. But what's troubling is that they share a core worldview with what is becoming mainstream 'liberalism'. Young people are being trained in universities and elsewhere about certain "truths" and eventually it will be the only game in town. What you call liberalism, which some people call classical liberalism, is on its way out as a majority left worldview. So while Antifa is the equivalent of the alt-left, the non-extremist left will still agree with them on premises if not on tactics and execution. I happen to agree with Jordan Peterson on the general classification of the up-and-coming mainstream view as being the critical theory/postmodern brand of theory. And I think a lot of people are in agreement that this theory is inherently scary and problematic in terms of its fundamental assumptions. So while it's fair to look at culture wars in terms of jurisprudence and who's won or lost in that arena, I think it shouldn't be forgotten that other areas of culture have been involved in Trump's election as well, one of which is the social milieu that has no direct connection to politics, but where I think some people viewed the irreverent Trump as tacitly standing against that cultural movement. Even if he never addressed it directly, merely by being un-PC Trump ended up as the de facto 'anti-critical theory' candidate, and I think liberals should be acutely aware of the various factors turning off or even scaring much of the U.S.

[TheDeamon]

The one caveat I'd make is that (late) 20th century "liberalism" isn't very closely linked to its 19th century, or 1790's era counterparts.

Most of the Liberals from the early 19th Century would probably be horrified by many of the positions people claiming the same label today stand by. And I'm not talking about racial or gender issues.

[D.W.]

Was that an answer to my question Fenring?  You see their prominence in universities where they are being trained?  Meaning, by the staff or by their peers? 

Listen, I'm all for the "We should fight back against fascists" message, but we are talking about a group with an agenda who, people seem to characterize as ready and willing to commit violence against their political enemies.  Or at least antagonize them and instigate conflict every bit as much as the "alt-right".  They are held up as a counter point to the bad actors on the far right.

So you've seen "AntiFa", and they are being "trained" in universities?  Do you need to be on campus as a student or teacher to see them?  I live and work in big college towns and I've not noticed them.  They aren't talked about in my circles.  But universities are just in my town and I though I work mere feet from campus I don't work "on campus". 

They are more than just a bogyman to the right leaning news consumer who need a counter point to the ugliness in their own party?  An example that, "it's not just us!"?

[Greg Davidson]

Alternatively, assertions that both sides are similarly engaging in inappropriate behavior ("Perception is now king, for both sides") might be a false premise asserted by the right because it justifies actions that are otherwise undefendable.

Uh, have you been living under a rock where you've missed the rhetoric where the United States is less than two steps away from becoming 1930's Nazi Germany headed by Donald Trump?

Obviously the right-wing of the political spectrum doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole.

The Deamon,

(1) Your comment appears to be a non-sequitur - I asked about if there was any test you could agree to concerning the most significant actions taken over the past decade. Is there any such test? In other words, can you agree to a fair test of your assertions?

(2) You then follow up with a string of concepts (you assert that there is rhetoric about Trump and Nazi Germans so the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole) that when analyzed mean almost nothing. What does the "monopoly" clause mean? If in a nation of hundred of millions, there is even a single stupid thing said by one side, then that somehow balances a larger number of stupid things said by the other side? I understand your inference is that many harmful, wrong, and false assertions of the right can be justified as long as there is at least a single voice on the left also saying stupid things, but how is this different from your assertion that both sides are the same? And if that is your assertion, why won't you agree to a test more stringent than that "monopoly" theshold?

[TheDeamon]

(1) Your comment appears to be a non-sequitur - I asked about if there was any test you could agree to concerning the most significant actions taken over the past decade. Is there any such test? In other words, can you agree to a fair test of your assertions?

As my comment was in regards to how things are perceived, and how people are responding in lieu of that perception, trying to substantiate or disprove it is going to be near impossible. And I'm not justifying what they're doing, I'm simply stating why I think they're doing what they're doing, and what I think needs to happen to de-escalate the situation. I've pretty much disengaged from the process at this point, I decided it was going to be a train wreck long ago(Spring 2016) and moved to "a reasonably safe distance" to watch from the peanut gallery. Of course, it seems my expectations for what contitutes "a safe viewing distance" seems to differ from others, who would prefer not to be in the same country, or even planet if possible when/if it happens. 

(2) You then follow up with a string of concepts (you assert that there is rhetoric about Trump and Nazi Germans so the right wing doesn't have a monopoly on hyperbole) that when analyzed mean almost nothing. What does the "monopoly" clause mean? If in a nation of hundred of millions, there is even a single stupid thing said by one side, then that somehow balances a larger number of stupid things said by the other side? I understand your inference is that many harmful, wrong, and false assertions of the right can be justified as long as there is at least a single voice on the left also saying stupid things, but how is this different from your assertion that both sides are the same? And if that is your assertion, why won't you agree to a test more stringent than that "monopoly" theshold?

Uh, at least in the corners of the internet I peruse, and most of them slant strongly to the left, it is what I keep getting assailed with on a very regular basis. So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them. It's practically a meme in its own right at this point.

[Greg Davidson]

So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them

There were 63 millions American citizens who voted for the Democratic nominee for President. How many people do you consider a "slew"? Have you seen 1,000 people make such comments, otherwise known as 0.0016% of the people who voted for Clinton? And that does not count for the proven activity of the Russian military in creating false internet personalities to promote divisive positions.

You just keep echoing your unsubstantiated assertion of false equivalence. In contrast, I can point to a very large data sample that refutes your point: during the 2016 election campaign after Trump had wrapped up the nomination, polling indicated that 59% of Trump supporters believed that President Obama was a Muslim https://www.rollcall.com/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim - if that's even roughly 59% of the 60 million that eventually voted for him, that's 35 million people.

Not equivalent.

