For the last four years, I’ve been unable to settle to my own satisfaction the question of what poses the greater internal threat to the United States: the Presidency of Donald Trump, or the growing influence of Critical Social Justice Theory (CSJT). However, with Biden’s win now confirmed, my dilemma is resolved: with Trump on the way out, the threat he posed will soon disappear (or at least diminish considerably); with Biden on his way in, the threat posed by CSJT will become the greatest internal threat to American democracy.
As James Lindsay has recently noted, despite his official stance as a moderate Democrat, Biden has proven himself willing to pander to the radical left. The most disturbing indication of this, to my mind, is his having singled-out the eradication of so-called “systemic racism” as a central priority of his presidency. This suggests that he himself accepts some dimensions of the CSJT framework, which demands that we explain every disparity with a pronounced racial dimension as a manifestation of “systemic racism.” Biden’s hot-take on the Capitol protest-turned-riot/insurgency of this past Wednesday reveals just how far this has become the lens through which Biden himself sees the world. Taking a cue from his college-aged granddaughter, Biden insinuated that the differences in law-enforcement response between the BLM protests of last June and Wednesday’s pro-Trump criminality were due to “systemic racism,” saying:
No one can tell me that if it had been a group of Black Lives Matter protesting yesterday, they wouldn’t have been treated very, very differently than the mob of thugs that stormed the Capitol. We all know that’s true…
But do we?
Biden’s comment was prompted in part by a photo showing members of the National Guard lining the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during June’s BLM protests in a militaristic show of force. This is significant, because multiple news sources reported shortly after the event that the Capitol Police, who have jurisdiction at the Capitol building, refused offers of assistance from the National Guard in days prior to Jan. 6, in part because they had taken heed of criticisms leveled at law enforcement during the BLM protests and did not want to be subject to the same criticisms – in other words, they decided to enact exactly the kinds of changes in their approach to policing that the BLM protesters wanted. Suppose for a moment that this is part of the truth – the part that most directly explains why there was no show of force on par with what we saw in June. Where’s the racism in that?
Suppose that it had been BLM protestors at the Capitol yesterday, and that authorities had exactly the same level of advance warning that they, rather than a pro-Trump mob, would be there. Would the Capitol Police have reversed course and planned to have the National Guard present? If we accept that they were driven to take a different approach by a desire to avoid the mistakes and criticisms that accompanied the June BLM protests, the reasonable inference is that they would not have done anything differently.
In fact, this is just one of a host of differences between the June and January events which stand as confounding variables to the inference that the different responses were due to race-related differences in the two causes and the two crowds supporting them. To name just a few obvious differences beyond black vs. white, it was reasonable to suppose, in advance of violence breaking out in either case, that BLM protesters are predominantly politically left, anti-Trump, and have a negative view of law-enforcement, while Wednesday’s group was politically right, pro-Trump, and pro law-enforcement. Suppose the fact that conservatives are characteristically more committed to law and order, and to upholding our traditions and institutions, lulled the Capitol Police into a false sense of security. Or suppose the fact that Wednesday’s group was a pro-Trump crowd explains why Trump refused emergency requests to send in the National Guard after violence erupted. Where’s the racism in either of these scenarios?
Of course, many will reject such explanations for the difference in approach. But why? Until more is known, shouldn’t we give the Capitol Police the benefit of the doubt? Shouldn’t we accept people’s explanations for their actions unless we have strong reason to doubt that their explanations are true? Shouldn’t we consider all reasonable explanations before concluding that racism is the real explanation? Not according to CSJT, which teaches people to assume and dogmatically defend race- or other oppressed-class-based explanations while dismissing alternative explanations as oppressive power-plays by those invested in the very systems of oppression that CSJT assumes both to exist, and to be the fundamental realties in which we live and move and have our being.
When Biden’s granddaughter texted him “a little over an hour and a half after the chaos started,” on Wednesday, she said of the differential response to the rioters “Pop, This isn’t fair.” In fact, what isn’t fair is cynically assuming the worst about people when there are reasonable alternative interpretations readily available. This is exactly what those “cynical theories” of the CSJ family teach people to do, and it is exactly what Biden did in automatically construing this as a manifestation of “systemic racism.”
113 comments
I wouldn’t be too perturbed by Biden’s statement about eradicating ‘systemic racism’. Clearly he is saying what he has been told some of his voter base wants to hear. Like many other promises it will soon evaporate into a meaningless slogan- whether it is him or Harris presiding over affairs.
Which is sad because I agree there ARE structural inequalities and many problems related to that. They probably won’t be addressed either as the business of pleasing limited wealthy stakeholders assumes its usually priority. Bt at least the CRT cult will not get much traction either.
Why has no one mentioned the following idea:
The people who voted for Trump in 2016 knew exactly what they were getting. They wanted someone to get rid of CRT, word nazis, social justice related laws/ideas. Voters were sick and tired of being told how to behave by their “betters”. Trump was a conduit, not an instigator.
Aaron, do you ever associate with anyone who doesn’t think like you do?
Regardless of how the 6th played out…IMO if this is the neo nazi take over that the left has been warning about since Trump took office…were gonna be alright… the front line of the so called insurgency looked like a round up of random Fortnite skins. If a handful of dumbass trolls are a threat to the republic then we may have some concerns.
Btw check out the Ryan Long sketch called radical left vs radical right, about an interradical protest couple. Comedy Brilliance…
Aaron – I too find the response to Jan 6th very troubling (if not predictable).
I would love to ask the likes of Kamala Harris which was the correct way for local police to handle the situation. Was lining the steps with hundreds of armed guards and calling in the national guard to prevent any discord correct – as they did with earlier protests? Or was providing minimal armed forces that were ultimately over-whelmed correct – as they did on Jan 6th?
If the first was the proper response, then what the hell was everyone talking about the last several months as they complained about the national guard being activated etc. If they think Jan 6th was done right, then…I don’t know what to tell them.
They can’t have it both ways! Except in crazy CSJ world they will. They’ll simultaneously argue that police need to stand down (be defunded) and that insufficient show of force is evidence of systemic racism. As predicable as the sun rising, if/when they get their way and police enforcement is severely curtailed and crime sky-rockets in relative high-crime communities, they will say it is still more evidence of systemic racism because the rising crime disproportionately effects minorities.
John P-
The reality is it’s about principals, not principles.
In a nod to author Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron welcomes you with open arms.
Chris-
Re: “Yeah, you’re fucking wrong dude. If I drive drunk and kill half your family with my car, do you honestly think anyone is going to care what I intended to do? This argument is nonsensical.”
I don’t think you understand that intent is key to proving certain crimes. Pleas deals, for example, are sometimes offered why a prosecutor thinks there was intent, but only has the evidence to show negligence.
Here’s an explanation that should be simple enough to understand:
Therefore, the characteristic of intention is positive – namely that the accused will or knew or foresaw something. While the characteristic of negligence is negative, the accused did not will or know or foresee something even though it is reasonable to believe that the accused should have.
Strike “Why” and replace with “when”.
I am almost certain you are wrong that the court needs to assume Trump intended to incite a riot, to hold him accountable for inciting a riot. If I am wrong in that assumption, then our legal system needs to change.
Chris-
Apparently, you’ve never heard about malicious prosecution. If the court did not assume Trump was acting willfully/with intent and charged him with an intent crime, that would be malicious prosecution. Is that what you advocate?
Contained in the charge of incitement is the underlying assumption Trump meant to or “intended”/”willfully” engaged in certain actions.
Other ideas to think about: Maybe you’re unfamiliar with the fact the burden of proof of guilt is on the state, not the individual. You may have heard of this idea called “presumption of innocence”.
As to: ” then our legal system needs to change”: You may want to consider the implications of your statement.
I hate the fact that ‘we’ (politically right, center right) are now trying to defend lawless, destructive rioting. Weren’t ‘we’ just lambasting the lawless, destructive rioting that was occurring around the country last summer? Nuance aside, both were despicable and don’t deserve defense.
And for those who think I’m wrong, please consider what your opinion of last week’s display would be if it were happening in the context of the other political spectrum. I get so tired of the political double-vision of only recognizing ‘bad’ things on the other side and willful blindness to those same things on their own side. It’s ‘bad’ or ‘good’ no matter which side is responsible.
Also, not all criticism of Trump is or rightfully should be ascribed to “Orange Man Bad” group-think or TDS. The Woke immediately label all criticism of CRT as racist and/or bigoted. We shouldn’t be equally blind in dismissing criticism of ‘our’ guy.
Reasonable post, John P. I, for one, have never considered Trump “my guy.” I would have voted for Sanders had the Democrats not torpedoed his campaign twice.
What happened in DC was reprehensible. I don’t think I’ve ever said it wasn’t. What I’ve been discussing more is the response to and characterization of it when compared to other recent events. While it was nowhere near as destructive as what happened in, say, Minneapolis, it was much worse than what took place during many confirmation hearings in recent memory. Make of that what you will, and I expect you will see more charges from this particular riot stick than you have for other, larger riots in Chicago, for example.
Trying to judge Trump as a politician will always end in failure, because he’s a businessman (not a very good one unless he’s marketing himself, but still…). He’s used to and clearly comfortable with authoritarian structures where he can hire and fire at will, ignore any outside input, and generally act like a proto-Millennial with Twitter. Elon Musk is another example of the type, as is Mike Bloomberg. I, for one, never expected him to behave in a reasonable and rational way, because he never has before. Why would he suddenly change? That kind of behavior has always rewarded him in the business world (or he feels it has, which amounts to the same thing).
No one here defended what happened at the capitol. What happened at the capitol was stupid, foolish, and counter productive. What’s not happening here is a contextualization of what happened.
And no one is labeling criticism of Trump as automatically illegitimate or a result of TDS. What’s been offered here certainly resembles that, but of course there’s room to criticize Trump. I’ve got plenty of my own for him, but I’m seeing a bunch of theological horsepuckey here, and it’s tedious, particularly in light of the original topic.
>No one here defended what happened at the capitol.
Yes they did. Half the comments section are semantic arguments about whether it was an insurrection/insurgency or not, and the other half are people basically arguing “Well BLM was worse.”
If you agree that the event was stupid, foolish, and counter-productive, then those conversations never needed to take place. Initiating them *is* defending it.
>What’s not happening here is a contextualization of what happened.
Your idea of “contextualization” is to present the event as 1) having nothing to do with the actions of Trump and 2) compare it to other events you perceive as being worse, to downplay their significance. That isn’t contextualization, it’s malicious disinformation and propaganda.
>And no one is labeling criticism of Trump as automatically illegitimate or a result of TDS.
…you are literally doing that. There is an ocean of legitimate criticism people have mentioned and you just dismiss all of it. I can imagine someone being paid to shill for Trump’s behavior that would be less of a shill than you have been.
>theological horsepuckey
Lmao
Perhaps you missed it upthread, but I want to do you the courtesy of letting you know not to expect a response from me since I’m not reading your responses. The moment you resort to calling me a troll, you indicate you are no longer interested in discussion. I wasted far too many words responding to you point by point to end up there.
Let’s agree to disagree and part ways peaceably, shall we?
First of all, you are a troll. As I linked earlier, you are sealioning, a form of trolling.
Secondly, no I will not stop responding. You are purposefully trying to deceive others. I will continue to counter-signal your insane rhetoric.
You do not get to hide behind the pretense of civility. The ideas you are defending are abhorrent, and all of your posts are in malicious bad faith.
Charles,
You seem to be making the critical mistake of me trying to tone things down with some sort of faux desire for civility. Allow me to disabuse you of that, Sport.
Considering I have taken more than enough time to rebut you point after point, point out precisely where you’re lying, and also made reasonable requests to support claims, it’s quite clear we can add “sealioning” to the growing list of terms that escape your grasp.
Your form of argument amounts to “I know you are, but what am I” and projection. I made the critical error of responding to you in the tone you cultivated by waltzing in here with your little e-peen saying “my dude” and other juvenile nonsense. When it becomes painfully apparent that we’re not going to get anywhere, it’s time to disengage. I am more than capable of, and have an embarrassing amount of experience in, the type of flame war you seem to want to have, but frankly lack the desire.
If you want to continue on with your righteous little crusade, please feel free to waste your time. I’m more than comfortable with what I’ve written here with regards to argument. I extended you an olive branch in good faith and you rejected it. You can now kindly take that olive branch and put it to more erotic uses.
Capiche?
Ok, now I’m done. Bang away on that keyboard, o’ Noble Crusader!
>Considering I have taken more than enough time to rebut you point after point
You don’t rebut anything, you just ignore everything everyone else says as though it doesn’t matter.
You ask for evidence of Trump calling for people to storm the capitol, I show you literally that, in complete unambiguous and clear language. You just ignore it.
You have the fucking temerity to sit here and argue that Trump *doesn’t* have character flaws that people should be rightly worried about, which is already completely insane, then Aaron provides multiple sources for this and you ignore them, then insult him!
You’re either completely delusional, or (more likely) a lier.
Please explain how the protests on Jan. 6th were “mostly peaceful.”
Please explain how you justify Trump bullying and intimidating election officials into trying to overturn the results of an election.
Please explain any interpretation of the end of Trump’s speech aside from as a direct incitement of the crowd to storm the capitol.
Ah right, you won’t though. No honesty out of this one.
Charles,
I tell ya what, because I refuse to throw the baby (the useful parts of our discussion) out with the bathwater (the crap we spew at one another), I would like to make a proposal.
If you are willing to do the same, I will start by saying that I am sincerely sorry for my tone in this discussion. There is no excuse for it. I’ll further propose that we start over, sans all the condescension and shit-slinging, and debate this a little more formally. We can discuss and agree on the terms of the debate, then move forward without all the invective and vitriol. At least we might, if not end up moving one another, conduct a thoughtful dialog.
We both sank to the modern standard of discourse, which is not becoming of this site, and I’m sure we can both do better.
Are you down?
Sure, but again, my problem with what you’ve been saying isn’t your condescension and sprinkled insults. As you can surely tell, I have no issue with insults that I feel are warranted. My issue is that I cannot imagine an educated person entertaining the notions that you are entertaining. Since you’d like this to be more formal, I can break this up:
1) Trump’s Character
You seem to consistently defend Trump on character grounds, arguing that he is “not sufficiently flawed to merit serious concern.” As I said before, if your position is “Trump is a flawed person, and I choose to support him anyway,” I wouldn’t have much of an issue with that. However, your defense of Trump seems to go far, far beyond this.
As Aaron said, I don’t even know where to begin. Trump is almost certainly guilty of some form of sexual assault, and even if he isn’t he’s certainly a man of very low character in the department of relationships with women. Trump lies so often I’m not sure it’s possible to collect them all; he’s lied so much no one even notices anymore. He has no shred of civility or decorum, from insulting people’s wives, insulting people to their face, trying to destroy people’s reputations on twitter, etc. Trump also clearly has no regard for anyone but himself. He has no loyalty to his associates, throwing Pence under the bus for not initiating a coup for him, only to have his fans storm the capitol the next day, erect a noose, and chant “Hang Mike Pence!”, a sentiment that was echoed by Lin Wood, Trump’s lawyer.
What kind of a man is this? How can you possibly defend this? Even if you, personally do not find this over the line, how can you possibly fault other people for being bothered? This is so far outside the normal scope of discourse I hardly know how to describe it.
2) The Election
I don’t know exactly where you stand on the election. I have been open-minded about the possibility of fraud, however I have investigated all the claims I can find, and to say “they are very unconvincing” would be an understatement. So there are two possibilities here:
2a: Give me some evidence that there was enough election fraud to change a single state. Or,
2b: You need to admit that Trump is purposefully misleading his citizens into believing a deranged conspiracy theory, which has directly led to an incredible destabilization of our population, and a serious threat to our democracy.
There aren’t other options. I am assuming you will try to pursue 2a, because if you admit that he lost the election, an enormous chunk of your rhetoric is completely untenable.
3) The Capitol
As far as I am concerned, these are all factual:
3a: This was an insurrection/insurgency. Not necessarily a competent one, but it clearly meets the definitions.
3b: Trump directly incited this. I have already quoted his speeches.
3c: Beyond incitement, it would not have been possible without months of Trump’s malicious anti-democratic propaganda.
You called this a “mostly peaceful protest,” which I am hoping was a joke. This was a very serious event, and even if other people are more concerned than you imagine it to be, you should still take it seriously. Do you acknowledge these?