[Crunch]

It's the latest and most popular debate method oozing down from Trump, LR - the tried and true "I know you are, but what am I" pre-school of argumentation.

For other examples, see "there is no collusion - the Dems colluded!"

Look at the timeline of the Clinton scandal.  There was zero credible evidence of any rape, let alone rapes in 1992.  All we had evidence of in 1992 was that he was unfaithful.  The earliest the public could have even suspect Clinton had ever raped anyone was during the Lewinski trial - and that was only if you refused to believe that woman that was alleged to have been raped - who signed affidavits and gave testimony to the fact that it never happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

So again - BS - he made a complete and utterly false allegation that is divorced from reality and facts.

You can have this frenzied tantrum all you want, it’s weird and telling.  I’m not sure why you’re making up that I was referring only to 1992 but I can see you’re really enjoying it.

Did you kniw that the Clinton’s were politically active and deeply connected to the democrat party after 1992? In fact, as recently as 2016 Hillary was a presidential candidate. Does any of that ring a bell? 

[LetterRip]

You can have this frenzied tantrum all you want, it’s weird and telling.

I didn't have a tantrum.  Pointing out that you lack facts isn't "having a tantrum".

I’m not sure why you’re making up that I was referring only to 1992 but I can see you’re really enjoying it

You specifically said 1992.  Perhaps reread what you wrote so you don't get confused?

[rightleft22]

'I don't care if Trump paid off a porn star' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45274175

The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

Its going to be interesting what will matter to Trump followers once his term is over.

[D.W.]

I don't know if that's fair rightleft22.  Most of these people being questioned in the link didn't seem to have any understanding that the seriousness of what's going on has little to do with where Trump put his dick (or didn't) or even about the fact these women were paid off.  Apparently the interviewer did little to clarify things.

It mostly seemed framed as asking why they weren't outraged at his bad behavior. 

[TheDrake]

"You know, I guess it says something like high crimes and all -- I don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job," Trump said.

I think that's what his supporters think also. As long as he's deporting Mexicans, banning Muslims, engaging against China, and appointing conservative judges, I doubt anything at all in campaign finance is going to matter to them. Even if he had paid a dozen women hush money directly out of campaign funds without reporting it.

Given that what we have may be a technical violation of not reporting a loan to the campaign that could easily have been made legally, it feels more like ignorance of the rules than malfeasance.

People still cheer for their favorite player even when caught using steroids. Trump's fans think that he is their only chance to stop globalists, the deep state, socialists, and a variety of other scary things.

Just as Clinton supporters weren't really bothered by the fact that he lied under oath.

[Crunch]

You can have this frenzied tantrum all you want, it’s weird and telling.

I didn't have a tantrum.  Pointing out that you lack facts isn't "having a tantrum".

You’re having a tantrum. You’re not pointing out facts, you’re just acting out.

I’m not sure why you’re making up that I was referring only to 1992 but I can see you’re really enjoying it

You specifically said 1992.  Perhaps reread what you wrote so you don't get confused?

I specifically said “before 1992”. If you weren’t so deep in the throws of your tantrum you would realize that if here is a before 1992 hat there is also an after 1992. The point made is that once Clinton was exposed as a serial rapist and Hillary his enabler, nobody cared.

So have your tantrum, play the fool. Everyone else will cont Be to be be ashamed for you.

[OrneryMod]

Please remember that we are here to discuss political and philosophical issues with one another, and it is generally not productive or permissible to negatively characterize how we believe others are acting or what their motivations might be. Doing so invariably leads to increased tensions and reduces the quality and enjoyability of the conversation for everyone involved.

[rightleft22]

I don't know if that's fair rightleft22.

I wasn't sure if it was fair either - just noting that people are not changing their minds as it concerns Trump.
those I have talked to that would never ever approve of adultery don't care when it comes to Trump

I think the Left has to stop attacking Trump character and focus on whats really behind the loyalty Trump is getting or there going to lose again.
Trump followers are going to get out and vote, I'm not so sure if the Democrats will

[TheDrake]

Trump followers are going to get out and vote, I'm not so sure if the Democrats will

Especially if their voting locations have been closed. 

[LetterRip]

You’re having a tantrum. You’re not pointing out facts, you’re just acting out.

Nothing I've written could be in any way, shape or form be properly characterized as a 'tantrum'.  This is obvious to anyone reading except yourself apparently.

I specifically said “before 1992”. If you weren’t so deep in the throws of your tantrum you would realize that if here is a before 1992 hat there is also an after 1992.

Up to and including 1992 there were no credible allegations of any rapes at all.  After 1992 (1999) there is a single allegation of rape that may or may not be credible.  There has been, at most, a single credible allegation of a rape.

So your claim was completely and utterly lacking in fact.

I think this piece gives a fair opinion on the topic of the credibility of Juanita Broarddrick's claim.  (Though it leaves out some important issues that I've seen covered elsewhere that shed doubt on her claims).

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick

I think people of good faith can believe Juanita Broaddrick's accusation, and I similarly believe that people of good faith can believe that her accusation isn't credible.  In legal terms I don't think it meets the 'more likely than not' level of evidence for even a civil trial; let alone a 'beyond reasonable doubt' of a criminal trial.

Also it seems unlikely that most people have more than a passing familiarity with the facts of the claim, and thus would not be in a position to determine whether it was credible.

So your suggesting that Democrats are some how to blame for the lack of integrity of Trump supporters is offensive.

[cherrypoptart]

TheDrake

"I think that's what his supporters think also. As long as he's deporting Mexicans, banning Muslims, engaging against China, and appointing conservative judges, I doubt anything at all in campaign finance is going to matter to them. Even if he had paid a dozen women hush money directly out of campaign funds without reporting it."