Thus far you come across as acting in extremely bad faith; refusing evidence that seems incontrovertible, refusing to give an inch on issues where you are already very far outside the mainstream, insulting other people for things you are doing, etc. If you want to redeem yourself by responding to this without continuing those behaviors, go ahead.
Charles,
This is not getting off to a good start. I offered you sincere words of contrition and you respond with continued combativeness. Following that up with accusations of bad faith is neither helpful nor warranted. I am trying to move this forward and relitigating tone and perceived intent is something that cuts both ways. Can we please, please not go down that road? I offer this with the most sincerity I can muster.
But let’s get on with the terms of debate. I will respond to you point by point. I will not ignore a single thing you say. Since you were the one who initially engaged with my point, I would like to restate my original contention with the author. He made an assertion that the question of which was the greater threat to our society, Trump or CT (and its offshoots), was difficult to answer. Somewhat incredulous, I asked him to elaborate on that brief statement with something more concrete to flesh out his brief assertion.
The reasoning behind this was twofold: 1) to properly assess his ability to discern the general threat CT poses, evaluating his assessment of the comparative threat he mentioned is warranted, and 2) Trump is gone in a matter of days, but the movement which elected him is not, so presumably any perceived threat doesn’t vanish on Jan 20th.
This was the basis of the discussion. Do you feel that is a fair characterization of my opinion and that the request for an explanation is warranted? If so, do you feel this is an appropriate place to begin? If not, why not?
Now, onto the points you raise. Please remember, we are agreeing to the terms of debate, not yet moving forward.
1) Regarding character, I have not made an argument about character one way or the other. In fact, I have offered that I find his character irrelevant on the grounds that I am unconcerned with descriptive representation in favor of substantive representation. If you would like to add character to the debate about the comparative threats between Trump and CT, then I find that acceptable. Do you?
2) I have made no claims about the results of the election as I don’t think it relevant to the discussion at hand. What is relevant is Trump’s actions in contesting the election that seem to matter most here. I have no desire to go down the rabbit hole of allegations as I think you and I could both agree that there is simply not enough space or time. Do you find it acceptable to limit election discussion to a general scope of Trump’s election litigation and perceived effects on society? I suspect you might not, but we can hash this out.
3) As for the capitol, I am willing to debate all of that as you presented, particularly as it relates to the discussion at hand.
I have neither refused evidence, nor will I let fallacious reasoning (appeals to authority) about perceived mainstream opinion go unnoted. This is getting into that combative territory again. Please refrain from lecturing me on behavior and I promise I will return that respect. Do you find that unreasonable?
Now, if you find these terms acceptable let’s begin. If not, let’s hash it out and then get started. Either way, the floor is yours.
*Appeals to popularity, not appeal to authority
>This was the basis of the discussion. Do you feel that is a fair characterization of my opinion and that the request for an explanation is warranted? If so, do you feel this is an appropriate place to begin? If not, why not?
It’s not an appropriate basis for argument with *me,* because I never argued the point.
I personally think CT is the greater threat, although this is primarily because Trump will be gone in a week’s time. If Trump had another term, after the kinds of things he’s done, I would see Trump as the greater threat. And either way, this seems like the sort of argument where someone has identified two things as being serious threats, and you’re upset that they think one threat is a 9/10 and the other is an 8/10. Obviously Aaron feels that CT is threatening. Which of these is *more* threatening is not particularly interesting to me.
What I took issue with was your assertion that Trump has not done enough to be considered a serious threat.
1) That’s the only reason anyone mentioned it. This isn’t about who we want to have a beer with. Trump’s profound lack of virtue is one of the reasons people find his position at the head of the US to be an existential threat.
2) Whether there was significant election fraud is very important. If there was, some (most?) of Trump’s actions can be justified. However if there wasn’t, I do not understand how you could argue against someone who puts forward that he is a grave threat to the country. And yes, I do want to get into the weeds, because I keep asking people to give me evidence of significant fraud and everyone refuses. At the present moment, I am forced to assume that 1/3rd of the country is completely delusional, and believing the election was fraudulent simply because they are butthurt they lost, and their parasocial daddy told them it was rigged. If that is accurate, this relates to every other argument, because Trump would have purposefully sown a level of division that has already caused violence, and has the potential to cause quite a bit more.
3) Go ahead and explain how the end of Trump’s speech isn’t incitement. Please explain how this would have happened without months of Trump lying to his supporters about the election.
Saying that you are steadfastly defending positions that are miles out of the mainstream is not an “appeal to popularity,” it is a simple check on whether you are acting in good faith. If, for example, I denied the holomdor, or I denied that we landed on the moon, or I asserted that JFK was killed by the black panthers, etc., I am arguing for something that nearly no one would support. But perhaps I have evidence? If I present no compelling evidence, and the people opposing me present evidence that is disproving my position, and I refuse to give an inch and simply ignore everything they are saying, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to say “this person is acting in bad faith.” That is not an appeal to authority, it is a common-sense approach to discussion, to avoid wasting time with an unreasonable person who will never concede any ground.
Arguing that Trump does not have a flawed character is an argument of roughly that magnitude. 95% of *Trump supporters* would agree with Aaron’s assessment, and if you are not only unwilling to accept his argument, but act incredulous at the mere suggestion, that is not a good sign for the potential of a fruitful discussion.
Again, if you think your conduct thusfar should be considered “good faith,” I am simply letting you know that most people would disagree. That is not “combative,” it is honest.
Chris (sorry I’ve been getting your name wrong),
I assume you’re accepting the terms of debate.
“And either way, this seems like the sort of argument where someone has identified two things as being serious threats, and you’re upset that they think one threat is a 9/10 and the other is an 8/10. Obviously Aaron feels that CT is threatening. Which of these is *more* threatening is not particularly interesting to me.”
That’s your scale, not mine. I haven’t remotely tried to quantify the differences in perceived threats
My position, briefly, is that there is a vast difference between the perceived threats of Trump and CRT. You may not find a comparative assessment interesting, and that’s fine. However you engaged with my argument which was not directed to you (and again, that’s fine, but that doesn’t grant you the sole right to determine where the discussion goes), which was mainly a request for the author to elaborate on the threat for reasons I’ve outlined just prior to this post.
“What I took issue with was your assertion that Trump has not done enough to be considered a serious threat.”
Great. We’ll move forward from there.
“1) That’s the only reason anyone mentioned it. This isn’t about who we want to have a beer with. Trump’s profound lack of virtue is one of the reasons people find his position at the head of the US to be an existential threat.”
The flaw here is that you’re saying that an abstract concept of character somehow translates into an existential threat without providing any explanation of how this works. So far I can only tease out one possible claim, and I address it later.
Ok, Trump is evil and lacks all moral character. There. Now what policies or actions has Trump taken that translates this abstraction into existential danger? Saying “My value system is different or better than Trump’s” is fine, and I wouldn’t argue or begrudge the point in any way. Hell, I’d probably agree with you and I don’t even know you. But there is a huge leap that you and Aaron never made in connecting idea (character) to action (threatening the very existence of the US). I’m completely mystified by such a phenomenon and am waiting for you to show me how this works. Seriously, this seems central to your argument, so I need to get it.
“2) Whether there was significant election fraud is very important. If there was, some (most?) of Trump’s actions can be justified. However if there wasn’t, I do not understand how you could argue against someone who puts forward that he is a grave threat to the country.”
Simple. Because, Americans – whether or not they hold elected office – have the right to be wrong. It’s guaranteed. If you think someone is lying, spreading bad ideas, or wrong, you defeat them with the truth and/or better ideas, or you vote them out. That’s how a liberal democracy works. We don’t suspend fundamental tenets of our society because we don’t like someone’s character. That’s someone you kick out of your social club.
“And yes, I do want to get into the weeds, because I keep asking people to give me evidence of significant fraud and everyone refuses.”
Ok, sure. I’ll try to be brief, since this can swerve way off topic.
There is a metric ton of bad information being propagated. Absolute garbage. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that most of it is garbage. But among the noise, there are legitimate signals.
The circumstantial evidence alone is enough to raise serious concerns. The fact that a board member of Dominion is part of Joe Biden’s transition team is a major red flag because of the egregious conflict of interest it presents. It also drags Biden’s statement of having the largest voter fraud organization in the country out of the simple gaffe category. The halting of vote reporting (usually erroneously referred to as “counting”) in any one state raises eyebrows, but the near simultaneous halt of reporting the count in the three key states in dispute (one of them for a non-existent watermain break) is a major red flag. (Politifact takes a tendentious approach on this by drawing a conclusion based on a response from only one of the three states, while also staying safe behind the technicality of “counting” when they did in fact stop “reporting” when they still had plenty to report.) Voting patterns were highly inconsistent with long established trends, or in a select few, critical areas where Biden outperformed in comparison to other democrat-heavy counties in other states. Another red flag. “Glitches” in multiple states that only seemed to work one way in the presidential contest. Serious statistical anomalies across a broad spectrum are such that in any other organization it would trigger automatic audits without second thought.
I want to stress that none of what I mentioned is proof or evidence of fraud, but of significant irregularities that should be comprehensively addressed and investigated. By investigation I don’t mean fact checkers calling the fox to verify henhouse security, which is effectively what’s been done so far from a media standpoint, but independent auditing and forensic investigations with independent counsels, since districts’ investigative apparatus are uniformly controlled by partisans. But those take time (months or even years), something we are not afforded for a Presidential election. The overwhelming response to silence and demonize everyone who has the temerity to raise those questions only invites more skepticism and suspicion.
Perhaps the more important issue was the multi-state effort to sue Pennsylvania over their seemingly illegal changing of their election laws right before the election. When the USSC declined to even hear the case, for an area in which it has original jurisdiction, the means of redress for grievances seemed to have evaporated at the caprices of 7 of 9 justices. And their excuse was that they don’t get involved in how states conduct their elections – a demonstrably false excuse.
“At the present moment, I am forced to assume that 1/3rd of the country is completely delusional,”
That’s confirmation bias.
“and believing the election was fraudulent simply because they are butthurt they lost”
More confirmation bias.
“and their parasocial daddy told them it was rigged.”
A pointless, inflammatory remark. There’s a word for that.
“If that is accurate…”
It isn’t, for the reasons I laid out.
“…this relates to every other argument, because Trump would have purposefully sown a level of division that has already caused violence, and has the potential to cause quite a bit more.”
I can go with you on this relating to every other argument, but what I can’t get on board with is that Trump’s actions were intended to sow division. You could reasonably make the case that he’s doing it a number of alternative reasons, but they’re all useless assumptions. The idea that the level of violent division that exists in this country is somehow Trump’s fault doesn’t hold up. It began well before he was elected (Ferguson, etc), most of it during his term not even predicated on anything Trump was remotely responsible for (BLM/Antifa riots, George Floyd riots).
Throughout his presidency, Trump has explicitly condemned all of the violence. Shall I quote and source for you prominent politicians who have explicitly called for violence, particularly against Trump? Pretty sure no one’s advocating that Bernie Sanders is an existential threat because a member of his campaign attempted the first mass political assassination since the Civil War, after his boss galivanted about the country with “revolution” on his lips. No one seems to be talking about the divisiveness of Democrats, bureaucrats, media figures, and celebrities talking about “resisting” a duly elected president from before he set foot in the Whitehouse.
Personally, I think they’re all full of shit and can’t stand listening to any of them, including Trump. Our entire political class could use a giant enema. But Trump is hardly a solo player in the game of ugly political rhetoric and trying to isolate him from the political environment in any way doesn’t return much useful insight.
“3) Go ahead and explain how the end of Trump’s speech isn’t incitement.”
It’s not incumbent upon me to prove a negative. You quoted it upthread, I believe. I responded that it was pretty tame. I’ve reviewed his entire speech. Not only is there not anything that even comes close to the legal definition of inciting a riot (or insurrection, or whatever other overcharged word is the order of the day), it doesn’t even pass a broader standard.
But I’m perfectly willing to consider any rhetorical analysis you want to offer in support of your claim.
“Please explain how this would have happened without months of Trump lying to his supporters about the election.”
Because something that falls well within the realm of protected speech is not incitement to violence.
“Saying that you are steadfastly defending positions that are miles out of the mainstream is not an “appeal to popularity,”
You may not intend it that way, but it’s a textbook example. See below.
“it is a simple check on whether you are acting in good faith.”
No, it’s a fallacious argument that asserts a truth value to a subjective opinion (Trump incited a riot) based on the fact that a majority of people hold it. It is in no way related to acting in good faith. Furthermore, looking at recent polling data on it, the idea my position is “miles out of the mainstream” is empirically false, unless you want to be more specific than “miles”. I think you’d be safer here saying “a majority”, not that it would improve the fallacy.
“If, for example, I denied the holomdor, or I denied that we landed on the moon, or I asserted that JFK was killed by the black panthers, etc., I am arguing for something that nearly no one would support. But perhaps I have evidence? If I present no compelling evidence, and the people opposing me present evidence that is disproving my position, and I refuse to give an inch and simply ignore everything they are saying, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to say “this person is acting in bad faith.”
You’re conflating events for which we have clear historical records with what is so far a subjective interpretation of fairly mild rhetoric. This is a false comparison. We’re not talking testable science here. The only test we can perform on your position is a legal one – incitement, and it fails a legal test spectacularly.
Is this an effort to contrast your argument with mine? It fails not only because of the false comparison, but because you are dropping a quote and wondering how I can disagree with you. That’s not an argument. Present your quote (or any others you want), then explain to me exactly how the language incites violence. Explain to me how someone being wrong, or even lying about politics moves Hoover from Animal House to don his buffalo horns and act like a moron in the rotunda.
Trump’s predecessor lied to the entire country about everyone being able to keep their doctor. That had a tangible effect on me and my family. Would I then be justified in saying that Obama should be held accountable for me hopping the White House fence and TP-ing the Rose Garden?
No one could reasonably look at the cumulative novella I’ve written in direct response to you and say that I’m “ignoring” you, so your accusation of bad faith is woefully misplaced. We can certainly try to persuade one another, but there is no requirement for either of us to “give an inch”.
“That is not an appeal to authority,
I didn’t say it was, and I’m pretty sure you noticed the correction.
“…to avoid wasting time with an unreasonable person who will never concede any ground.”
This is more insulting nonsense. I can hurl invective with the best, and spew vitriol as classy or crude as anyone. I have made it abundantly clear that I don’t want to go back there and here you are, having made little reciprocal effort at toning it down, yet having the cheek to lecture me on good faith. I’ll ask once again, can we please not go there? Lest you want to accuse me of sea-lioning again, if I back out again, it’s precisely because I don’t want to waste my time or yours, not out of some sense of theatrical indignation.
“Arguing that Trump does not have a flawed character is an argument of roughly that magnitude.”
Who was arguing that Trump doesn’t have a flawed character?
“95% of *Trump supporters* would agree with Aaron’s assessment…”
These are numbers I’ll have to ask you to back up. So I have it correct, you’re saying that 95% of Trump supporters agree that Trump was an equivalent or greater threat to society than CRT? If I have that right, would that include the 1/3 that are delusional?
“…and if you are not only unwilling to accept his argument, but act incredulous at the mere suggestion, that is not a good sign for the potential of a fruitful discussion.
I am under no obligation to accept an argument simply because it has been made. That’s not how argument works. Incredulity is neither out of place, out of line, uncalled for, or indicative of anything other than incredulity. This is double-edged reasoning. If you are not willing to accept my claim that Trump did not incite a riot and are incredulous at the mere suggestion, that is not a good sign for the potential of a fruitful discussion.
Now, I don’t believe that one bit. To me, what is not a good sign for fruitful discussion is the fact that you are claiming I’m “ignoring” you, “unreasonable”, and that I’m not arguing in “good faith”, when what’s really happening is that I’m disagreeing with you, explaining why in great detail, and for some reason, that seems to set you off.
“Again, if you think your conduct thusfar should be considered “good faith,” I am simply letting you know that most people would disagree. That is not “combative,” it is honest.”
It’s combative for reasons I just explained. And I’m certain you’re not speaking for most people. Do you want to continue?
>The flaw here is that you’re saying that an abstract concept of character somehow translates into an existential threat without providing any explanation of how this works.
Are you trying to argue that character does not have any predictive value for behavior?
Honesty is a virtue. Do I need to establish that dishonesty may predictably lead to nefarious behavior, especially when one has control of a state apparatus?
Empathy and compassion are virtues. While every US president since Carter has been waist-deep in blood, handling the primary job of the president as commander-in-chief of the military requires caring about the troops. Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers.’
Nixon was a president of low character, and that character could have predicted many of the nasty things he became involved in. Bill Clinton was a pathological liar, we all know how that turned out. Jimmy Carter was a kind-hearted man, and his presidency certainly reflects that, even if that may demonstrate that this is not a desirable quality for president.
What exactly do you want me to say? Do you want me to outline Trump’s many character flaws, and his associated negative actions in accordance with those flaws? You seem fixated on solely Trump’s policy, but Trump doesn’t really care about policy, seemingly his cabinet largely took care of that for him. The actions which are uniquely Trump are universally appalling, though, such as assassinating Qasem Soleimani, peddling anti-democratic conspiracy theories, and inciting a riot. (And even if you were to convince me that Trump had grounds for his post-election rhetoric, he was also spewing anti-democracy propaganda after 2016, and before the 2020 election, so that’s not relevant)
>Simple. Because, Americans – whether or not they hold elected office – have the right to be wrong. It’s guaranteed. If you think someone is lying, spreading bad ideas, or wrong, you defeat them with the truth and/or better ideas, or you vote them out. That’s how a liberal democracy works.
I don’t see how this is relevant. Trump was defeated with the truth in court, and he was voted out. I’m wondering if you responded to the wrong section.
>But among the noise, there are legitimate signals.
I have investigated very similar claims to these, and found them all to be atrocious. And for the record, there have been audits and recounts, it didn’t change anything.
If you actually want to press the point, give me your top, or perhaps top 3 specific claims, so that I can investigate them. As of now, what you are saying gives me no reason to believe that a single state, much less the election at large would have changed. I’m not here to defend the position that nothing suspicious happened; in anything as large as a national election, something suspicious is bound to happen. However, Trump’s rhetoric and actions could only be justified by exceptional evidence, of which I have seen none.
Even if the election *was* stolen, a good deal of what Trump has done wouldn’t be justified. But if it wasn’t, what he has done is truly monstrous.
If you are to be fair, you should at least allow people to entertain the most likely scenario, which is that Trump would have lost the election were all things fair. In that scenario, I do not know how you could be confused by someone finding Trump to be a considerable threat to the country.
>And their excuse was that they don’t get involved in how states conduct their elections – a demonstrably false excuse.
I’m not sure what you expect people to respond here. Trump’s own supreme court justices acted against him. Trump’s appointed judges repeatedly acted against him. Am I to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy against Trump, which includes a bunch of people Trump appointed? Or am I to believe the far more likely scenario, that Trump has no case, that that the election wasn’t stolen?
>That’s confirmation bias.
No it isn’t. I’ve been asking people for proof since this happened, and everything I have been given is terrible. Up above, you’re the one demanding “concrete proof” for things. I don’t even need concrete proof, I need reasonable doubt, and I am nowhere close to that.
>More confirmation bias.
I’m not sure you know what confirmation bias is. If you don’t think a majority of election truthers deny the election results largely because they disagree with them, you’re wrong.
>A pointless, inflammatory remark. There’s a word for that.
How is it inflammatory? It’s the most descriptive explanation of what is going on. People have a parasocial relationship with Trump. Trump tells them a conspiracy theory, they believe it uncritically. Perhaps you have a critical mind, do you honestly think the average Trump supporter does? This is one of the most common ways conspiracy theories spread.
>It isn’t, for the reasons I laid out.
No, you explicitly said that you didn’t prove anything, and you provided nothing that was even specific enough for me to fact-check.
>I can go with you on this relating to every other argument, but what I can’t get on board with is that Trump’s actions were intended to sow division.
I don’t care what his intentions are. I care what the outcome was. I don’t think Trump intends to do the awful things he does, but they happen because he is not concerned with the result of his reckless narcissism.
>The idea that the level of violent division that exists in this country is somehow Trump’s fault doesn’t hold up. It began well before he was elected (Ferguson, etc), most of it during his term not even predicated on anything Trump was remotely responsible for (BLM/Antifa riots, George Floyd riots).
The election conspiracy theories are entirely Trump’s doing. I’m not blaming him for BLM, but what’s worse, half the country being pissed off and violent, or the whole country being pissed off and violent? Obviously he is culpable for a great deal of this.
Before Trump, I would argue with lefties who would always claim “the vast majority of political violence comes from the right,” which used to be ridiculous. Almost all political violence came from the left. That’s not true anymore. Right-wing political violence is hugely up in the Trump era, especially if you remove lone gunman shooting up black churches and things of the like as “political violence.” (The source of those silly claims)
>Throughout his presidency, Trump has explicitly condemned all of the violence.
This is just dishonest. “You special people, you’re so special, I love you, please don’t hurt the police, but you did a great job today.” Bruh.
>Shall I quote and source for you prominent politicians who have explicitly called for violence, particularly against Trump?
Irrelevant.
>Pretty sure no one’s advocating that Bernie Sanders is an existential threat because a member of his campaign attempted the first mass political assassination
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and neither does google.
>But Trump is hardly a solo player in the game of ugly political rhetoric and trying to isolate him from the political environment in any way doesn’t return much useful insight.
I don’t remember Bernie Sanders telling his supporters to storm the capitol and stop congress from certifying an election.
>But I’m perfectly willing to consider any rhetorical analysis you want to offer in support of your claim.
He told his supporters to go to the capitol and bully republican lawmakers into changing their behavior. There is no other interpretation of what he said. You don’t get to weasel out of this.
And beyond that, it is extremely common for an idea to be put in people’s heads without the idea needing to be explicitly stated. If I write a news article and say “Friends say Samantha hated Harry, Samantha had access to Harry’s apartment, Samantha had recently purchased the drugs that were used to kill Harry, Samantha doesn’t have an alibi for the time of Harry’s death, and when taken in for questioning Samantha didn’t cooperate with police,” guess what? Now 99% of the people who read the article think Samantha killed Harry. I didn’t need to say it. This has become extremely common in modern propaganda.
In this case, Trump has put these ideas in the minds of the audience: “The election was rigged, we actually won, they are trying to steal our country, it’s completely unfair, if you let them steal our country they will turn it over to Biden the Marxist who will take away your guns, raise your taxes, flood the country with immigrants, give your kids hormone therapy, and proliferate the availability of abortions.”
Then he told them to go to the capitol, to bully republican lawmakers into refusing to certify the results of an election. What do you think is going to happen.
>Because something that falls well within the realm of protected speech is not incitement to violence.
You realize that Trump can do things that are monstrous, and rightfully frighten people, without them being technically illegal, right?
Also, it seems a great number of lawyers find these acts illegal, and I’m sure they know better than either of us.
>No, it’s a fallacious argument
It’s not an argument at all. It’s a means of avoiding wasting my time.
>Furthermore, looking at recent polling data on it, the idea my position is “miles out of the mainstream” is empirically false
You seemed to be implying things about Trump that 95% of Trump supporters would disagree with. Now you admit he is an evil miscreant, so I simply don’t understand why you behaved as you did earlier.
>This is a false comparison.
It’s not intended to be a direct comparison, lol. I’m outlining a situation in which you would be completely within your right to stop listening to someone, by arriving at the conclusion that nothing you say will cause them to change their mind in any way. All of your earlier rhetoric gave off the same vibes, although now you’re willing to admit Trump is an awful person so this no longer applies.
I’m not going to respond to any more of this section, because you seem far more reasonable now than you did earlier.
>So I have it correct, you’re saying that 95% of Trump supporters agree that Trump was an equivalent or greater threat to society than CRT?
No, I was saying that 95% of Trump supporters would agree that he is an immoral and terrible person. You apparently agree with this, but that was not at all clear from your earlier messages.
Chris,
“Are you trying to argue that character does not have any predictive value for behavior? Honesty is a virtue. Do I need to establish that dishonesty may predictably lead to nefarious behavior, especially when one has control of a state apparatus?
My argument was clear. Are you trying to argue that we have moved beyond well-established constitutional principles to the level of pre-crime? History gives us plenty of writings that make the observation that virtue is the rare exception to the rule in politics. Emma Goldman’s take on it I think is the best.
“Empathy and compassion are virtues. While every US president since Carter has been waist-deep in blood, handling the primary job of the president as commander-in-chief of the military requires caring about the troops. Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers.’”
Ah, so it’s okay to send people to their deaths as long as you care about them, but trying to pull them out of pointless overseas conflicts (and having your bureaucratic underling brazenly defy that lawful directive) is meaningless when you have a story that is, at best, disputed about Trump saying something mean. Now, you can certainly make decisions based on that sort of information, and that’s fine, but politicians lie and say stupid things all the time. That’s not proof, or even evidence of existential threat.
“Nixon was a president of low character, and that character could have predicted many of the nasty things he became involved in. Bill Clinton was a pathological liar, we all know how that turned out. Jimmy Carter was a kind-hearted man, and his presidency certainly reflects that, even if that may demonstrate that this is not a desirable quality for president.”
Jimmy Carter’s character is no less debatable than the others. But that’s not the point. Again, we don’t have “precrime”. Now, if you want to base your voting decisions or political opinions on someone’s character, great. I wouldn’t find fault at all. When you want to convince someone else that a politician’s character is evidence of their existential threat, that’s an extraordinarily high bar I have yet to see anyone even come close to. Actions matter.
“What exactly do you want me to say? Do you want me to outline Trump’s many character flaws, and his associated negative actions in accordance with those flaws?”
I thought I was clear. I’m not really interested in backdating policy or actions to someone’s armchair psychological diagnosis. Offering your remote assessment of Trump’s character is not proving causation, but confirmation bias. I guarantee you that I could take your subjective opinion on the matter, whatever it is, and offer at least one equally valid alternative explanation. That’s why actions matter.
“You seem fixated on solely Trump’s policy, but Trump doesn’t really care about policy, seemingly his cabinet largely took care of that for him.”
Of course I’m fixated on policy and actions. This is about tangible or concrete evidence of a claim. What you offer here is mind-reading.
“The actions which are uniquely Trump are universally appalling, though, such as assassinating Qasem Soleimani, peddling anti-democratic conspiracy theories, and inciting a riot.”
You keep making broad pronouncements about things which are demonstrably false. There is no universal consensus on the assassination of Soleimani. That’s absurd. I’m unconcerned about complaints of conspiracy theories – particularly of the “anti-democratic” sort – in light of the falsely predicated FBI surveillance of his campaign which produced nothing in regards to the non-crime of Russian “collusion”. And again, nothing Trump said or did incited a riot. It doesn’t meet the legal test or anything other than a partisan test. It certainly wasn’t without precedent, given the rhetoric of his opponents after his 2016 win.
“(And even if you were to convince me that Trump had grounds for his post-election rhetoric, he was also spewing anti-democracy propaganda after 2016, and before the 2020 election, so that’s not relevant)”
Sure it’s relevant. You’re leveling vague charges here and ignoring the fact that he was hardly alone with this type of rhetoric. The current impeachment manager in the house voted against certification of the electoral college vote in 2017, and he wasn’t the only one. They did it on the first damn state, Alabama, and the vote count wasn’t even close. But memories seem to be a bit one-sided when it comes to Trump. No one was calling any of those people existential threats.
“I don’t see how this is relevant. Trump was defeated with the truth in court, and he was voted out. I’m wondering if you responded to the wrong section.”
Technically, Trump wasn’t afforded the opportunity to be defeated in court. Neither were about a third of the states in the Union. If you can’t see the relevance, I’m not sure what else I can say.
“I have investigated very similar claims to these, and found them all to be atrocious. And for the record, there have been audits and recounts, it didn’t change anything.”
I have investigated many of the claims (we can’t know how much overlap between the two of us there is) and find them to be credible. See how easy it is to make a statement like that? It doesn’t refute anything. For the record there have been some audits. And there have been partial audits. Certainly weren’t full audits in GA. For the record, particularly in Michigan, some of those audits were simply dismissed by a flippant remark of the state’s AG. And none of that refutes the elephant in the room – the SCOTUS decision not to hear the case of TX v PN. That was a legal complaint based on extra-legislative lawcraft that had merit.
But this is why I wanted to avoid getting into the weeds on this. We could blow out this comment section on this beyond what we already have. It’s a tangent. Here’s why: For argument’s sake, I’ll completely concede that to you. Everything about the election was on the up and up. Squeaky clean. Not a smidgeon of corruption. Okay, great.
In a pluralistic liberal democracy, we have the right to be wrong. Even the right to lie. Otherwise, Obama would be similarly considered for his Lie of the Year. But that’s not who we are, or how it works. Or, at least, not who we were, or how it worked. Lying or being wrong does not incite violence. If that were the case, humanity would have reverted to a Hobbesian state millennia ago.
“If you actually want to press the point, give me your top, or perhaps top 3 specific claims, so that I can investigate them. As of now, what you are saying gives me no reason to believe that a single state, much less the election at large would have changed. I’m not here to defend the position that nothing suspicious happened; in anything as large as a national election, something suspicious is bound to happen. However, Trump’s rhetoric and actions could only be justified by exceptional evidence, of which I have seen none.”
Hopefully my previous paragraphs addressed this.
“Even if the election *was* stolen, a good deal of what Trump has done wouldn’t be justified. But if it wasn’t, what he has done is truly monstrous.”
I’m going to have to completely disagree on this. *If* the election was stolen, the fact that Trump went to the court system – as politicians have been doing for decades (a Democrat primary was tossed by a judge last year for massive fraud) – tells me that he stayed within the system. If the election wasn’t stolen, the system worked. I’m having a hard time seeing the monstrosity here.
“If you are to be fair, you should at least allow people to entertain the most likely scenario, which is that Trump would have lost the election were all things fair. In that scenario, I do not know how you could be confused by someone finding Trump to be a considerable threat to the country.”
I don’t quite follow this. I’m not sure if it’s how it’s worded, or if I’m just not reading it right (it’s probably me). I’m hoping my previous answers cover this.
“I’m not sure what you expect people to respond here. Trump’s own supreme court justices acted against him. Trump’s appointed judges repeatedly acted against him. Am I to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy against Trump, which includes a bunch of people Trump appointed? Or am I to believe the far more likely scenario, that Trump has no case, that that the election wasn’t stolen?”
I would expect a response based on the facts. Trump did not file that case. The state of Texas did. The point about “conspiracies” is a strawman. The point is that the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cases of states vs states. The court’s 7-2 decision on not taking the case was predicated upon the demonstrably false claim that the court doesn’t involve itself in individual states’ election laws. Who appointed which justices isn’t relevant.
“I’ve been asking people for proof since this happened, and everything I have been given is terrible. Up above, you’re the one demanding “concrete proof” for things. I don’t even need concrete proof, I need reasonable doubt, and I am nowhere close to that.”
So you’ve asked a few people for some information, haven’t been satisfied, and are forced to conclude that tens of millions of people are “delusional”. And that’s not confirmation bias. Okay.
“I’m not sure you know what confirmation bias is. If you don’t think a majority of election truthers deny the election results largely because they disagree with them, you’re wrong.”
You’re offering more mind-reading for millions of people and claiming it’s because of “butthurt”. Despite the fact that millions of people are rather vocally offering reasons-other-than-butthurt (even though they may be wrong), I’m to take your personal opinion on their opinions as authoritative? Sorry, I know precisely what confirmation bias means.
“How is it inflammatory?
Parasocial daddy? Really?
“It’s the most descriptive explanation of what is going on.”
To you.
“People have a parasocial relationship with Trump. Trump tells them a conspiracy theory, they believe it uncritically.”
And what qualifies you to determine the basis for the opinions of 74 million people?
“Perhaps you have a critical mind, do you honestly think the average Trump supporter does? This is one of the most common ways conspiracy theories spread.”
I don’t profess to know the minds of the average voter of any cohort. I’m not sure I could muster that level of conceit. People are complicated.
“No, you explicitly said that you didn’t prove anything, and you provided nothing that was even specific enough for me to fact-check.”
I was talking about your commentary and what I labeled as confirmation bias. There was nothing to fact check.
“I don’t care what his intentions are. I care what the outcome was. I don’t think Trump intends to do the awful things he does, but they happen because he is not concerned with the result of his reckless narcissism.”
Intent is a key component of establishing guilt, and we’re talking about a criminal allegation. Armchair psychology has no place here. And no, I’m not concerned with the unethical armchair diagnosis of “professional” mental health experts. In my armchair opinion, Trump is a garden variety egotist. And without an in-person examination by a qualified expert (whose opinion is still subjective in the world of psychology), my opinion here is just as good as yours. And in neither case is it causative to criminal misconduct.