While that's all true I wouldn't have put it quite like that. Trump is acting to enforce immigration law and secure the border. Getting better deals on trade is also a good idea when you look at the trade imbalances and how we often pay more in tariffs than we charge. Conservative judges and the Supreme Court cannot have their importance overstated. It's good that tax cheats are brought to justice and if money was illegally paid even if through ignorance of the law that should be made right and supposedly Trump can afford it but none of this is any reason to open the border back up to virtually unlimited immigration, abandon fairer trade deals, and lose the courts. Nobody else would do the things Trump is doing so he is pretty much indispensable. That gives him a lot of latitude.

[Gaoics79]

I wasn't sure if it was fair either - just noting that people are not changing their minds as it concerns Trump.
those I have talked to that would never ever approve of adultery don't care when it comes to Trump

That's because the support for Trump has little to do with Trump and everything to do with the forces against Trump.

The people who support him are diametrically opposed, ideologically, to the people who are against Trump. This isn't some trivial "tribal" thing, like hating a rival sports franchise, although there could be an element of that. There are genuine, deep and fundamental disagreements between how "left" and "right" tribes view the world. The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Look at it this way: you're in a city that's under siege. The enemy is flinging rocks and arrows over the walls, attacking with battering rams. If the City falls, you believe (rightly or wrongly) that every man, woman or child will be slaughtered. Your king is a bastard. But he's your bastard. And the forces who want him deposed are openly working for the enemy. They're not even hiding it. They want him deposed because they want to open the gates so they can enter the City and slaughter everyone. Do you help them, even if you believe that their arguments are correct (the king is certainly a bastard, after all) or do you support your king, however immoral?

The people supporting Trump not only won't turn on him, they can't. From their point of view, doing so would be slitting their own wrists. Sure, someone like Mike Pence could take over if Trump were impeached and it's not as if it would mean Hillary Clinton would parachute into the white house - but Trump being deposed would send the message that his supporters were wrong to fight in the first place.  It would be blood in the water. That is how it would be portrayed and that's how it would feel. It wouldn't be about a specific leader's fitness or morality, but about the underlying rightness of the ideology that put him into power and a symbol of that ideology's defeat. As long as Trump being impeached is cast as a referendum on the results of the last election and on the rightness of the ideology behind his support, from the point of view of his supporters, turning on him is equivalent to surrender, permitting the barbarians to sack the city.

That's why there is literally nothing Trump could do to get his supporters to turn on him, so long as he pursues policies that put him on the correct side of the ideological divide.

I don't feel the "left" tribe would be any different if the shoe was on the other foot. There is no magic to Trump's support. It's completely understandable, and frankly, rational. 

[TheDeamon]

So it is hardly "one guy on the left" spouting off with these things. It's a whole slew of them

There were 63 millions American citizens who voted for the Democratic nominee for President. How many people do you consider a "slew"? Have you seen 1,000 people make such comments, otherwise known as 0.0016% of the people who voted for Clinton? And that does not count for the proven activity of the Russian military in creating false internet personalities to promote divisive positions.

Considering I'm seeing it turn up in works of fiction, mostly ranging into the 20,000+ word range, if the Russians are directly behind writing those dystopian works in colloquial English, then we're probably beyond screwed. 

[Greg Davidson]

The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize) the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters? This is not only a basic form of propaganda, it has been revealed that this was one of the ways that the Russian military attacked the US by creating false extreme voices. I have been on the left for a long time, and yet the first time I ever heard of antifa was on Ornery. Exactly how "disproportionately influential" are they?

[TheDeamon]

The people supporting Trump not only won't turn on him, they can't. From their point of view, doing so would be slitting their own wrists. Sure, someone like Mike Pence could take over if Trump were impeached and it's not as if it would mean Hillary Clinton would parachute into the white house - but Trump being deposed would send the message that his supporters were wrong to fight in the first place.  It would be blood in the water. That is how it would be portrayed and that's how it would feel. It wouldn't be about a specific leader's fitness or morality, but about the underlying rightness of the ideology that put him into power and a symbol of that ideology's defeat. As long as Trump being impeached is cast as a referendum on the results of the last election and on the rightness of the ideology behind his support, from the point of view of his supporters, turning on him is equivalent to surrender, permitting the barbarians to sack the city.

That's why there is literally nothing Trump could do to get his supporters to turn on him, so long as he pursues policies that put him on the correct side of the ideological divide.

I don't feel the "left" tribe would be any different if the shoe was on the other foot. There is no magic to Trump's support. It's completely understandable, and frankly, rational.

This is what I've been trying to convey. At this stage "it is entirely political" and in that mode of operation, reality doesn't matter, perception or narrative(/spin) if you prefer, matters. It removes everything else from consideration.

They may not be able to elucidate what they're doing, or why, but they're running on instinctive understanding at this point. Basically that because of how Trump has been "connected" to everything else they value by those who oppose Trump, it doesn't matter if they would jettison Trump as a person at the first opportunity otherwise. What matters is Trump, as a symbol, is too important to allow that to happen. So they ignore and deflect away from it.

[Gaoics79]

Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize) the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters? This is not only a basic form of propaganda, it has been revealed that this was one of the ways that the Russian military attacked the US by creating false extreme voices. I have been on the left for a long time, and yet the first time I ever heard of antifa was on Ornery. Exactly how "disproportionately influential" are they?

I think you're almost certainly correct that extremists on the left side are used extensively by the right for propaganda purposes. Trump himself has done this all the time; witness his statements that Maxine Waters was the "face" of the Democratic party.

But that said, I reject your implication that these groups are insignificant in influence. Groups like Antifa share a certain cultural language and framework that is absolutely influential in modern society, particularly among millennials and especially in the university setting. From the university this cultural framework filters down into civil society, particularly among lawyers, teachers, scholars and others.