“The election conspiracy theories are entirely Trump’s doing.”
That doesn’t hold up either. Election conspiracies began in 2016 with Hillary Clinton and many Democrats. They were perpetuated and amplified in the media.
“I’m not blaming him for BLM, but what’s worse, half the country being pissed off and violent, or the whole country being pissed off and violent? Obviously he is culpable for a great deal of this.”
What’s worse? I don’t really care who’s pissed off. Everybody’s pissed off. I care about tangible action. So what’s worse: scores of people dead, billions in property damage, autonomous zones set up within the US, an attack on the Whitehouse, storming of the senate office buildings, government buildings attacked and vandalized, assassinations of police officers, massive spikes in violent crime resulting in hundreds of ancillary deaths, and overt calls for violence from prominent members of one political party for years, all of which had nothing to do with this past election…or a handful of dead (mostly among the protesters), some broken windows in the capitol, some bumps and bruises, perpetrated in one afternoon by some LARPing morons. Even if Trump is responsible for Jan 6th, it doesn’t compare to the death, destruction, and general terror unleashed in a months-long wave of violence that washed over the entire country in 2020, let alone the years prior.
So you’ll have a hard time convincing me that Trump is “obviously” culpable for that, given the facts I just laid out.
“Right-wing political violence is hugely up in the Trump era, especially if you remove lone gunman shooting up black churches and things of the like as “political violence.” (The source of those silly claims)”
This is highly debatable, but it doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t remotely establish any sort of causation between Trump and the violence any more than the Leftwing violence during the Obama years was attributable to him.
“This is just dishonest. “You special people, you’re so special, I love you, please don’t hurt the police, but you did a great job today.” Bruh.”
Even taken out of context there is nothing objectionable in this quote. I’ve been subjected to some of the most loathsome praise and enabling of violent protesters for the past year that I find your objection here is to be rather hollow. What happened at the capitol began while he was still speaking. And since he made this comment after the violence had already occurred it’s hardly evidence of inciting anything, “bruh”.
“Irrelevant.”
Hardly.
“I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and neither does google.”
Then look up James Hodgkinson. I’m sure it will refresh your memory.
“I don’t remember Bernie Sanders telling his supporters to storm the capitol and stop congress from certifying an election.”
Nah, Bernie just liked to pop off about “Revolution”. No biggie right? Besides, I don’t remember Trump saying “storm the capitol” either. Please don’t talk to me about dishonesty again.
“He told his supporters to go to the capitol and bully republican lawmakers into changing their behavior. There is no other interpretation of what he said. You don’t get to weasel out of this.”
I’m not weaseling out of anything. I’m asking you to give me your rhetorical analysis. Right now you’re giving me a tendentious take, and starting to get a little shitty about it. He told his supporters to make their voices heard and to fight for their rights. This is boilerplate political rhetoric. It’s not even close to the overt, violent garbage I’ve heard from his political opponents for four years. So was that your analysis? Inserting your own language into Trump’s to make a point? It’s not convincing.
And beyond that, it is extremely common for an idea to be put in people’s heads without the idea needing to be explicitly stated.”
If you’re hearing dogwhistles, you’re the dog. This is not evidence. This is accusing someone of mind control. It’s not persuasive.
“If I write a news article and say “Friends say Samantha hated Harry, Samantha had access to Harry’s apartment, Samantha had recently purchased the drugs that were used to kill Harry, Samantha doesn’t have an alibi for the time of Harry’s death, and when taken in for questioning Samantha didn’t cooperate with police,” guess what? Now 99% of the people who read the article think Samantha killed Harry. I didn’t need to say it. This has become extremely common in modern propaganda.”
Which could be construed as libel. There are laws against this. And this analogy doesn’t apply to a political speech. It doesn’t really even remotely compare with Trump’s speech. We’re talking about incitement. That’s a serious, concrete charge that requires more evidence than mind-reading and handwaving.
“In this case, Trump has put these ideas in the minds of the audience:”
Good luck proving that in court. Not only that, but do you really think that anyone in that audience had never heard those predictions before?
“The election was rigged, we actually won, they are trying to steal our country, it’s completely unfair, if you let them steal our country they will turn it over to Biden the Marxist who will take away your guns, raise your taxes, flood the country with immigrants, give your kids hormone therapy, and proliferate the availability of abortions.”
Sounds like a run-of-the-mill political ad. Reminds me of other rhetoric like “pushing granny off a cliff”, or “they wanna put y’all back in chains”, or “Republicans want to see people dead in the streets” (regarding healthcare). All pretty standard political schlock that no one lit their hair on fire over, and of course no one apparently felt impelled to act on it.
So no, I’m not seeing anything out of the ordinary, let alone anything that points to violence.
“You realize that Trump can do things that are monstrous, and rightfully frighten people, without them being technically illegal, right?”
And you realize that legality is the primary issue in question here, right?
“Also, it seems a great number of lawyers find these acts illegal, and I’m sure they know better than either of us.”
Really? Because I have not seen one yet who has demonstrated how Trump’s remarks meet the legal test for incitement. It’s pretty narrow.
“It’s not an argument at all. It’s a means of avoiding wasting my time.”
The good faith part is, but that’s clearly not what I was referring to. I was referring to your fallacy of claiming a truth proposition based on popularity. That’s a fallacy when dealing with opinion.
“You seemed to be implying things about Trump that 95% of Trump supporters would disagree with. Now you admit he is an evil miscreant, so I simply don’t understand why you behaved as you did earlier.”
This is what happens when you strawman. I implied nothing of the sort about the majority of Trump supporters, nor did I say or agree that he is an “evil miscreant”. If you’re not going to respond to the words I put on the page, this is pointless.
“It’s not intended to be a direct comparison, lol.”
I didn’t say direct comparison. “lol” I said false comparison. There’s a critical difference. I even pointed out how it was false.
“I’m outlining a situation in which you would be completely within your right to stop listening to someone, by arriving at the conclusion that nothing you say will cause them to change their mind in any way. All of your earlier rhetoric gave off the same vibes, although now you’re willing to admit Trump is an awful person so this no longer applies.”
I know what you were doing, and I was pointing out the logical flaw. You keep reading “vibes” and apparently looking for things in between the lines instead of the plain language I’m using.
“I’m not going to respond to any more of this section, because you seem far more reasonable now than you did earlier.”
Curious, because nothing has changed. “Reasonableness” is not contingent upon finding overlap with the opinion of Chris Thomas, thanks.
“No, I was saying that 95% of Trump supporters would agree that he is an immoral and terrible person. You apparently agree with this, but that was not at all clear from your earlier messages.”
I’m not aware of any data which would even test your hypothesis, so it’s hard to say, but given your own remark about how the majority of Trump supporters consider him to be their “parasocial daddy”, I’m having a hard time squaring that with your claim that 95% of them consider him to be an immoral and terrible person.
This is you projecting your own opinions on me and it has curiously moderated your responses. I do not agree with your characterization of my opinion since I am in no position to judge his morality because I am not close enough to him to judge for myself. I don’t outsource my character judgments to media reports. If I did, I’d never vote for anyone. I’ve not seen anything he’s done that makes him a terrible person, only many rumors and allegations that I have no way of verifying. In the end, I do not care about what he does in his private life or his business life; it affects me not. He has always struck me as course and vulgar, but I don’t really care. You do. Great. I respect that. But you seem tilted that my priorities are not yours when it comes to evaluating politicians.
So let me try to herd this back to the topic which you took over for Aaron – my request for an explanation of how Trump is a greater threat to society than CT and all its unholy spawn.
I have still not seen a causative mechanism explained between Trump’s “character” and the so-called threat he posed to society. If I’ve read you correctly – and please correct me if I get it wrong, or have missed anything – you are making this connection based on a few statements that are tantamount to incitement, coupled with the fact that Trump filed lawsuits challenging the result of the election and the related rhetoric about the election. Is that accurate?
Chris and Aaron-
How do you know Trump was acting with intent instead of acting with just knowledge, recklessness, or negligence?
What would your evidence be for each level of mens rea?
Dude, you’re just filibustering. I already addressed this. His intent is irrelevant, the acts at the capitol were an insurrection/insurgency, and it never would have happened if not for Trump’s actions. Your attempts to defend him are sad.
Chris-
The Mens Rea of Incitement
Some important points on incitement were uncertain until the enactment of the Serious Crime Act 2007. A classic text had disposed briefly of the mental element: “Intention or, at least, recklessness is needful.”Footnote27 Likewise, the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Hamilton Footnote28 stated that mens rea required an accompanying “intent or conscious disregard of [emphasis added] the substantial and unjustified risk inherent in the counselling.”Footnote29 Recent writings on English law have favoured a stricter approach. Victor Tadros has emphasised the point that “it is fundamental to incitement that one identifies in some way with the conduct of the incitee.Footnote30 The Law Commission report that led to the enactment of the Serious Crime Act 2007 appears to have been persuaded by Andrew Ashworth’s view that, in the realm of inchoate offences, mere recklessness should not suffice.Footnote31 The stricter approach, it could be added, is especially appropriate in the realm of language crime with its attendant possibility of interpretations being placed on the crucial words that differ from the speaker’s intended meaning. As already noted, the 2007 Act provides that the mental element is either that the accused intends to encourage its commission (section 44) or a combined belief that it will be committed and that his act will provide encouragement to that end (section 45). The former needs to be read against the principle that, when a criminal statute uses the term “intention,” nothing less than that (recklessness, for instance) will suffice.
Be enlightened. Yes, I believe you are not an attorney.
Also, interesting how you can know alternate futures.
So just to be clear, you ARE an attorney?
This comment section is like “Bad Faith Arguments 101.” If you’re not an attorney, I’m not sure why you ever brought this up.
(And you most certainly aren’t, as you seem to believe intent absolves someone of a crime, which it obviously doesn’t)
Chris-
The only point I’m making is that if Trump is guilty of a criminal behavior, intent would have to be proved.
I believe you are reading intentions in my comment that simply aren’t there.
No, I know exactly what your intentions are. You’re trying to delegitimize my objections by setting a bar higher for me than you’re able to meet yourself.
>The only point I’m making is that if Trump is guilty of a criminal behavior, intent would have to be proved.
Yeah, you’re fucking wrong dude. If I drive drunk and kill half your family with my car, do you honestly think anyone is going to care what I intended to do? This argument is nonsensical.
>I believe you are reading intentions in my comment that simply aren’t there.
Your arguments are horrendous, and you are attempting to defend a position that no clear-thinking person would defend. We’re also in a comments section full of people who are obviously either trolls or lunatics. So I’m not exactly sure what your intentions are, nor do I care, but I would appreciate it if you would not downplay the severity of recent events.
95% of the Trump is evil incarnate shrieks seem to be from people who know people who say Trump is evil who know people who say Trump is evil etc. etc. Evidence is not needed, accusations against political opponents is always accurate and justified. As for the former people in his administration speaking out against him, they were so accustomed to their bosses taking their opinions and recommendations without question ‘because they were the experts’ over the last quarter-century if not more they didn’t like it at all when the new boss started asking questions, even though they had a terrible track record.
He’s rude and crude and ruthless. Back in the 1980’s he screwed over contractors I knew, and that’s always been a big blot on my record. But as for him being too dangerous to have his hands on the nuke button, how many wars did he actually start? Now we’re going to have a man who has trouble knowing which woman is his wife with his hands on those keys. And the President in waiting is already known for her bending and breaking the rules while the California AG (withholding evidence, keeping prisoners locked up past time served, etc. etc.).
The reason behind January 6th protests and violence is because of the most massive fraud ever perpetrated on the American voter. Wouldn’t you be pissed when suddenly the vote counting is inexplicably stopped in multiple swing states with your guy well ahead, and when the counting ‘restarts’, your guy is now behind, WHEN THERE WAS NOT SUPPOSEDLY ANY COUNTING GOING ON? Massive vote dumps skewed towards Dementia (and in many cases with only his box checked off) even beyond DC level ratios ONLY in certain Democratic-controlled precincts in swing states, NOT in safe states like CA or NY or IL, far above and beyond voting ratios on record? Over a thousand sworn affidavits detailing voting irregularities and chains of custody, forcible removal of poll watchers, intimidation including death threats, etc. etc.? Followed by the refusal to produce data or allow investigation of any sort except for a couple of recounts in counties where massive irregularities DID NOT OCCUR (BTW recounts in general are useless as they just recount votes already contaminated by fraudulent ballots) along with intentional and in some cases gleeful destruction or spoliation of data in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and other states despite all the laws on the books (which they know they would never be charged with?)
And all this was cheered on by those would be our masters forevermore. Maybe you’re happy it happened, because you think you’re on the winning side and you’ll get a piece of the spoils. Forget about it. You’re going to be kicked to the curb, because the spoils are going to be divided up among the people in the club, and you ain’t in it and are never going to be included in it. Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.
These arguments are absolutely terrible. I am open-minded to the idea of election fraud, and I’ve been trying to seek out the good arguments, but they do not exist.
>Over a thousand sworn affidavits
I wonder why you talk about affidavits and not court cases? Oh yeah, because you lost all of them.
Yes, a conspiracy between all of the states, legislatures, FOX news, and hundreds of Trump-appointed judges have come together to “steal the election.” Also, they chose not to steal down-ballot races, where Democrats lost in November.
Honestly, what is wrong with you people.
“But as for him being too dangerous to have his hands on the nuke button, how many wars did he actually start?”
This is my beef. I keep hearing the nuttiest allegations about “dangers” and existential threat Trump poses with the flimsiest evidence offered in support. “But, character! But, evil!” They squinted into their crystal balls. Trump is the one who unequivocally ordered the cessation of CT-based training in the federal service, who promptly ignored this lawful presidential order. But Trump is the threat to democratic institutions, doncha know?
Enjoy your federally mandated Race Struggle Sessions. Trump would have been temporary. Federal mandates are forever. Great job gang!
Tech companies are censoring political speech and the flow of information based in no small part on CT-based rationales. Democrats, happy to receive the in-kind campaign help, cheer them on. Outsourced suppression of speech. But Trump is the greater threat to our freedoms I’m told.
And when they come for this website, and they will, we can all rest easy in our silence after having vanquished the true threat.
But I do appreciate times like these in how they offer clarity on who can be taken seriously, and who we can safely ignore.
>This is my beef. I keep hearing the nuttiest allegations about “dangers” and existential threat Trump poses with the flimsiest evidence offered in support.
For anyone reading, this person is a classic example of a common form of bad faith argumentation. Copious evidence is offered against his position, and he will simply reject all of it as “not dangerous enough.” You could literally sit here and cite hundreds of reasons that Trump is potentially dangerous, and he will just go through them one by one, come up with a silly reason it’s not important, and then say “See? No evidence that Trump is dangerous.” Then he will just continue and filibuster until the person he’s talking to gets tired and leaves.
Just to be clear, Trump denied the results of a completely fair election, brainwashed tens of millions of people (including this lunatic) into believing the election was fraudulent, is on tape bullying state officials into trying to overturn the election, filed over sixty frivolous lawsuits (All of which he lost) to try and overturn the election, then called a convention of supporters that he has brainwashed into believing nonsensical conspiracy theories, told them to storm the capitol to stall the congress’ attempt to certify electors, and *this effort was successful.* This is after Trump called on VP Pence to effectively carry out a coup (Which he can’t do). What did that lead to? Trump’s lawyer calling for Mike Pence to be assassinated, and “Capitol Protestors” to chant “Hang Mike Pence” outside the capitol.
I’m done with the pleasantries. This person is either a dangerously deranged lunatic, or a purposefully manipulative charlatan. Hopefully the challenges to their horrendously bad faith conduct will elucidate this to readers.
Yeah, we should just accept your position regarding everything and anybody. If you say it’s true, it must be, because you said it.
If the election was completely above aboard, why the rush to destroy evidence? Why the absolute refusal to allow actual audits (NOT recounts) of the election process, vote-counting, ballots, and chain of custody? If the election officials have nothing to hide, why are they stone-walling, blocking and destroying?
Elections are not free and fair if only your side is allowed to win. Because that attitude will spread to everything, with uber bad results. I’m always willing to admit I’m wrong. Will you be willing to admit the same when the people you voted for kick you to the curb?
Chris and Aaron-
Here’s a better link for you: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/444.html re Brandenburg.
By the way, about 20 minutes into the march, Trump did tell people to calm down. Also, what about these words from Trump, “”A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.” He added that “this moment calls for healing and reconciliation.” make you think that an incitement to violence.
Chris, I’m guessing you’re not an attorney.
Aaron- you completely ignore my reference to Hanlon’s razor. Also, Aaron, if you told a mental health professional who uses Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, humans don’t have the ability to control their actions under certain circumstances, you would be told that’s not true.
Are you an attorney? A plain-faced reading of the decision supports my argument, not yours. I am not a lawyer, but I do work in criminal justice, and understanding penal codes is central to some of my work. If you actually have credentials and know something I don’t, please explain it. I’m open to being wrong. However, the way you frame the legal argument does not seem credible to me whatsoever.
Trump does not need to say “now go, my children, and loot the capitol!” to be complicit in criminal acts.
Also, it was an hour and twenty minutes after the protestors began a ruckus at the capitol. That began around 1:20. He tweeted at 2:38. And again, inciting people to violence, then telling them to calm down an hour later does not absolve oneself of inciting people to violence.
I’m not qualified to fully parse the legal arguments (Although, I suspect, neither are you). The practical and ethical arguments, however, seem quite clear.
Also mentioning “this moment calls for healing and reconciliation” is ludicrous, and you should avoid making that argument. Imagine if I kicked the shit out of someone, then I helped them up and said “now, time for peace.” How do you think a jury or judge would respond?
Cal, Re: Hanlon’s razor, I don’t think Trump’s misdeeds are adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence. What others here are calling Trump’s lack of manners (etc.) is grounded in his lack of proper moral regard for fellow human beings.
Nothing I’ve said denies that people lack the ability to control their actions. CBT teaches that we can exercise some control over our emotions and corresponding behaviors by choosing which ideas to focus on and habituating ourselves in to new ways of thinking. But that’s consistent with thinking that one person can influence another by recommending that they take serious some ideas rather than others. Ultimately, each person is responsible for what s/he chooses to believe. But those choices are always made in a context in which some ideas ideas appear more plausible and appealing than others. By means of his misinformation campaign, Trump helped stack the deck in favor of people choosing to believe his lies.
Thanks again to all who read an commented. As I said in an earlier reply: ” Particular instances of Trump’s vice-laden behavior are so numerous, I’m inclined to think that anyone who needs me to point them out either hasn’t been paying attention or has moral sensibilities so different from my own that no amount of purported-evidence will suffice to convince them that I’m reasonable let alone right.” I don’t have time to go down all the rabbit holes with folks who think that there’s a vast, left-wing media conspiracy (which now, apparently, Fox News has joined) that has so completely succeeded in misrepresenting Trump that all of us who think he’s a mendacious villain have been duped, or that just because I’m a person who sees problems with standard positions on both the extreme left and the extreme right, I must somehow be pandering to the lefties, trying to appease people in power, or that I’ve unconsciously imbibed CSJT ideology. Again, thanks for the engagement. I hope to see you all on the other side of what I hope will be a peaceful inauguration, as I suspect I’ll have plenty more to say about (against!) CSJT.
No one asked you to go down a rabbit hole.
No one said anything about a “vast, left-wing media conspiracy”.
No one mentioned Fox news, other than you and the person you agree with.
No one said you were “pandering to the lefties”.
And no one said you were trying to appease people in power.
No one implied any of that either.
If your response to being asked to support a claim is this sort of petulant strawmanning, given your fallacious reasoning and obfuscation above, then you probably won’t be seeing many here “on the other side” because you haven’t exactly done wonders for your credibility.
I’m the only one saying you’ve had a bit too much CSJ rub off on you. Because you argue just like one.
Aaron-
Two points here:
Your suggestions that Trump caused the violence and rioting seem to imply you think people don’t have free will. Were people forced to participate at BLM riots or this week’s violence at the Capitol? Or, did they chose to?
Also, I’m proactively mentioning that under current USC, Trump’s actions might not be illegal and are protected speech” Here’s a link to the code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2102 affirming this. Also see Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) that protects speech advocating illegal activity.
Also, did Trump advocate violence?
The key legal element here is did Trump intend to cause a riot? If you think you know the answer, then you are a mind reader.
Isn’t your essay largely about how people shouldn’t assign negative intentions to an action? Correct me if I’m wrong.
As to the law enforcement response to the riot, I offer you Hanlon’s Razor- “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/incompetence”.
>Your suggestions that Trump caused the violence and rioting seem to imply you think people don’t have free will.
Not really. Your entire post is colored with black or white thinking, and this is a good example. “Did Trump cause it, or did they choose to do it? There are no other options, there is no room in between.” This sets a ridiculous precedent that would effectively make it impossible to establish a chain of causation. I’ll come back to this in a second, need to address another of your points to proceed:
>The key legal element here is did Trump intend to cause a riot? If you think you know the answer, then you are a mind reader.
Again, you’re speaking in these ridiculous black and white terms, and well outside any sensible understanding of motivational personality. “Did he mean for this to happen… yes or no?”
What if he just didn’t give a shit either way, does that make it any better? Are his intentions actually important?
Speaking within the bounds of what is reasonable to assume while making conservative assumptions, Trump disregarded civility, decorum, civic harmony, honesty, and liberal values in favor of reinforcing his own ego and cult of personality. It would be extremely difficult to argue against this, and I don’t even think most Trump supporters would; they like this about him. If we believe that “he would see this country burned if he could be king of the ashes,” that doesn’t necessarily mean he wants the country to burn. However, if his actions lead the country to burn, trying to absolve him of culpability because “he didn’t intend for this to happen” is ridiculous.
Trump purposefully created a situation where the odds of violent civil unrest coming from his supporters was drastically increased. While his supporters made their own choices to participate, that does not absolve Trump of his actions without which the event never would have happened.
>Brandenburg v Ohio (1969)
You didn’t read your sources my dude:
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
This doesn’t protect Trump, and I think you must realize this.
>The key legal element here is did Trump intend to cause a riot?
You realize that manslaughter is a thing, right? Intentions reduce your sentence, they don’t absolve you of a crime.
>Also, did Trump advocate violence?
His lawyers are telling people to literally kill Mike Pence (Lin Wood), and have a “trial by combat” (Rudy Giuliani). He is telling his supporters that the election was fraudulent, and that they must defend “our country,” which is to mean his own presidency. He offers tacit support for violent groups (“Proud boys, stand back and stand by”). After his supporters commit violence, he literally tells them they are special, and endorses their behavior.
Yes. Yes, he is endorsing violence. Again, you would need to be *very dishonest* to ignore all of this.
Where’s the like button on this thing? 🙂 Well said, Chris Thomas. That goes for all your posts that I’ve seen so far.
Thanks Aaron, great post.
Thanks for the reply, Cal. To say my essay is about how people shouldn’t assign negative intentions to an action is to construe the point too narrowly. Rather, the mistake is (as I put it in the essay) “cynically assuming the worst about people when there are reasonable alternative interpretations readily available.” This is not meant to imply that you can’t get good evidence of a person’s character via repeated patterns of behavior. With Trump, we have plenty of behavioral evidence, and – while there may be some reasonable alternative explanations for some instances of that behavior taken in isolation, there are really no reasonable alternative explanation for the persistent pattern than that Trump has immense deficiencies of character.
I do believe that people have free will. I also believe that people’s choices are influenced by all sorts of inner and outer forces, including the words and actions of people in positions of authority. The two are not mutually exclusive, and there is no plausible theory of human free will which exempts it from the world of influences.
The smart set always gets ruthlessly played by the establishment media and the author of this piece is no exception. It’s time for you to learn about politics, when people can’t win on policy they start the criticising over personality and that inevitably leads to criticising along social justice lines in this era.
Donald Trump up-ended the Republican consensus on policy, on both immigration, trade and military engagement. The Republican elites who were opposed to that tried to fight Trump on immigration, but the base correctly laughed them off, they tried on trade, but no one cared enough either way and so then it moved to foreign policy. Now they couldn’t fight Trump directly on foreign policy as what he was saying made sense to the base, but what they could do was exploit there loyalty to military figures as a way to get there way. Enter the generals, specifically general Mattis, who signed up for the administration so they could write hit pieces against on Trump on the way out and play people just like you.
The same is true for Nikki Hayley. The same is true for the countless rebels in the administration, one particular highlight from recent weeks is the person that was bragging about actively subverting Trump’s wishes to withdraw troops from Syria by lieing about whether it had taken place. By the nonsensical standards of last week that was treasonous behaviour that should have seen him court martialled for fortunately not everyone is as undisciplined as the smart set.
Nearly every media hyped criticism about the threat Trump poses is always based on personality first, because it either plays people like you or gives you a way to defend policy preferences you aren’t willing to admit to having. The thing is people remember the policy preferences of people like Jennifer Rubin who seamlessly has gone from supporting de-Baathification to supporting de-Trumpifcation without any contemplation on whether either was a good idea.
Racism wasn’t bad because it was rational, it was bad because it was irrational, it was bad because it was like the culture of intense hatred that’s directed towards Trump that could seamlessly pivot from being against police brutality to for policy brutality on a dime just to preserve the narrative. I’m at the point where I don’t even believe you can be anti-woke if you believe Trump posed a real threat because it demonstrates you can’t actually see the fundamental irrationality and instead only see the potential for the movement to lose support. Hopefully the hatred of Trump will die down over the coming years, but if you can’t and aren’t willing to link the irrationality at the heart of it to wokedom you are part of the problem.
Given that 74M Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2020…
Given that a large group of these Trump voters marched on Washington and the Capital…
Given that a some of these marchers forcefully attacked the seat of their own government…
Given that Congressional approval rating is at a recent high of 23%…
I would hope that a representative government by and for the people would take a big step back and ask…
Why have these people turned so forcefully against the government that claims to represent and serve them?
In this day and age of course that would be hoping for too much thought and introspection. Instead the riot will be used as a political cudgel and an opportunity for the government itself to circle the wagons and stand together in heroically condemning the action.
The rioters will be written off as domestic terrorists, racists, etc. And, like Ice Nine in Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle”, that labeling could easily pass from the rioters to the protesters outside, to the voters themselves, and ultimately to the segments of our society they come from and represent.
I do not condone political violence, although I have seen it tacitly and explicitly condoned in the last six months.
But when a government writes off political violence as the dangerous ravings of outliers about whom they need not care…
Then the only response to additional political violence will be additional government force. And the most effective use of force in this case would be preemptive use of force. Don’t just stop the rioters, stop the protesters, stop the prognosticators, etc. And it seems that we’re starting to see that already.
Yes, enforce the law, do a MUCH better job with security around large protests. But please, seek to understand why this is happening. Or it will continue happening.
>Why have these people turned so forcefully against the government that claims to represent and serve them?
Because we elected a narcissistic lunatic who can’t handle losing an election, so he took every opportunity to try and convince his supporters that the election was rigged, and if they don’t overturn the results the country will be handed over to a group of radical marxists that will enact communism, steal their guns, and give their children hormone replacement therapy. Then he organized a rally, told them this was the last chance, and *told them to march on the capitol,* that he would be coming with them, and that they needed to bully congress into overturning the results.
Honestly, it’s not complicated lol.
Aaron-
A number of your comments lead me to conclude that you must live in a very protected shell. Perhaps you are unaware that humans are not as prosocial as you seem to think.
I know I came to believe that after working with all types of offenders in the criminal justice system. News flash for you: anyone is capable of doing anything under the right circumstances. I am no longer surprised when “nice” people commit horrible crimes.
You must be unfamiliar with Solzhennitsyn’s quote: “the line between good and evil runs through the hearts of all men”.
Personalism values subjectivity just as much as objectivity. Interesting you would have an interest in it.
Trump has been the most Libertarian-like President in his actions in my lifetime. I also don’t agree with some of his ideas. He behaves like an ass frequently. So what Aaron. Are you really that concerned about liking and being liked by others?
Finally, what might you say about Nancy Pelosi’s meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Army to possibly control Trump?
Are you more concerned with principles or principals?
I
“[A]nyone is capable of doing anything under the right circumstances.”
Anyone here who is interested in this topic might enjoy reading Milton Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free. It is based on the author’s interviews in the 1950s with former members of the Nazi Party.
Another related work is Margaret Singer’s Cults in Our Midst.
While waiting for these two books to arrive, and you have not done so already, read James Lindsay’s “Psychopathy and the Origins of Totalitarianism” on this website.
Cal, I’d be curious to know which of my comments led me to conclude that I live in a very protected shell, or that I’m unfamiliar with Solzhenitsyn’s famous quote (which I know well, and believe to be true.) I’m not sure how to respond to you without getting clearer on what you mean. As to Trump “behaving like an ass,” I think much more is at stake than liking and being liked. On that point, please see my reply to Jacqueline et al. for details (that up above, I think – I’m never quite sure where comments will show up in the threads) .
The summer protests had already demonstrated violence, and their participants’ willingness to destroy property. The same media that crowed about how unprecedented it was, would also feign shock, surprise and dismay at the thought of law enforcement and the military defending the White House.
There has been, and will continue to be, an atmosphere of intolerance to anyone bold enough to challenge any assertion stemming from Critical Theory. Fair enough. And I guess it really doesn’t matter. Because my experience is that anyone who believes it, is not going to respond to logic or reason anyway. So their is no point discussing it. My hope is that in the next four years its impracticality and mendacity can be demonstrated in full. Then maybe enough people will realize something “isn’t right here” and start voting or making changes at their own individual levels to change it.
The summer riots, waged with the express permission and enabling of state and local elected officials, big tech, and big money, showed everyone in the country that rioting and terror were apparently a legitimate form of expression. The incoming VPOTUS urged them to keep it up. The incoming POTUS never once condemned the organizations responsible for the most deadly, destructive wave of violence to grip the country since the US Civil War.
And people were surprised when a handful of people got the idea that it was okay? The hypocrisy and one-sided outrage on this issue is vomit-inducing.
Remember, their violence is speech, their enemy’s speech is violence. And viewed through the CSJ lens, the reaction to the Jan 6th Mostly Peaceful Protest™ and should be crystal clear to readers of and contributors to this website.
Should be.
I agree with the preceding comments. Yet I had initially shrugged off the Trump quip since expressions of anti-Trumpisms among media even from the conservative sect are so common, they are like thoughtless, uncontrollable tics and I breeze past them. If we’re to openly challenge radical humanism shouldn’t we start by exorcizing PC knee-jerk reactions from our discussions? Everyone has a right to his own opinions about Trump but this knee-jerk commentary is so pervasive we must call it out. Like many others, I’m still waiting for proof of Trump’s bigotry and tyranny. Let’s face it, Trump made a better American as president than as a younger tycoon using immanent domain to snatch private property to grow his casinos and hotels.
It’s scary to think Biden gives that much weight to what his granddaughter thinks.
“with Trump on the way out, the threat he posed will soon disappear”
It was difficult to read past this boilerplate statement, but I soldiered on!
Would it be too much to ask the author to explain, in concrete terms, precisely what threat Trump posed? I have seen many charges leveled at the Trump administration with precious little evidence or understanding of the terms most used. I was assured Trump was going to start WWIII, load homosexuals onto cattle cars, and install a military dictatorship, so please don’t consider yourself absolved from solving your “dilemma” due to the convenience of the election.
I want to assign weight to your thoughts here, so backing up significant assertions (A sitting US President is an existential threat to a liberal democracy) with something more than a fashionable quip would go a long way towards establishing credibility among those who have no idea who you are.
Lastly, please refrain from fatuous use of charged terms like “insurgency” where they clearly have no meaningful application. Protesters stormed and occupied Senate office buildings during the Kavanuagh hearings, and we weren’t subjected to these sorts of malapropisms. We have aerial photography of the streets of Washington, D.C. near the capitol on fire during the protests of 2020, yet the usual suspects didn’t seem to abuse the language in this way. “Protesters” attempting to light up a federal courthouse in Oregon earlier in the year were just expressing righteous rage, I suppose?
Equivocating what amounted to criminal mischief in a public federal building to insurrection or “insurgency” in comparison to the non-comprehensive list I just gave shows a stunning lack of relevant knowledge, or perhaps a bit more CSJ taking up residence in your subconscious.
>Would it be too much to ask the author to explain, in concrete terms, precisely what threat Trump posed? I have seen many charges leveled at the Trump administration with precious little evidence or understanding of the terms most used.
My dude, his lies and blatant propaganda have sown a level of division in this country that threaten to tear it apart. You can nitpick what the people storming the capitol should be known as, but by any definition it is a violent group of people sent by the president to disrupt the government going through the process of peacefully transitioning power. This led to the first disruption of congress in two hundred years. He has been explicit in his refusal to accept a democratic loss going back to 2015.