Ideas like gender being wholly defined by the self-identity of the individual rather than sex (a concept that would have been laughable less than 10 years ago), are becoming mainstream, and are filtering into the courts and human rights tribunals of much of the developed world. Statues of famous people, such as John A MacDonald and Lord Cornwallis, are being torn down or destroyed based on perceived wrongs against minority groups.

Keep in mind that as an American, you are insulated from this to some extent, because your country still has a robust right wing intellectual stream and your Supreme Court has tilted right. In Canada, for example, there is no real right wing left among the intelligentsia, and courts are already pretty much in agreement with the fundamental framework that is the de facto view among law professors and Antifa.

If you haven't felt this seachange yet, you will. Other individuals I have known for decades, including people who once proudly called themselves "liberal" are starting to notice this.

You might say that this is just a counterpoint to the rise of right wing extremism, which is a popular view among the left, but a false one. Have a look at the latest Nazi rallies and white supremacist rallies we have seen in the past 2 years since Trump was elected. Assuming they are even actually Nazis or real fascists (Antifa considers pretty much anyone who might vote Republican to be a "fascist" if not a Nazi) The "counter" protesters (including groups like Antifa) routinely outnumber the right winger 10:1. It's no contest. I have yet to see this fearsome alt right accomplish anything thus far. Where are the hordes of angered white supremacists blocking the destruction of confederate monuments?

Mainstream voters in the centre right (what used to be considered centre, or even centre left) have perceived this change. Something is rising in our society, and it's not Nazism, although from where I stand, it's about as bad. And by the way, I am not on social media of any kind. I have zero exposure to the kind of media that the Russians are accused of manipulating.

[Gaoics79]

They may not be able to elucidate what they're doing, or why, but they're running on instinctive understanding at this point. Basically that because of how Trump has been "connected" to everything else they value by those who oppose Trump, it doesn't matter if they would jettison Trump as a person at the first opportunity otherwise. What matters is Trump, as a symbol, is too important to allow that to happen. So they ignore and deflect away from it.

I upvoted your post because I agreed with it completely. But I'd make one small clarification: it's not just the people supporting him or even Trump himself that has created this symbolic connection. Trump's enemies are eager to nurture the idea that everything Trump supports (and by implication, what his supporters value) rises or falls with his presidency. They eagerly feed this notion. The big irony of course is that Trump is one of the least ideological politicians to come along in recent memory. Up until his Presidential run, the guy was known pretty universally as a pro choice liberal. He used to contribute to the Clintons. Trump's newfound ideology is about as mercenary as they come.

[Fenring]

The right tribe doesn't just disagree with, but despises certain vocal elements within the "left" tribe, which they see as ascendant, to the point where they see those voices as an existential threat to their way of life. As Fenring noted, these groups (eg: Antifa) are numerically small, but disproportionately influential. They are absolutely a major cause of the fear driving Trump's supporters into his arms, as surely as Nazi and white supremacist supporters of Trump drive people away from him, into the arms of whoever is leading the charge against him.

Can you consider the hypothesis that those on the right seek out and publicize (and even fictionalize) the most extreme or divisive voices on the left with the explicit intention of motivating their supporters? This is not only a basic form of propaganda, it has been revealed that this was one of the ways that the Russian military attacked the US by creating false extreme voices. I have been on the left for a long time, and yet the first time I ever heard of antifa was on Ornery. Exactly how "disproportionately influential" are they?

What you say is certainly accurate. However on my side of things I can only report my personal experience, and that is that all of the more extreme left sentiment I've heard isn't from media sources reporting on it (such as FOX or even CNN) but directly from the horse's mouth either from liberal bloggers or just individuals posting on social media. So the vast majority of my observations of alarming sentiment (ranging from violently phrased animosity directed towards "people who believe in slavery and racism", to "if you believe/voted for X unfriend me now", to the usual alt-feminist stuff like articles about how men who try to open a door for a woman are The Problem) come from individuals that now only believe these things but trumpet them.

Now, perhaps it's possible that some of these 'bloggers' are really Russians posing as liberal bloggers, and that a lot of the more silly stuff I read isn't really anyone's position but since it seems nominally to be about the same sort of thing that liberals believe it's accepted as being part of the tribe. However, that wouldn't explain these same blogs being reposted and quoted. So even if we assert that there is a smear job being done it's being accepted and perpetuated by ordinary people. If so, one can hardly even fault the fake bloggers since what they publish seems to be accepted. So one can only assert one of two explanations for this acceptance: either the people looking to stir up s**t have actually hit on real things people believe and are providing an avenue for these somewhat hidden beliefs to surface (much like the explanation given on how alt-right sources give a platform for people with subtly racist beliefs to feel legitimized); or alternatively the people reposting this material simply don't understand much of anything and can't tell the difference between social justice and between communist propaganda. That latter would be a significant problem all of its own; the inability for the average person to tell the difference between Soviet social control programs and liberal values would indicate a disastrous problem with the public awareness of liberal values. Or alternatively we could ascribe this lack of discernment to a social nuclear arms race: the extremist statements sound "strong" and strength is needed to defeat the evil Right. Either way it's a problem. The truth may lie across all of these, but it seems like the old adage always returns, "rules for thee but not for me." And this mentality seems to infest all sides when victory takes priority over sensibility; consistency takes back seat to a show of force.

[Greg Davidson]

since it seems nominally to be about the same sort of thing that liberals believe it's accepted as being part of the tribe

Trump's enemies are eager to nurture the idea that everything Trump supports (and by implication, what his supporters value) rises or falls with his presidency. They eagerly feed this notion. The big irony of course is that Trump is one of the least ideological politicians to come along in recent memory.