I agree that there is often hyperbole when discussing this topic, but by your logic there should be no cause for worry until Trump successfully overthrows the government.
>Lastly, please refrain from fatuous use of charged terms like “insurgency” where they clearly have no meaningful application.
Insurgency: An active revolt or uprising.
Revolt: An attempt to put an end to the authority of a person or body by rebelling.
Fatuous: Silly and pointless.
You’re the one misusing terms. Again, I agree that there is a good deal of hyperbole in the discourse, but insurgency is *not* inaccurate. It is a straightforward description of what happened.
I asked for concrete proof. You have simply repeated a meme about lies and blatant propaganda. In doing so, you would be more credible if you did not repeat your own lies and propaganda. Unless of course you can provide credible evidence for Trump “[sending people] to disrupt the government going through the process of peacefully transitioning power”. There is more evidence to support numerous democrat politicians at all levels of government fomenting violence, hate, discord, destruction, and yes – murder over the past year (and longer, if we’re being honest) than there is for your unsupported claim.
Your remark about this being the first disruption of congress in 200 years is also factually inaccurate. I gave just one example in the past year in clear English that seems to have escaped your notice.
“He has been explicit in his refusal to accept a democratic loss going back to 2015.”
Considering he was not involved in any election or loss in 2015, I’m quite sure you have very little idea of what you’re talking about. But in that regard, we can also include Stacy Abrams, who was referring to herself as the governor of GA long after she lost. GA, a state she accused of engaging in massive electoral fraud, but whose elected officials she accused of such fraud somehow cleaned it up. Indeed one can find numerous examples of decidedly left-leaning major news outlets raising the alarm about fraud for years leading up to just weeks before this election (particularly in GA, you can find it on NPR), when suddenly everything became squeaky clean.
And of course, who can forget the entire Democrat party officially accusing Trump of subverting the 2016 election on the unsubstantiated basis of a non-crime of “collusion” for three years.
No, no, you can spare me these fake, one-sided concerns.
“…but by your logic there should be no cause for worry until Trump successfully overthrows the government.”
And what logic would that be? I have seen more evidence for the concerted effort for his entire presidency by the Democrat party to overthrow the government all the way down to encouraging riots and destruction around the country. So until you can provide some substantial evidence beyond memes and wild conjecture, your efforts at logical analysis are highly suspect.
And no, no useful meaning of “insurgency” applies here. A few people in costumes ran into the capitol building and took a podium, put their feet up on desks, and broke some windows. And congress was back to work in a few hours. Calling that comical effort and insurgency is, well…comical. The pearl-clutching over some LARPers running amok in the capitol they were effectively allowed into in light of the casual dismissal and ignoring of widespread violence, destruction, general terrorism, and active subversion of the rule of law around the country tells me that you’re just not serious.
As soon as you acknowledge those basic facts, are able to use those facts to contextualize this discussion and offer a more circumspect analysis, you’ll come across as arguing in good faith.
>I asked for concrete proof.
…lol
He called a rally of people, and told them to storm the capitol. He filed like 65 lawsuits in response to the election (and lost 64 of them). He’s on tape trying to intimidate state election officials. Do you think like a third of the country (including you it seems) believe a ridiculous conspiracy about a stolen election by happenstance?
I don’t know what “concrete proof” you could possibly need. Just be honest, you like what he’s doing.
Unless you can provide a citation that Trump called for protesters to “storm the capitol”, I’m going consider you a liar.
We’re not talking about the election lawsuits, we’re talking about a protest that was far more peaceful than any of the terror-filled riots conducted by BLM and Antifa last year – focus, please.
Do you not know what concrete proof means? It means not making vague unsupported claims like your opening lie. Look it up if you need to. When you understand basic terminology, we can continue a rational discussion. Why do you condone the domestic terrorism of BLM and Antifa? Why are you okay with all of the deaths that resulted from their violence?
“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
You’re the liar.
“You’re the liar.”
That was it? That was your proof? That was fairly mild political rhetoric. I can find tons of political rhetoric much, much more explicit than that that no one bats an eye about, but because The Bogeyman uttered it, it’s beyond the pale?
Please.
An insurgency is what happened in Seattle with the establishment of the CHAZ or whatever they ended up calling it. Would anyone be calling the events in DC an insurgency if the protesters in question happened to be Black? That’s the question you need to ask. And if through some stretch of the definition it was an insurgency, it was clearly a pretty half-assed one. Congress was back in business in how many hours? And how does this compare to the Puerto Rican nationalists who staged an actual armed attack in 1954? Or numerous protests during the Vietnam era? Or even June-July of this past summer? And where in the discussion is the fact that DC’s own mayor refused offers of assistance from New Jersey authorities?
Trump is a grandstanding businessman whose many failings should serve as a perpetual warning to anyone who still entertains the dangerous assumption that a businessman can “fix” politics (I’m looking at you, supporters of Bloomberg). Trump tossed a match on a puddle of gasoline. That does not automatically mean he spilled the gasoline, caused the pipeline leak that allowed it to pool there, or anything else. And what does it say about this country when we allow someone who was killed by police while unarmed to be canonized or demonized based solely on their race or political views?
I, of course, meant to say ‘insurrection’ as opposed to ‘insurgency.’ Editing is a thing…
This is just whataboutism dude. Feelings on CHAZ are irrelevant to the reality of what happened at the capitol on the 6th.
“Whataboutism” isn’t a thing. That’s a neologism concocted by people who don’t like having to examine the intellectual consistency of their opinions.
Claiming that closely related subjects are irrelevant shows either a gross deficiency in understanding, or woeful dishonesty.
> “Whataboutism” isn’t a thing.
Yes, whataboutism is a thing, apparently you need to be educated. “Whataboutism” is when you avoid discussing a subject by bringing up a completely different, unrelated subject.
When we are discussing what happened at the Capitol on January 6th, as much as this may pain you, the BLM protests are not relevant. I did not express an opinion on the BLM protests, we were not discussing the BLM protests, we’re discussing the storming of the Capitol. You’re attacking perceived hypocrisy that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. I already established what the definitions are, and we’ve already established that the storming of the capitol meets the definition of an insurgency. The entire conversation is a red herring, and this method of obfuscation is known as… whataboutism. Your lesson for the day.
>That’s a neologism concocted by people who don’t like having to examine the intellectual consistency of their opinions.
You strike me as someone desperately in need of some intellectual consistency, my dude.
>Claiming that closely related subjects are irrelevant shows either a gross deficiency in understanding, or woeful dishonesty.
No, it demonstrates that when I prove an argument, you do not disprove it by trying to assert that another situation was worse. These takes are hot garbage my dude.
No, my guy, “whataboutism” is exactly what I said it was. You can check out the criticism of the concept of it on the Wikipedia page, of all places. Your use of it here was just standard intellectual deflection rather than any solid understanding of it. My education is fine, Spanky, thanks.
Pretending that the wave of “mostly peaceful protests” of the past year are irrelevant is dishonest. The whole tenor of this discussion, and the national discussion is that Jan 6th was somehow unprecedented. It was not. And the characterization of what happened as somehow an insurgency, when apparently the same language is not used to describe similar and worse events is pure denialism. It’s based purely upon how you lean politically, rather than any sort of honest assessment of the political climate which led to the situation. Unless of course you want to argue that Jan 6th happened in a vacuum, then you can do so on your own.
But hey, Spanky, you don’t get to establish the terms of the debate. That’s not how any of this works.
Wrong. But whatever, dude. If you are incapable of distinguishing an insurrection from a protest, that’s on you. The CHAZ people occupied a defined area and declared it an autonomous zone. That’s fact, not feeling. You, on the other hand, feel the events on the 6th were an insurrection.
However, if I grant you that the events of the 6th were an insurrection, you would need to agree that the majority of protests over the summer were also insurrections if you accept the standard dictionary definition of the word: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. Note it does not say Federal government. Occupying territory and refusing to leave (CHAZ) clearly fits under this definition. So do many, if not all, of the major protests this summer if they were blocking access to areas in defiance of ordnance or statute and refusing to disperse when instructed to do so, placing them in a position of revolt against civil authority.
That’s what it is, dude.
GenXer, I’m sorry man, but this couldn’t be any better of an example of whataboutism.
>If you are incapable of distinguishing an insurrection from a protest, that’s on you.
No, it’s on you, you don’t know what words mean.
Insurgency: An active revolt or uprising.
Revolt: Rise in rebellion.
Uprising: An act of resistance or rebellion; a revolt.
Insurgency: An active revolt or uprising.
*They all apply.* The fact that you personally do not feel as strongly about the events as you think you would feel about a hypothetical insurrection or insurgency is immaterial.
>The CHAZ people occupied a defined area and declared it an autonomous zone.
Whataboutism, no one brought up CHAZ dude, it’s not relevant.
>You, on the other hand, feel the events on the 6th were an insurrection.
Yes. I know how to use google and look up the definitions of words, so yes.
>However, if I grant you that the events of the 6th were an insurrection, you would need to agree that the majority of protests over the summer were also insurrections if you accept the standard dictionary definition of the word
No, I don’t need to do anything of the sort, because no one said anything about that. We merely called these events what they were, and you started going on about something completely irrelevant (whataboutism) to distract from the reality that you are uncomfortable with (presumably that people you are politically aligned with carried out an act of insurrection/insurgency).
This isn’t a conversation you can win, you are factually wrong. Be an adult, admit you were wrong, and move on with your life.
I do not support the violent BLM protests. I don’t support CHAZ. I’m not a leftist. But none of that matters, you don’t get to start a completely different conversation to escape a very simple fact upon which you are factually wrong: The events of January 6th at the capitol were an insurrection/insurgency.
Chris – I disagree that CHAZ et al is irrelevant to Jan 6th. The narrative around Jan 6th is already shifting to “this is evidence of systemic racism”, which ties back to everything that occurred throughout the summer. This topic is especially relevant on this site and to these commenters.
I’m admittedly not a debate expert but highlighting a possible double standard of the other debater, by bringing up similar circumstances which they may hold an opposite view point on to the one they’re making seems like a reasonable tactic.
Having said that, I have to call out the fact that many who (IMO rightly) called out the lawless and destructive nature of the summer riots are not showing similar vigor in doing the same with Jan 6th.
@John P,
“Having said that, I have to call out the fact that many who (IMO rightly) called out the lawless and destructive nature of the summer riots are not showing similar vigor in doing the same with Jan 6th.”
Probably because it wasn’t about calling out the violence of the summer protests (which actually go back years), or the Capitol protest, but the fact that the author claimed Trump was an existential threat that was possibly greater than that posed by CSJ.
This begs for a comparative assessment that was not forthcoming. The chief among them being that Trump has condemned every act of violence that has occurred during his administration. Other politicians have taken the opposite route. That is directly related to the topic of which is the greater threat – Trump or CSJ.
But if it satisfies the requirement for ritual denunciations, here’s mine, offered elsewhere in the thread: the entry into the capitol on Jan 6th was stupid, foolish, dangerous, and counterproductive and truly has no place in a liberal democratic society.
>The chief among them being that Trump has condemned every act of violence that has occurred during his administration.
Does a single person here believe this person isn’t purposefully lying?
*Trump incites riot, stops national guard from being called in, doesn’t even say anything about it for an hour and a half, releases atrocious statement telling people to be peaceful but praising the rioters and telling them he “loves them”*
See? He called to be peaceful! Lmfao.
Criminal mischief? They killed a Capitol Hill policeman.
“They”? Who is “they”? Be specific. More than one person swung a fire extinguisher at a single cop’s head? An unarmed woman was killed by police in the same event. Will she be getting a protest and movement in her name?
I don’t seem to recall many tears shed for the multiple officers who were assassinated by BLM protesters this past year. Violence against police has been lauded by numerous politicians at the local, state, and federal level this past year. And yet Trump gets the blame for inciting violence.
Welcome to clownworld.
Sorry, I do not have a specific name (out of the thousands of protesters) that struck the officer in the head. However, please feel free to label Ashli Babbitt a “patriot” instead of the traitor and insurgent she was.
Would appreciate you citing the sources where “multiple officers who were assassinated by BLM protesters last year”.
By clownworld, do you mean the world inhabited by President Game Show host and his delusional followers?
So you have absolved yourself of the responsibility of defending your assertions or arguments. The problem with your argument, such as it is, is that it was one person out of tens of thousands. Meanwhile the body count from BLM and the AntiFa allies dwarfs the tragic and unfortunate deaths on Jan 6th. Trump has condemned that and all the violence since he’s been in office. Democrats only seem to have found their opposition to such violence on Jan 6th. Curious, that. Why do you condone violence?
I have not labeled Ashli Babbit a “patriot”, so your dishonest use of quotation marks for something I did not say is noted. I said she was unarmed, but shot by police. Need I remind you that far greater and destructive actions were precipitated by the shooting of unarmed civilians by police for doing worse? No, I’m sure I don’t need to remind you. Some people’s lives are more valuable than others.
As per your request for sources, I’ll clarify, the two officers I was thinking of ended up surviving, thankfully: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2020/09/14/sheriffs-deputies-shot-compton-anti-police-protest/
I had confused that with one from a few years earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
And of course the retired police captain: https://abcnews.go.com/US/small-town-police-chief-killed-officers-cities-wounded/story?id=71017820
But something tells me those aren’t gonna count.
As for the low grade ad hom, that confirms to me that you’re not really serious.
Ah, the inevitable “citing sources” request. I always love those. It allows you to run down the endless rabbit hole of “your sources suck, no yours do, well so does your mom” and so on. The simple face is murders in most large cities in the US have jumped by at least 50% this year…and the majority of those cities are controlled by Democrats and saw significant protest activity. This is according to NPR: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953254623/massive-1-year-rise-in-homicide-rates-collided-with-the-pandemic-in-2020.
And yet it’s interesting to see how quickly the “the police suck” crowd is rushing to highlight the officer who was killed in DC. Does he suddenly matter now that he might have been killed by white people? Had his assailants been black, would he have mattered as much? And the woman killed…is she somehow worth less because of the color of her skin? Had she been black there would be calls for the immediate termination of the officer who pulled the trigger (seen in numerous video clips), along with his arrest and prompt prosecution. So now whose life is worth more? Less?
Yes, I suppose defending your argument, such as it is, might be too high a bar. Unless more than one person was swinging the fire extinguisher that killed the officer at the capitol, it was one person, out of maybe 300 who went into the capitol, out of tens of thousands at the protest. One person.
And I didn’t not call Ashli Babbitt a “patriot”, so your strawman is duly noted. I merely stated a fact – that she was shot as an unarmed civilian, and that she won’t be getting any movements or memorials in her name.
For some reason (probably posting multiple links) my response to you didn’t go through. No matter, I will give you the basic information on each and you can search them yourself. I offered a clarification that the two officers I was considering actually ended up living, thankfully. That was in reference to two LC County Sherriff’s deputies who had been shot multiple times enduring protesters at the hospital chanting “we hope they die”.
I was also mistakenly considering the 5 officers killed by a sniper in 2016 at a BLM protest. Not that it’s irrelevant to the conversation.
There was also retired police captain David Dorn who was killed by “protesters” in Saint Louis. But I suppose that doesn’t technically count.
Now that I have fulfilled your request, I would appreciate you returning the respect I have shown you – I want to hear how you contextualize and quantify the violence, murder, destruction, and general terrorism that has been waged across the country for the past year. I want your comparative assessment, not your continued silence on it.
LA County Sheriffs*
Indeed, welcome to clownworld, where chanting replaces argument, lists of demands replace debates, and floating abstracts are treated as axioms.
On the positive side, the clowns are really bad with money, and they are their own undoing in the long run. (Although, they can be rather tedious in the short run.)
Excellent – Very well stated!
Seems to me that Professor Preston felt the need to insert the obligatory “I’m not for Trump” verbiage to mitigate scorn from the administration, faculty, or worse, the student body at his workplace. But that’s just my opinion.
“Would it be too much to ask the author to explain, in concrete terms, precisely what threat Trump posed?” On this, please see my reply to Jacqueline, above. It’s not entirely clear to me what people mean by “concrete” when used to qualify “terms” or “proof.” It might mean something like “the opposite of ‘abstract,’” or it might be a synonym for “solid” or “firm” or “convincing,” but none of these make it much clearer. Proof, in the strict sense, exists only in mathematics and pure logic, where the evidence is wholly abstract. I believe what I’ve pointed to above is good evidence both of Trump’s character and the threat he has posed to our nation.