There is a lot of speculation in these comments.  I do know some annoying people on the left who harp discuss "privilege" and "allies" in a way that I don't agree with. I also know many more of those on the left who grapple with these ideas and accept part and disregard extremes. And the majority of people I know who vote for Democrats don't really care about those kind of ideological issues, and are more concerned about gun control, healthcare, women's access to abortion and birth control, climate change, and protecting consumers from big corporations. And polling of self-proclaimed Democrats reinforces these last set of issues as what drives the vast majority of them.

My premise is that it is not a mirror image for Republicans, and polling reinforces that. While you always get some crazy responses in polling, there has been consistent evidence in polling that relatively large fractions of voters who describe themselves as Republicans really do hold extreme opinions. Trump is an ideologue and a consistent one - and his core ideological principle that goes back decades is racism. Whether it's the Central Park 5, pr that the black President isn't legitimate,  or the imaginary Muslims cheering 9/11,  or that immigrants are murderers and rapists, or the judge who can't be fair because he is Mexican, President Trump has consistently spread xenophobia and racism. And if you look at polling results, many millions of Republicans are strongly motivated by his ideology.   

[Greg Davidson]

So the vast majority of my observations of alarming sentiment (ranging from violently phrased animosity directed towards "people who believe in slavery and racism", to "if you believe/voted for X unfriend me now", to the usual alt-feminist stuff like articles about how men who try to open a door for a woman are The Problem) come from individuals that now only believe these things but trumpet them.

I can't speak to those particular individuals who made those comments, but it is at least an arguable position that many supporters of the Confederacy (particularly those who make the factually false argument that the Civil War was primarily about State's Rights and not slavery) are most accurately described as being at least apologists for slavery.

I disapprove of "violently phrased animosity", but to me the sin of of those people is of lesser moral consequence than support for those who actually commit violent acts due to easy access to guns and "stand your ground" laws that essentially say that if you are scared enough, you get to kill whoever scared you.  On the other hand, both are wrong, so you have agreement with me that doing either is inappropriate.

As for your concern with those who "unfriend" people simply because they voted for President Trump, I would not do that myself, but I also believe that Americans have every right to hold others morally responsible for the actions that they commit in a way that is proportional to the adverse action. And Trump voters committed a profound act with their vote - they knew he had bragged about committing felony sexual assault, they knew he had repeatedly made comments that even senior Republican officials described as "textbook racism", and they nevertheless invested the full power of their citizenship to help make him President. It is at least arguable that "unfriending" is an act of smaller moral consequence than of voting to make Donald Trump President.

 

[TheDeamon]

What you say is certainly accurate. However on my side of things I can only report my personal experience, and that is that all of the more extreme left sentiment I've heard isn't from media sources reporting on it (such as FOX or even CNN) but directly from the horse's mouth either from liberal bloggers or just individuals posting on social media. So the vast majority of my observations of alarming sentiment (ranging from violently phrased animosity directed towards "people who believe in slavery and racism", to "if you believe/voted for X unfriend me now", to the usual alt-feminist stuff like articles about how men who try to open a door for a woman are The Problem) come from individuals that now only believe these things but trumpet them.

My favorite one had to be fallout from Trump's initial election win, where a childhood friend of my younger sister started freaking out on facebook, raged about how intolerant people in my home state were among a few other things, and how she was going to see about moving to California.

If she's a Russian agent, I'm impressed at Russia's social networking skills.

She also wasn't completely unique, she was just the person I knew best who did that. I have plenty of other people I know, IRL and online, who have reported comparable experiences involving one or more, if not several(depending on age group), people within their circle of friends & associates (IRL and online) behaving in comparable ways and raging about the same things.

It is part of why I've kind of rolled my eyes at "It's Russian disinformation" in a number of other cases. The "Russian Conspiracy" has limits, I doubt my sister's childhood friend is part of it. I also doubt a significant number of people I know have somehow placed themselves in the situation of being within one degree of separation from the Russian intelligence services. They can't ALL be Russian agents.

If they are, we're screwed. Ditto for my earlier comments about the stuff I'm seeing in many of the (amateur) literary circles I move in. Particularly when many of those people have online presences that can be traced back across the better part of a decade, if not further. If they're Russian agents, they've been playing an exceptionally deep and long game on a mindbogglingly large scale. One above and beyond anything McCarthy could have imagined in one of his fever dreams.

And then of course, I have to fondly remember walking into a McDonald's off of I-5 in Washington State in the spring of 2017 and finding a hipster sitting at a table with his Macintosh Laptop out and it proudly displaying "This Computer attacks Fascists." In hindsight, I kind of wish I had asked him how it could tell which ones were the fascists? But even then, not yet fully aware of anti-fa, I decided that probably wasn't a wise thing to do.

[Greg Davidson]

No one believes that the majority of extreme anti-Trump sentiment is due to the Russian military, that is a strawman.  However, there has been real and ongoing intervention in American politics by the Russian military - do you deny this? There has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of the Trump Administration to even spend appropriated funds on cyber protection.  And I have yet to see anyone actually provide a plausible explanation for Presidents obsequious Trump's behavior in Helsinki.
 

[TheDeamon]

No one believes that the majority of extreme anti-Trump sentiment is due to the Russian military, that is a strawman.  However, there has been real and ongoing intervention in American politics by the Russian military - do you deny this?

Why would I? Have I ever done so? I don't recall doing so, quite the opposite actually, I think my initial responses were on the lines of "Of course they're meddling, why wouldn't they?"

There has been a remarkable reluctance on the part of the Trump Administration to even spend appropriated funds on cyber protection.  And I have yet to see anyone actually provide a plausible explanation for Presidents obsequious Trump's behavior in Helsinki.

This gets into the politics of optics, and may have little to nothing to do with any actual collusion having happened or quid-pro-quo going on behind closed doors.

Trump has been placed in the situation, starting just days after he won election, never mind assumed office, where he cannot acknowledge those things without calling the legitimacy of his electionelectoral college win into question. I may not agree with what he's done, but I can understand it. The Democrats have set him up to be damned no matter what he does on the matter.

As to his behavior re: Putin, he's always signaled that Putin was someone he liked, so his "obsequious behavior" on that front isn't shocking, and nothing I can really comment on as it isn't anything I've bothered to pay attention to.

[rightleft22]

"Of course they're meddling, why wouldn't they?"

Are you concerned by such meddling?

My own opinion, is that the meddling does not call into the legitimacy of his electoral college win (gerrymandering might )
Trump and his followers can't acknowledge the meddling,  or explain it away as just something nations do to each other, is physiological. A refusal to see the shadow and the cognitive dissonance of previous held views on Russia and the like. 

If Trump was a Democrat with similar connections to Russia and 'Liking of Putin' no way, absolutely no way, would the GOP let it go.

[DonaldD]

That's because Democrats are communist and anti-american, whereas Trump is inherently anti-communist and a patriot, as are his supporters.  As such, the meaning of those same actions, if taken by Democrats, would be completely different.

[TheDeamon]

"Of course they're meddling, why wouldn't they?"

Are you concerned by such meddling?

My own opinion, is that the meddling does not call into the legitimacy of his electoral college win (gerrymandering might )

Your view is different than what a large number of people would try to make it if Trump acknowledged that there was Russian meddling that benefited him politically. Even if he wasn't involved in it.

As to my being concerned about it? Yes, I am. But that's a very broad sliding scale with a lot of competition. It IS a concern, but it isn't anything I am freaking out over, and highly doubt anything worth freaking out about will be found. So overall, it is a very low priority concern being given not a lot of significance on my part.

As part of a larger trend, it certainly warrants heightened vigilance all the same.

[Fenring]

I can't speak to those particular individuals who made those comments, but it is at least an arguable position that many supporters of the Confederacy (particularly those who make the factually false argument that the Civil War was primarily about State's Rights and not slavery) are most accurately described as being at least apologists for slavery.

If we were talking about those folks who insist on flying the Confederate flag then I'd probably agree with you. However the "if you believe in slavery" meme (if I may call it that) has nothing to do with being a literal Confederate and is actually about taking sides in the cultural war. Basically the gist seems to boil down to "if you're not on our side you believe in slavery." That sort of minimalist strawman is often the tack taken by alt-liberals, with the motte-bailey built in that converts into "we mean you subconsciously abet systemic racism" when pressed. The height of the "if you believe in slavery you are the literal devil" mania came at around the time of the Charlottesville incident, where anyone either defending the initial rally, or speaking negatively about the counter-protest by parties including Antifa, were meant to be understood as standing squarely in the "believes in slavery" box; or alternatively in the "believes in fascism" box. But it doesn't really matter what the box is, the point is that the position put forward is that "we hate X group, and if you dispute our position or oppose us you will be understood not only to support X group but to be one of them." In this case, X was "Nazi fascist evil scum" and it was presented as being an unassailable position to denounce them, despise them, and mark them as evil. In the wake of the Charlottesville incident, Trump's remark that both sides shared some blame is to this day being used as proof of Trump's fascist and racist tendencies.

The real trick about denouncing these easy-sounding targets like racism and fascism is that an entire worldview was being subtly denounced at the same time, so that by 'winning the battle' against those 'fascists' a blow would also be struck against a whole swathe of people and beliefs not really related to the protesters. These subliminal insertions of identity (e.g. that by beating the protesters we stick it to rednecks, conservatives, and patriarchists everywhere) are part of what instinctively drives people over to the right to vote Republican, btw. Because they know it isn't just about one thing.
 

I disapprove of "violently phrased animosity", but to me the sin of of those people is of lesser moral consequence than support for those who actually commit violent acts due to easy access to guns and "stand your ground" laws that essentially say that if you are scared enough, you get to kill whoever scared you.  On the other hand, both are wrong, so you have agreement with me that doing either is inappropriate.

On a 1-to-1 basis I agree with you. However if default rhetoric veers towards being "violently phrased" then the long-term damage could be worse than small numbers of individuals who act like cowards or bullies, at whom most people roll their eyes already or worse. It isn't mainstream among conservatives to want to hurt people, whereas *if* it were to become mainstream to rail in violent terms against 'evil' people I think that would indeed be a significantly bad phenomenon.

It is at least arguable that "unfriending" is an act of smaller moral consequence than of voting to make Donald Trump President.

What you say sounds reasonable...but in fact I think it isn't. I would suggest to you that breaking lines of communication and ostracizing people (to whatever extent possible) is far, far worse than being wrong about all kinds of things and even doing wrong to boot. There is simply no coming back from refusing to speak to people you think are wrong, or denouncing them and walking away. The chance that you ever convince them or find common ground becomes zero. And I know what the thought is: they won't listen anyhow so what's the point. But actually that rationale is a form of moral despair. You, personally, seem to do quite well making repeated attempts to get through to people who you have every reason to expect will disagree once again, but in the case of many other people the thought that an attempt to convince others will fail is simply unacceptable, and so they want nothing more to do with them. I think "unfriend me and go away" is very underrated in terms of being a form of violence; not physical of course, but a mental attack in the form of "you are worthless, begone." While the refrain is always valid that a person has the right to choose with whom to associate, all the same discarding dissenting people is a grave offence against reason in my opinion. It's the person who disagrees the most who most needs to see that good people believe otherwise. When the 'wrong opinion' is just a symbol then it's easy to hate. But when someone you really care about or respect has that wrong opinion it becomes a completely different beast: why do they feel that way? Or maybe they know something I don't?