This is sophistry.
I did not ask you for “proof”, but you strike me as educated enough to understand what concrete means in the context in which it was used. You made an undeniably vague claim. Asking for more concrete language to support a claim is hardly ambiguous.
I’ll respond to your other comment up thread.
In this comment (https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-dont-cynicism-on-display/#comment-8000) you indicated that you’d asked for “concrete proof”. Vagueness is a matter of a term or claim being unclear on account of not having precise meaning. For instance, it’s not clear what the criteria are for counting as “tall”in any given context, and any precise criteria invoked will appear arbitrary (if 6′ is the threshold for being “tall” as a human being, why not 5’11.75″?) I don’t think the claim you’re complaining about had that fault. This isn’t sophistry; it’s just an attempt to be clear.
Please refer to my comment immediately above where I stated, “I did not ask you for “proof””.
Do you find that ambiguous? Then why on earth would you quote me in response to another commenter?
That’s borderline dishonest.
I shouldn’t need to point out that my word choice will change in a different thread of a discussion to a commenter who happened to use more concrete language than you did, thus warranting a different response…but perhaps I do.
I asked you for “concrete terms” (note the proper quote). Continuing this sort of semantic sophistry over a simple and common use of relatively basic language is not something I find compelling enough to continue.
Cheers.
On the use of “insurgency,” in reply to gmmay70: I’m not sure what you think the proper meaning of the term is, but here’s what brittanica.com has to say: “[a] term historically restricted to rebellious acts that did not reach the proportions of an organized revolution. It has subsequently been applied to any such armed uprising, typically guerrilla in character, against the recognized government of a state or country.” Was this a rebellious act that fell short of an organized revolution? Yes it was. Was it an armed uprising against the recognized government of a state or country? Arguably, yes it was. The mob was, after all, presumably trying to prevent the certification of a presidential vote in order to keep their preferred candidate in power. And I’m perfectly happy to apply the term to some of the actions of the BLM/Antifa crowd from this past summer as well.
Arguably? I’d be willing to argue that there were enough armed people in the entire protest to have easily taken over the capitol and most of Washington DC if they felt so inclined. But given the fact that no one used any arms (other than an uncorroborated report of a fire extinguisher) or even seem to have brandished them, the definition you offered doesn’t hold water. It like to see your argument here.
Your presumption about the intent of the protesters is simple mind-reading, unless you have evidence for such a claim. With tens of thousands of people at the protest, it would seem that stopping congress from their vote would have been a mere speedbump.
Did the protesters who stormed into the Senate Office buildings during the Kavanaugh hearings qualify as insurgents? As I read the definition you provide, it certainly seems to. If not, why not?
I’m glad to see someone finally call the BLM/Antifa actions an insurgency. Thank you. Now, out of all of the violence and terror dating back to 2016 and the mostly peaceful protest of Jan 6th, which ones were conducted with the permission and plaudits of elected officials?
“…the mostly peaceful protest of Jan 6th…”
Absolutely hysterical.
Great piece. I would appreciate very much a broad stroke elaboration about your inability to decide whether a Trump presidency is worse than SJ movements, education demise, etc. Thanks so much.
I doubt very seriously you’ll see that sort of intellectual honesty from people who are predisposed to useless “pox upon both houses” fallacies.
I cling to a diminishing hope that this website and its contributors will prove me wrong here.
I cling to the same vain hope, as well. Couching comments with apologies for questioning the prevailing leftist narrative is as common as using ‘they’ as a singular pronoun.
If Donald Trump had posed an existential internal threat to the United States of America, then he would have exploited the Wuhan Virus fiasco or the Summer of Hate riots, declared martial law, and rounded up his political enemies. He also would have punished—not twitted meanly about, but punish-punished—everyone who has called him a fascist that is worse than Hitler.
I found the “authoritarian weakman” argument to be the pinnacle of stupidity among the crowd that had been charging Trump with authoritarianism for 3 years and then criticizing him for not being authoritarian enough.
Apparently the thing that galled them the most was his penchant for defending himself against some of the most ridiculous, acerbic, and fact-free accusations that made the Bush 43 years look like a model of collegiality. Lord knows I could find plenty of policy grounds on which to criticize the Trump administration, but good luck finding anyone willing to engage in that beyond “But he says mean things on Twitter!”
And that’s from people who consider themselves the Smart Set™ and who hold All The Right Credentials.
On the “unfair” argument, I read stories quoting prior Sec Defs Esper and “Mad Dog” Mattis.
Assuming we trust them, Mattis approved use of NG and various other military related security to join police in clearing out BLM protests. Photos of timeline show various uniform insignia, one was prison guards.
On one hand, BLM or Antifa had set fire to St John church the night before. That’s not only arson, it’s a nasty message to govt and Presidency, it makes Trump look like a weakling.
Mattis stood with Trump for the Bible photo, but apparently only understood later that he had authorized use of military forces on civilians the next day to clear that area including beyond St. Mark’s.
Mattis said he regretted that decision to deploy for the purpose of a photo op “stunt”. Context matters. Maybe it was smart to win the psywar vs violent mob. Mattis didn’t agree, in retrospect, that it was appropriate to use military against peaceful protests the following day.
Trump thought “Mad Dog” Mattis was more “weak” than he expected. He was fired.
Sec Def Esper was asked to deploy US Army in cities under the 1807 Insurrection Act. His response to Trump was that the riots were a small component of larger peaceful 1st And marches, that didn’t rise to level of using US Army. Esper did tell states to go hard with police and I think governors always had the power to deploy NG for civilian control. Army goes for combat.
That too is context. I would need to research if US Army was deployed in 60s urban riots, and if it was because those were significantly larger and worse than possibly smaller ANTIFA riots. “Diversity of tactics” has been part of strategy, to use mix of protesters along with rioters, for flexible narrative.
Also, times have changed, public expectations have changed.
As Esper was forced out, he soberly warned it would be a big problem if a sycophant like Miller replaced him. Miller became Acting Sec who was in charge on Jan 06.
It was initially denied that General Chuck Flynn, the brother of Q-Anon fanatic Mike Flynn, was present in Pentagon meetings on Jan 06, regarding granting permission to Gov Hogan to send NG into DC or onto Capitol grounds. Hogan reported a long wait for a confirmation.
I would not be surprised if we learned that Miller and Flynn and others intentionally dragged out responding for a few hours to give certain more-serious ex-military invaders like Oath-Keepers more time to turn it from LARPING to actual coup for Trump. We may never get to the bottom of that, or not publicly.
Needless to say, Left riots were disgusting, but Capitol riots, while brief and arson-less, were potentially worse in the sense of invading the Capitol of the Empire and potentially rising beyond a display of violent dominance in the face of lax security, to an attempted actual para-military takeover.
Comments welcome. Just my thoughts.
Mattis was not the Defense Secretary at that time, he resigned in January 2019, principally over disagreement with Trump’s order to withdraw US forces from Syria. You must be thinking of Chairman of the JCS Mark Milley, who was present at the photo op, in uniform. He apologized later for that, as did Espey.
gmmayo70-
I agree with your assessments about the essay and website. If you haven’t already, you may find some content at Reason.com interesting. Over time, unfortunately, the site has taken a more progressive tone, but not always. It is Libertarian in its orientation. John Stossel typically writes pieces I like.
Check it out.
I used to read Reason back in the 1990s until I got busy with real-life stuff. I hadn’t seen it for maybe two decades, when I started reading it online a few years ago. I was impressed by how they were going on and on about the same stuff as before. It was as if they had been frozen in time. Likewise, Mises.org. (At least Jeffrey Tucker latched onto Bitcoin, when he still was at FEE and had a few interesting things to say about it.)
Don’t get me wrong. I dislike prescriptive regulation, unchecked power, psychotic officials, fiat currency manipulation, and punitive taxes as much as, or maybe even more than, your typical libertarian. But still, how many different ways can you say, “Taxation is theft,” before it becomes monotonous?
However, I gave up on Reason, when I saw an ‘interview’ of Nick Gillespie by his subordinate, Zach Weissmueller, in which he defended Postmodernism. He argued at one point that Postmodernists just want us to question our most basic beliefs. My most basic beliefs involve the existence of reality; the efficacy of reason to make sense of that single, universal reality; and the fundamental nature of each unique constituent of that reality, including especially human nature. To question that is to dabble in schizophrenia.
Only recently, I discovered this website. I was aware of the Grievance Studies hoax, but I did not realize that James Lindsay is as serious thinker as he is. His work here is brilliant.
Another who is surprisingly impressive is Scott Adams. He is insightful—although I’d compare Adams to a book like “How Things Work” and Lindsay to a graduate school Physics textbook—and often very entertaining.
There are also two comedians, who brutally send up their fellow leftists: JP Sears and Ryan Long.
I will check out those two comedians.
I think Lindsay partly defends aspects of post-modernism.
I just found a story about CIA studying French philosophers during the Cold War, and the fact that Foucault had turned anti-Marxist to the Right, or at least anti-USSR. The point that I think the writers were making was CIA saw it as a useful diversion for leftists away from pushing for a straight up proletariat revolution.
As far as Taxation is theft, taxes don’t actually fund federal spending. That’s impossible without a source of US Dollars external to the Govt, like “trees”. Govt, plus agent Banks that are licensed to create credit, possess exclusive power create United States dollars.
Tax enforcement is what makes a fiat currency work. Fiat currency is what has allowed capitalism to expand beyond 1800s levels of industry and global trade.
Gold was used as a constraint or straight jacket overlaid on top of the fiat currency, with the promise that the government would hand out subsidized gold bullion and a fixed price. Not a fixed price baby formula for mothers and children. Fixed price gold for speculators.
Note that the same concept was in use for English tally sticks, which had to be spent by the king and then later redeemed with tax enforcement. After using for accounting purposes, old tally sticks were just burned in the furnace.
Likewise, Virginia colony would pass a tax and spending bill simultaneously. Then they would spend Virginia paper notes. Then later tax back a portion of those notes, leaving some notes in the private sector for desired savings.
Actual gold bullion or coins was necessary for trade or hiring mercenaries outside of the political sphere of the monarch or government. English tally sticks would hardly be useful to German mercenaries or for making purchases in India.
Today we have forex.
A short and free PDF called Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds explains the whole mechanics of Treasury, Fed, and banking much better than I could possibly do.
People who were mentioned by the author included Donald Rumsfeld who put the author in contact with Arthur Laffer for some discussion and also Galbraith. The book is an explanation followed by a career biography of rising from bank teller to international currency trader in one or more Chicago firms.
Reason is a cesspit now, tainted by more than enough CSJ language and leftist claptrap to render it a net negative for libertarianism. The commenters there are generally more useful than the contributors. Nick Gillespie is just not a serious thinker.
It has been infected by the utterly nonsensical concept of “left wing libertarianism”, and despite the utterly self-cancelling nature of the concept, they seem to be contributing to a vast body of work attempting to legitimize it. The Gramscians are like locusts.
In spirit, I want to be a libertarian. But the Libertarians tend to ruin it for me, since they tend to lack any idea of sane priorities. Reason.com doesn’t really even seem to be libertarian any more. Brad’s assessment of Nick Gillespie is spot on, and it shows in his articles as well.
Brad and gmmayo70-
Agree that Reason is not what is used to be. Many of the essays are disappointing-many writers have drifted close to or are in the progressive camp. (Gillespie has changed, no question and Shika Dilhma, a contributor, appear to actively dislike the rule of law). That was about six years ago. This is the reason I never renewed my subscription. Online Reason is free and occasionally has some well written, liberty oriented content. Its not always all bad. I enjoy the comments usually more than the essay.
I regularly read AIER.org (American Institute for Economic Research). It has some good content. Mises.org is another good site as you noted. Babylon Bee is great fun!
By the way, there are Libertarian ideas with which I don’t agree. For instance, Abortion is one of them.
Thanks for you other suggestions. Oh, I too like Scott Adams.
Thanks to all who read and commented. Here’s my attempt at the broad stroke elaboration requested by Jaqueline, accompanied by responses to some related points raised by other commentators below.
To put it as simply as possible: Trump is an evil and unstable person, and having such a person at the helm of the world’s most powerful nation is a threat to all, including that nation itself. Why think Trump is an evil man? Because he exemplifies none of the moral or intellectual virtues, and nearly all the main vices, acknowledged by mainstream moral thought (secular and religious) in the Western tradition. How does He exemplify this? Through his behavior, including but not limited to the “mean” Tweets mentioned by gmmay70, below.
Particular instances of Trump’s vice-laden behavior are so numerous, I’m inclined to think that anyone who needs me to point them pout either hasn’t been paying attention or has moral sensibilities so different from my own that no amount of purported-evidence will suffice to convince them that I’m reasonable let alone right. But in a good faith effort to answer the question, I will quote at some length from one of my academic publications (my contribution to this book https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030508838):
[Begin Quote]
“It’s a rare thing in philosophy to have incontrovertible evidence for any position one accepts. But it seems to me that the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States is incontrovertible evidence that America, at least, is in a state of epistemic and moral crisis. On Sept. 5, 2018, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by an anonymous senior official in the Trump administration. The author explained that s/he is one of “many […] senior officials […] working diligently from within to frustrate parts of [Trump’s] agenda and his worst inclinations”, and that this is necessary because “the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic”. Much of the criticism focuses on “the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective”:
‘Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions.
‘There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,’ a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.’
Trump’s behavior is described as highly “erratic” and unstable. But even his limited stability is problematic, as it consists in his “preference for autocrats and dictators” while displaying “little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations”.
Trump’s attitudes and behavior, his ‘leadership style’, is in fact so disturbing that 27 mental health experts, motivated by their professional ‘duty to warn’ when a patient poses a danger to others, took the unprecedented step of publicly analyzing and all-but-diagnosing Trump with narcissistic personality disorder and a number of other clinical deficiencies (Lee 2017). For the philosopher, Trump’s behavior brings to mind Plato’s descriptions of the ‘tyrannical man’ in the Republic, a person driven by numerous, conflicting desires, to act in ways that display little rational coherence. His “soul is full of meanness and vulgarity – the best elements in him are enslaved; and there is a small ruling part, which is also the worst and maddest” (Republic 577d). For Plato, this is not merely a psychological but a moral problem. And many of Trump’s first-hand observes would agree. The anonymous Op-Ed goes on to say that “[t]he root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making”.
This echoes the assessment of former FBI director James Comey, who remarked in an interview that Trump is “morally unfit to be president”:
‘A person who sees moral equivalence in Charlottesville [between racists and anti-racist protesters], who talks about and treats women like they’re pieces of meat, who lies constantly about matters big and small and insists the American people believe it, that person’s not fit to be president of the United States.’
As Comey notes, Trump’s moral problem has not only to do with his vile attitudes toward various classes of people, but also with his utter disregard for the truth. In this regard, Trump’s behavior brings to mind Jesus’ description of Satan: “there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language” (John 8:44).
[End quote.]
Since 2018, we’ve seen an increasing number of credible sources, some of them with impeccable conservative bona fides, worry over these and related matters, specifically noting the threat this poses to America – recall past statements from
Conway, Schmidt, Weaver and Wilson (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/opinion/lincoln-project.html)
James Mattis (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/)
George Will (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-one-should-want-four-more-years-of-this-taste-of-ashes/2020/06/01/1a80ecf4-a425-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html)
and Stuart Stevens (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/19/interview-stuart-stevens-republican-case-against-trump-397918)
The latest and most serious example of Trump’s threat to democracy is his baseless campaign to get the results of the Presidential election overturned – a campaign directly related to the events of this past Wednesday. Was this campaign a threat to America? Mitch McConnell said this past Wednesday that to accede to Trump’s wishes would “would damage our republic forever.” McConnell also stated that “self-government requires a shared commitment to truth and shared respect for the ground rules of our system.” (https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/mcconnell-remarks-on-the-electoral-college-count-). That Trump has respect for neither is the witness of all of the above-mentioned sources and more.
If that’s not a threat to America, I don’t know what is. There’s no reason to think, as Brad Anderson suggests below, that the threshold for counting as a threat consists in things like “exploit[ing] the Wuhan Virus fiasco or the Summer of Hate riots, declare[ing]martial law, and round[ing] up his political enemies,” etc.” That’s on par with thinking that the only way to threaten the health of your marriage is to beat your spouse. Nope, you can do a whole lot less than that and still do a whole lot of damage to your relationship.
Now, I don’t know if these terms are “concrete” enough for gmmay70, but then it’s not entirely clear what people mean by “concrete” when used to qualify “terms” or “proof,” (gmmay70 uses it to qualify both.) It might mean something like “the opposite of ‘abstract,’” or it might be a synonym for “solid” or “firm” or “convincing,” but none of these make it much clearer. Proof, in the strict sense, exists only in mathematics and pure logic, where the evidence is wholly abstract. I believe what I’ve pointed to above is good evidence both of Trumps character and the threat he has posed to our nation. If you disagree, feel free to explain why.
As I have time, I’ll try to reply to issues raised in other comments that I didn’t touch on here. Again, thanks for reading, and for sharing your thoughts.
Aaron,
I appreciate your detailed response, which I was mostly already aware, which your sources solidify.
Despite the fact that I am of Jewish ethnicity, my understanding of Charlottesville is that the fascist group had obtained a permit to give speeches in the park, and then go home. Taking at face value the explanations of Richard Spencer, who these days mocks Trump and Trump fanatics, the stupid Populist Right, while discussing Nietzsche and Hegel.
They were frustrated by the sudden revocation of their permit to hold the rally and give speeches, after they were already on the grounds and preparing.
The smaller topic was whether those statues represent Heritage and History of war or present day Hate, and I would add, the question of whether a Maoist cultural revolution of tearing down old statues is a good idea, and if so, does that not also put at moral risk the statues of other founders who own slaves, including Washington and Jefferson, and for that matter the statues of Lincoln who was not explicitly anti-racist.
However, beyond the mere disappointment and cooperative but resentful retreat of the fascist rally people from the park, there is the fact that they were expelled onto the street where both liberal (Cornell West, Quakers) and anti-fascist radicals (ANTIFA) were amassed with no permits but plenty of projectiles to throw.
I can’t see any logical reason why police and city officials, if they were aiming to reduce tensions and reduce the possibility of violence, would throw these two groups into direct contact. Elderly “heritage” types were pummeled walking to their cars. Some ANTIFA were hit when they were mistaken for FA.
Lastly, the organizers said they certainly didn’t know everyone attending, they did not know Fields, they did not encourage physical retribution such as driving a Dodge Charger directly into a group of activists who were slowly leaving the site.
Despite a caustic ideology or worldview, incompatible with multiculturalism, they were attempting to present themselves as capable of reasonable discussions. I know that it is the philosophy of ANTIFA to preemptively quash any such discussions about race and about democracy.
Comments are welcome.
(I tried to post a longer version of this earlier, but it hasn’t shown up yet, so I’m guessing it was too long and was rejected by the moderators. Sorry for the repeat if the original shows up.)
Thanks to all who read and commented. Here’s my attempt at the broad stroke elaboration requested by Jaqueline.
To put it as simply as possible: Trump is an evil and unstable person, and having such a person at the helm of the world’s most powerful nation is a threat to all, including that nation itself. Why think Trump is an evil man? Because he exemplifies none of the moral or intellectual virtues, and nearly all the main vices, acknowledged by mainstream moral thought (secular and religious) in the Western tradition. How does He exemplify this? Through his behavior. Particular instances of Trump’s vice-laden behavior are so numerous, I’m inclined to think that anyone who needs me to point them out either hasn’t been paying attention or has moral sensibilities so different from my own that no amount of purported-evidence will suffice to convince them that I’m reasonable let alone right.
But in a good faith effort to answer the question, consider the kinds of things that first-hand observers have claimed about Trump, including:
–The September 2018, NYT Op-Ed, “ I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration.”
–James Comey’s comments on Trump being “morally unfit to be president” in April 2018.
–George T. Conway III, Steve Schmidt, John Weaver and Rick Wilson’s December 2019 NYT Op-Ed, ”We Are Republicans, and We Want Trump Defeated,”
–James Mattis’ June 2020 comments on Trump, published in The Atlantic.
–George Will’s June 2020 Op Ed in the Washington Post, “Trump must be removed. So must his congressional enablers.”
–Stuart Stevens’ 2020 book _It was all a lie_.
–Mitch McConnell’s speech condemning Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, given this past Wed.
McConnell said that to accede to Trump’s wishes would “would damage our republic forever.” He also stated that “self-government requires a shared commitment to truth and shared respect for the ground rules of our system.” That Trump has respect for neither is the consensus of all of the above-mentioned sources and more.
If that’s not a threat to America, I don’t know what is. Is it a greater threat than that posed by CSJT? There’s no way to quantify this in exact terms; it’s a judgement call, and to my mind it’s a close call.
But consider this: it seems to me that Trump’s malign influence over the past 4 years has given much more credence to the claims of CSJT in many people’s minds. It seems to me that the death of George Floyd and the massive national and international response (including protests, riots, etc.) it launched brought CSJT mainstream to a degree far, far beyond what it had previously achieved. And it seems to me that that movement never would have arisen without the immense frustrations that Trump had incited through 4 years of moral ineptitude and callousness in regard to race issues, and months of the same in managing the pandemic. So, much of the current threat-level that attaches to CSJT is due to the corrosive effects of Trump’s (lack of) character.
Aaron, thank you for engaging in the comments.
Assertion: Trump is evil and unstable.
Support: Look at what his political opponents say about him.
This is not about “vice-laden behavior”. Let’s not even invoke the vices of politicians, lest we scurry down a rabbit whole from which there is no return.
But addressing this fallacious reasoning anyway – starting off with an anonymous Op-Ed in the NYT is as proof of this claim is…something I cannot describe charitably. Your list is a who’s who of Nevertrumpers and two appointed officials who openly and brazenly defied lawful presidential directives (or worse).
Since you seem to have semantic difficulty with the request for concrete examples of Trump’s “danger”, please give examples of Trump’s policies or actions that have resulted in tangible harm to the United States. This charge, along with nonsensical labels of “tyrant”, “fascist”, “authoritarian”, have persisted with precious little evidence since before Trump was inaugurated. There has been more tangible harm to citizens and property, both public and private, from Trump’s political opponents than anything resulting from Trump’s policies. I’m open to an argument to the contrary should you choose to provide one.
I suppose the response at this point would be more of the typical one-sided, context-free rhetorical analysis, but I’ll wait until it is made (should you choose to respond) before addressing it.
“He also stated that “self-government requires a shared commitment to truth and shared respect for the ground rules of our system.” That Trump has respect for neither is the consensus of all of the above-mentioned sources and more.”
This is more fallacious reasoning. This appoints McConnell sole arbiter of the truth, while appealing to consensus. Since you seem to cede an awful lot of reasoning power to the opinions of political opponents, I can find any number of McConnell’s Democrat opponents who would dispute his claim on the truth any other time. It seems the commitment to truth and respect for our system depends entirely upon political persuasion in your line of reasoning.
“Is it a greater threat than that posed by CSJT? There’s no way to quantify this in exact terms; it’s a judgement call, and to my mind it’s a close call.”
Given that your stance here aligns with nearly every proponent of CSJ, your judgment is questionable. Is that a fair comment? Probably not, but it’s on par with what you’ve offered so far.
Your entire last paragraph is pure confirmation bias and projection. The death of George Floyd was brought into the national consciousness because of a mendacious media infested with CSJ adherents. An entire movement was spawned on partial information, which resulted in a wave of domestic terrorism across the country not seen since the Civil War. And when more information surfaced that George Floyd most likely died from an overdose of Fentanyl and other substances while resisting arrest, how much play did that get from an ostensibly truth-obsessed media? None of that had anything to do with Trump, and it’s extraordinarily dishonest to suggest it.
Tossing in more pseudo-religious language, and irrelevancies about character and COVID-19 was especially weak. I suppose next we’ll be treated to explanations of how Trump’s travel ban was racist, and that Tony Fauci’s admitted lies were of the noble sort, or that the direct actions of several governors in ordering infectious patients into nursing homes was really Trump’s fault.
Yes yes, and “evil” Trump poisoned my cat.
>Assertion: Trump is evil and unstable.
Support: Look at what his political opponents say about him.
Many of these people were part of his administration. I’m sure you have some apologia that explains why Trump has incredible turnover, and why nearly all of his allies abandon and betray him. I’m also sure that this explanation will have nothing to do with Trump’s actions or character.
To be blunt, your posts are trolling. You seek to argue things that are so ridiculous it is difficult for a thinking person to entertain them. You want to support Trump? Fine, but that requires some degree of admission of the clear reality of the situation. These people became his “political rivals” because he is a monstrous person who is unfit for office.
You are clearly trying to respond to so many posts, that people cannot reasonably address them all, but I’ll stop here. You consistently defend ludicrous points (Trump is not morally defective, really?), and you consistently make snide remarks to the people with whom you are speaking (Since you seem to have semantic difficulty…). Aaron does not have “semantic difficulty” with anything, he has far surpassed any reasonable expectation of what is necessary to make his point. You have not been convinced because you cannot be convinced, you are not reasonable.
You’re not here for discussion, you’re here to filibuster until people tire and leave. Well I am tired, and I am leaving, but you should know that any reasonable person who is not completely enveloped in Trump’s ego will see through these sad attempts at defending him.
It’s perfectly reasonable to argue that Trump is a deeply flawed person and you support him anyway, but you are trying to argue that he is without flaw. No serious person will abide your torrent of nonsense.
“Many of these people were part of his administration. I’m sure you have some apologia that explains why Trump has incredible turnover, and why nearly all of his allies abandon and betray him. I’m also sure that this explanation will have nothing to do with Trump’s actions or character.”
I could offer numerous possible explanation for Trump’s high turnover, but I’m not interested in offering pure speculation, contrary to some in this thread. And something tells me you’re not really interested in what I’d offer to begin with, so how about I don’t waste your time or mine with that?
I’m totally unconcerned with Trump’s character. Descriptive representation is irrelevant to me, being an opponent of CSJ. No one would be in politics if character were a primary concern. I’m concerned with actions and policy. And so far, despite the volumes of criticsms written on Trump, there are precious few that focus on action and policy. Those are like gold to me. To me they show who the clear thinkers are, an increasingly rare few. I was hoping the author would provide some, but none so far.
“To be blunt, your posts are trolling.”
Ooops, aaaand we’re done here. I have neither the time or inclination to continue wasting the amount of words on you if this is your response.
You have effectively bowed out of the debate and you can continue wasting your time, but not mine.
Cheers.
Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”.
The troll feigns ignorance and politeness, so that if the target is provoked into making an angry response, the troll can then act as the aggrieved party. Sealioning can be performed by a single troll or by multiple ones acting in concert. The technique of sealioning has been compared to the Gish gallop and metaphorically described as a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Thank you! Your discourse has caused me to learn a new word.
One more bit of clarification I’d like to ask, concerning respect for our elections as evidence of Trump’s “evil” and “destructive” influence on our democracy:
Would you consider Hillary Clinton “evil” or “destructive” for making practically the same allegations that Trump has?
“No, it doesn’t kill me because he knows he’s an illegitimate president. I believe he understands that the many varying tactics they used – from voter suppression and voter purging to hacking to the false stories…”
Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-rodham-clinton-trump-is-a-corrupt-human-tornado/
Would you also consider former representative John Lewis “evil” or “destructive” for refusing to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency?
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/rep-john-lewis-trump-won-t-be-legitimate-854384195610
Is Stacy Abrams “evil” or “destructive” for refusing to accept the GA gubernatorial election results and referring to herself as governor after her loss? Indeed one can find her in prominent roles within the Democrat party today, despite having a position on elections that practically mirrors Trump’s.
Trump used every available means within the system to challenge the result of the election. Whether or not he was wrong in his assessment of the results, he had every right. Just like Clinton sued for recounts in Washington and Michigan after she lost. Just like Al Gore fighting the results of the 2000 election. For some reason I have yet to see explained, It’s Wrong When Trump Does It.
If you feel that those examples I list are also “evil” and threatening to our institutions, then fine. Can’t say I would agree with that, but once people start tossing out terms like “evil”, we’re getting into DiAngelo territory and you’re probably not going to be swayed from such a position. If you feel those situations are different, then an explanation is in order to discover the intellectual basis for an apparent contradiction. Only then can we move forward to the original conundrum of who was the greater threat to society Trump, or CSJ.
Over 70 million people voted for Trump. His approval was about where Obama’s was at the end of his term. It’s possibly higher (I’m waiting for the RCP averages next week). Trump, or the idea of Trump (whatever that is), isn’t going away. Your question still needs an answer.
>Would you consider Hillary Clinton “evil” or “destructive” for making practically the same allegations that Trump has?
Yes.
>Would you also consider former representative John Lewis “evil” or “destructive” for refusing to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency?
Yes.
>Is Stacy Abrams “evil” or “destructive” for refusing to accept the GA gubernatorial election results and referring to herself as governor after her loss?
Yes.
>Trump used every available means within the system to challenge the result of the election.
Trying to bully election officials into manipulating vote counts isn’t “within the system.” I look forward to your embarrassing defense of these actions.
>Whether or not he was wrong in his assessment of the results, he had every right.
This is one of the most heinous arguments you people make. “It’s his right.” Filing frivolous lawsuits is not a right. (And before you say something stupid about the lawsuits not being frivolous, more than half of the judges assigned to the cases deemed them so. Many of whom were assigned by Trump).
Also, there are plenty of terrible things I can do that are technically legal. They can still make me a bad person.
>Just like Clinton sued for recounts in Washington and Michigan after she lost. Just like Al Gore fighting the results of the 2000 election. For some reason I have yet to see explained, It’s Wrong When Trump Does It.
Holy fuck you are such a disingenuous liar it is actually unreal.
When the entire presidential election comes down to like five hundred votes in a single state, looking into the details of what happened is completely reasonable. When you get dumpstered in both the electoral college and popular vote, losing by at least four states, then *file more than sixty frivolous lawsuits* attempting to overturn the election, and *try to intimidate state election officials into overturning the results,* it is not reasonable.
Comparing these events as though they are equivalent just adds to the mounting evidence that you are purposefully lying.
>If you feel that those examples I list are also “evil” and threatening to our institutions, then fine. Can’t say I would agree with that, but once people start tossing out terms like “evil”, we’re getting into DiAngelo territory and you’re probably not going to be swayed from such a position
Oh yeah, because you’re completely rational and reasonable. I’m sure you’re totally open to changing your mind.
>If you feel those situations are different, then an explanation is in order to discover the intellectual basis for an apparent contradiction.
If you don’t think the situations are different then you are too stupid to be part of the democratic process.
>Over 70 million people voted for Trump.
Biden got 7 million more votes than Trump. Bringing this up is, again, proof that you are trying to deceive people.
>Trump, or the idea of Trump (whatever that is), isn’t going away.
Yes, it is. The events of the 6th were extremely unpopular. The GOP lost all three branches of government. The majority of Republicans thought the assault on the capitol was insane. While there are enough delusional people like you to fill the ranks of Trump’s Simp Army, you won’t be a political force moving forward.
Aaron – Your last paragraph in this comment essentially states “Trump is responsible to a degree for CSJT becoming mainstream.”
I would point out that CSJT was gaining significant momentum toward mainstream during Obama’s presidency. The narrative during Obama’s presidency was “people oppose him because he’s black”. CSJT doesn’t need a Trump to accelerate it’s purposes, it can use anything. It’s built on the principle that any circumstances can be colored into something useful for it’s purposes.
So I don’t agree that Trump has unnaturally accelerated the rise of CSJT. I believe this will be proven when it continues to gain momentum throughout the Biden presidency. It makes great use of the adage “never waste a good crisis” and adds “and turn everything into a crisis.”
Interesting. Say, can you please explain how Trump was able to broker the most historic Middle East Abraham Accord? The very issue that has cost trillions in money spent, with a body count in the hundreds of thousands over the past 75+ years?
Are all the key players suckers to a “con man?”
Of course you can’t, because your knee jerk Cult of Personality remarks and puppetry word speak never address… results.
What’s been lost in the incessant and fraudulent “moral” projection is the ability for elected officials to deliver results to its constituents. Employment, GDP, stock market, upward mobility are all cast aside, like a scene from Heather’s; due to his style or expected orthodoxy.
But don’t worry, the highly “moral” and proper Biden will be cast as a savior, while destroying the net gains across America. Just ignore the crack smoking 50 year old son who’s traveling the world taking bribes. Ignore his previous “racial jungle” comments and 47 years of Professional Politician nothingness.
Because as results are diminished, you’ll be ok with his “tone and style”. While ironically abandoning the very moral litmus test you claim to uphold of politicians.