[Gaoics79]

It is at least arguable that "unfriending" is an act of smaller moral consequence than of voting to make Donald Trump President.

What you say sounds reasonable...but in fact I think it isn't. I would suggest to you that breaking lines of communication and ostracizing people (to whatever extent possible) is far, far worse than being wrong about all kinds of things and even doing wrong to boot. There is simply no coming back from refusing to speak to people you think are wrong, or denouncing them and walking away. The chance that you ever convince them or find common ground becomes zero. And I know what the thought is: they won't listen anyhow so what's the point. But actually that rationale is a form of moral despair. You, personally, seem to do quite well making repeated attempts to get through to people who you have every reason to expect will disagree once again, but in the case of many other people the thought that an attempt to convince others will fail is simply unacceptable, and so they want nothing more to do with them. I think "unfriend me and go away" is very underrated in terms of being a form of violence; not physical of course, but a mental attack in the form of "you are worthless, begone." While the refrain is always valid that a person has the right to choose with whom to associate, all the same discarding dissenting people is a grave offence against reason in my opinion. It's the person who disagrees the most who most needs to see that good people believe otherwise. When the 'wrong opinion' is just a symbol then it's easy to hate. But when someone you really care about or respect has that wrong opinion it becomes a completely different beast: why do they feel that way? Or maybe they know something I don't?

I completely agree: it is infinitely worse. In fact, one of the fundamental differences between the USA, Canada and other Democratic nations and many third world democracies is that here people do manage to separate the political from the personal, or have in the past. The idea that you can vote Republican, but work or date or drink with someone who votes Democrat, isn't a small achievement in our societies. Casting a ballot for the wrong person is transitory, and in a secret ballot system with two parties that have largely pursued similar overarching policies, an act with far lesser ramifications for civil society than cutting out all your friends of the wrong political pursuation, much less boycotting establishments like restaurants (or conversely, establishments boycotting customers belonging to the wrong group).

[TheDeamon]

While the refrain is always valid that a person has the right to choose with whom to associate, all the same discarding dissenting people is a grave offence against reason in my opinion. It's the person who disagrees the most who most needs to see that good people believe otherwise. When the 'wrong opinion' is just a symbol then it's easy to hate. But when someone you really care about or respect has that wrong opinion it becomes a completely different beast: why do they feel that way? Or maybe they know something I don't?

The whole post was great, but this cannot be emphasized enough.

edit: Huh, never noticed that kind of "nested markup" behavior before, but as what I initially posted was technically incorrect, it's own unusual behavior is acceptable I guess. Fixed it to conform to "proper standards."

[TheDrake]

So it was wrong to boycott companies that did business with South Africa during apartheid? Was it wrong of the civil rights movement to boycott buses in Montgomery? What about boycotting Canal Street where they had segregated facilities?

More recently from Hobby Lobby to the NRA, boycotting is about making your voice heard. Non-violently expressing your opinion about how those companies behave, or perhaps more clearly, how the leadership of those companies behave. Conservatives are doing that now with Facebook, or the NFL, or I guess Keurig for some reason.

I see such things as a natural expression of one's opinion in a Democracy. It certainly beats blocking roads, breaking windows, or marching around with Tiki torches.

[cherrypoptart]

People shouldn't have their company valued based on whether or not someone thinks they can eventually be made to agree with them. I thought that was the whole foundation for valuing diversity, but here we see by the actions of those who professed it most that it was all based on a lie. I haven't unfriended or ostracized anyone because they voted for Obama or Hillary. I don't even see them as being wrong. I just see them as having different priorities. Their choices may have been right for them but they aren't the right choices for me because we simply need different things. 

Just to clarify by here I don't mean here at Ornery because all you people are pretty great but I mean here in our present society.

[TheDeamon]

So it was wrong to boycott companies that did business with South Africa during apartheid? Was it wrong of the civil rights movement to boycott buses in Montgomery? What about boycotting Canal Street where they had segregated facilities?

Most of those boycotts were targeting abstracts, or otherwise "sending a message" and IIRC, the Montgomery buses were operated by the city. :/

The more important thing there was boycott != exile, scapegoating, or ostracism.

"If you did ____ then unfriend me, or let me know so I can unfriend you." Boycotts were about hurting those operations on their financial bottom line, and make the decision a financial one, if nothing else.

How do you boycott a friendship? I don't know about you, but my friendships aren't financial transactions. So someone ending their friendship isn't really going to hurt me financially more often than not. (Although in time, it very well might, given what some friends can bring to the table; But if that's what you're doing, "kowtow to my political whims or no help from me!" Then you aren't a very good friend anyhow)

When it comes to ending a Friendship or (at least civil) association over an issue, you're talking about scapegoating, ostracism, or even exile(I know, kind of redundant given what scapegoating is, but some people don't know better).

You don't improve communications or understanding, mutual or otherwise, by cutting all ties.

But it now seems to be the favored modus operandi of many "on the left" because us conservatives are evil haters who think Society was just fine circa 1840 and why can't we just go back to those days? 

That kind of evil cannot be tolerated in this modern age of enlightenment, and the best way now seems to be that we just cast them out of proper society instead.

[DonaldD]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "scapegoat".  Why don't conservatives believe in personal responsibility anymore?

[Fenring]

How do you boycott a friendship? I don't know about you, but my friendships aren't financial transactions.

Just FYI, I suspect Drake was responding to jasonr's comment linking cutting ties with individuals to boycotting companies like restaurants.

[cherrypoptart]

You shouldn't keep ties with people you disagree with just because you might someday be able to change their minds whereas if you cut ties you never will. You should keep ties with people you disagree with because you disagree with them, even if it's profoundly, and it's nice not to surround yourself with people who all think like you do. That's real diversity. That's what gets me about all the people cutting ties with anyone who supports Trump. They are doing exactly what they always tell everyone not to do; they are being intolerant of people because they are different.

[D.W.]

You should keep ties with people you disagree with because you disagree with them, even if it's profoundly, and it's nice not to surround yourself with people who all think like you do

This applies to those of us who are willing to except friction and strife among our friends and family in exchange for sharpening testing and augmenting our beliefs and opinions. 

Most here at Ornery are going to fall into that category.  Hate to break it to you, that is a minority opinion.  Worse yet, those who try to live by it are probably going to have an even lower exposure rate to contrary opinions than others.  Because WE are the ones who get unfriended / unfollowed by those who prefer the comfort of reinforced beliefs and echo chambers.  Not to mention the side liners who want no part in the whole mud-fight and stay out of politics.

It goes both ways too.  I got dropped by my step-dad off facebook after being critical of Trump.  (something I don't make a habit of doing on that platform which I tend to keep fairly non-political)

If you feel you must drop someone, do it because they are being disrespectful, toxic or stress you out.  There is a huge difference between sparing and matching wits for mutual benefit, and verbally attacking each other and letting politics ruin an otherwise functional relationship.  We had personal relationships before social media.  We can still have them excluding that medium of communication. 

[TheDeamon]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "scapegoat".  Why don't conservatives believe in personal responsibility anymore?

Modern or historical as I just discovered? Hadn't realized the modern usage had shifted somewhat.

Historically it was this:
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat

I'd also be inclined to group in the Athenian practice of banishing prominent/"dangerous" members of the community for years at a time a form of the same as well, just aimed more at the top rather than the bottom.

I have no problem taking responsibility for things I did do. I don't know of anyone, aside from a certain religious figure, who gladly takes responsibility for things they did not do, and nobody close to them did either.

[NobleHunter]

The Athenians stopped ostracizing people because it was corrupted by politics. If we started doing it, it would be just another way to screw with political enemies.

[TheDeamon]

The Athenians stopped ostracizing people because it was corrupted by politics. If we started doing it, it would be just another way to screw with political enemies.

Uh, we're already doing it, we just don't have a legal system built around it, or a formalized process--yet.

[TheDrake]

On the other question, of friendships and exposure to other ideas, I definitely support the value of such exposure. I may have mentioned before, this is one of the reasons that I go to Breitbart and read the comments section. By reading, as much as blatant racism, homophobia, violent threats, and other vitriol disgusts me, I can still learn to empathize with the less outrageous people there and gain insight to the nationalist movement and recognize that some people can have some of those views and not be the worst of the worst.

I have friends that are strongly in line with various Trump policies. I don't need to unfriend them, either online or IRL, because they also give me respect. If they start shouting about libtards, or how Democrats are traitors, or start marching side by side with white supremacists, then yeah I'm going to put them out of my life.

There is a danger to scorched earth ostracism, to be sure. I met someone here in Texas who was a pretty decent individual, but used the N-word like he got a dollar every time he said it. I explained to him that I wasn't cool with that, and over time his behavior around me changed. I could imagine many people who would immediately cut ties over that - especially since the company you keep reflects on you. To change society for the better, one must make an effort from time to time.

Especially dangerous is the public ostracism of people for things they did many years before. I shudder to think of the horror some of my friends, especially younger ones, would think of me if they had a transcript of what I said and how I acted in my teens.

In today's world, redemption seems to be vanishing. American History X comes to mind where you had a violent white supremacist whose mind is changed by a patient, understanding black man in prison. That he comes to loathe what he had been. That he got a second chance and tried to use that chance to do good. 

I just searched out Louis CK, and I guess he just barely did his first set in 10 months since his allegations. To me, he is a model for redemption. He immediately owned up to what he had done, making the statement, "nothing about this that I forgive myself for.”

He wasn't billed, and apparently the club got mostly positive feedback for having him on. I think his no compromising, no excuses response is a big part of his early acceptance in small circles, but it remains to be seen what happens if he is billed or tries to place shows he produces on a network. Will certain activists come out of the woodwork to protest at his shows? Will they demand advertisers abandon anything he puts on TV? Some will, I'm sure.

[Greg Davidson]

If we were talking about those folks who insist on flying the Confederate flag then I'd probably agree with you. However the "if you believe in slavery" meme (if I may call it that) has nothing to do with being a literal Confederate and is actually about taking sides in the cultural war. Basically the gist seems to boil down to "if you're not on our side you believe in slavery." That sort of minimalist strawman is often the tack taken by alt-liberals, with the motte-bailey built in that converts into "we mean you subconsciously abet systemic racism" when pressed.

You take a twist with this argument that I believe is invalid. I was referring to literal Confederacy apologists (which may even be a smaller group than those who show a Confederate flag), and you immediately segue over to an assertion of a totally different interpretation that is "often the tack taken by alt-liberals".  I see that argument as another attempt at false equivalence by avoidance of math. There are many tens of millions of Americans who have had views supporting the Confederacy.  How many Americans do you think fit into the category of being an "alt-liberal" who often addresses any difference in policy as advocacy for slavery? And remember, part of my argument is that conservative media intentionally promotes false narratives to exaggerate that kind of opposition, because it is the best strategy to distract from the fact that millions of citizens at the core of the Republican party will actually defend the slaveholding Confederacy.

[Greg Davidson]

I completely agree: it is infinitely worse.

I believe that you undervalue the moral significance of your vote if you believe that Facebook "friendships" are vastly more important than the life and death acts that are performed by our country. If voters don't see their votes as very significant as individuals, in the aggregate then who do you believe is morally responsible for the elected government of our country?