Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar, as long as you remember it can go both ways.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Leftists suggest re-education camps, firing squads, banning talk radio to deprogram Trump supporters
- Thread starter Stevicus
- Start date
Sure, I'll buy that for a dollar, as long as you remember it can go both ways.
Don't presume to tell me what I "really" mean.
So then why haven't you come up with a third way?
Irrelevant, but thanks for trying.
It depends on how you define and characterize "willful," "ignorant," and "evil." I think politics is far too complex and nuanced to be oversimplified with comic book tales of "good vs. evil." That's probably a major factor in how US political discourse has deteriorated so badly. Too much Star Wars level philosophizing at work.
Well, at least you're right about that. Although there are many Republican and Democratic partisans out there who will stridently insist that the parties are very different from each other.
There may be some systemic differences between America and Europe, but we're more alike than we are different. We would all qualify as liberal democracies in the general sense. We're not an autocracy or a military dictatorship, even as much as people "willfully" and "ignorantly" (to use the terms you used) try to claim otherwise. In fact, I think we're more liberal than the UK or the Commonwealth, since we reject monarchism (and there are some rather choice "absurdities" which are associated with your royal family).
As for associating education with liberalism, that may be true. Most Americans learn rather early in school that we are a free nation, that we believe in "liberty and justice for all." Many kids recite this as part of the Pledge of Allegiance, so how could anyone who has this ideal drummed into their head on a daily basis through most of their lives not be liberal to some degree or another?
We see hear and see it all the time: "Let freedom ring," the "Land of the Free," and America is all about freedom and democracy. The Constitution is practically a holy document, and the Founding Fathers are revered as saints. Our rights as human beings and as citizens are considered sacrosanct by many, if not most, Americans. These are things which are highly emphasized in the US culture and in the educational system, and if nothing else, most Americans do know that they have rights.
Most Americans are aware of this and most apparently believe it, so on a generic ideological level, that makes most Americans liberals. Of course, it's not so cut-and-dried in practice, but at least the basics are covered rather early. And we were practicing liberalism while most of these enlightened European countries you mentioned were still in the throes of authoritarian and monarchist dictatorships. It took two world wars before you finally started to figure it out, so don't be so quick to judge us.
I'm just pointing out that your statement about "what they're really supporting" is merely just your opinion - a projection of what you believe other people are thinking.
I did.
That was one possibility of a third way, as you requested. It's not irrelevant. The flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that people make choices based on what they support, and you apparently didn't consider the possibility that they sometimes make choices based on what they're against.
But you also embellished it a bit by making it about "what they really support," so that opens up the possibilities even further. At the risk of being Captain Obvious here, there are some things that people might agree with a candidate on, and other things they might disagree on. I think that's pretty normal for most politicians and their supporters. When you say "what they really support," they might support a candidate on some issues yet disagree on other issues. It varies from individual to individual.
You're missing my point... maybe because it sounds like we're understanding "support" in different ways.
When I talk about support, I mean material support: things like votes, donations, volunteering, putting up a lawn sign, etc. Someone who had to hold their nose voting for Trump because they thought he was the least worst bad option still supported Trump.
Anyone who voted for Trump did so either knew his track record of the last 4 years or didn't. and their decision to support Trump still reflects on them.
It's like that A.R. Moxon quote:
"Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.
"That word is "Nazi." Nobody cares about their motives anymore."
Audie
Veteran Member
A whiff of Godwin in the air
So what is your point here? Either you're trying to say here that people didn't know that Trump was a Nazi, or that they should have known. Or maybe they knew he was a Nazi and didn't care. So, based on your perception that Trump is a Nazi, your conclusion is that there's only two possibilities: Either people knew he was a Nazi, or they didn't know he was a Nazi. And if they didn't know, they're either ignorant fools or in denial of their own evil.
If that's the point you're making, then I didn't miss it. It's come through loud and clear.
Your entire presentation revolves around the central theme that there's something "wrong" with these people - either they don't think correctly or they're outright "evil." This is what I take issue with.
Mind you, I'm not entirely dismissing your position here. I think a large problem I've observed lately is that many people are getting stuck on terminology and semantics that they're losing sight of the actual issues they're trying to address. Trump and his supporters are not Nazis. They're mostly in the camp often known as "America Firsters," which, in many ways, might be seen similar to Nazis - but they're not the same thing. That distinction may not be significant to you, though it still should be noted.
The problem we're dealing with here is not really Nazism, it's Americanism. The America Firsters are merely an offshoot or a side-effect of the same ultra-patriotism which generations of Americans have been raised with for over a century. It was prevalent during the Cold War, and not only was it imperialistic and aggressive, but it was shrouded and dressed up with a lot of noble terms like "freedom" and "democracy" that supporters from both parties ate it up like milk served to kittens.
If you condition people to think this way for generations and put these perceptions in their head, then you'll see various incarnations of American Exceptionalists and America Firsters out there. As a whole, we've tried to restrain some of the more overzealous examples who have cropped up. But the thought of trying to "de-program" them is analogous to "de-programming" Corporate America and the Wall Street crowd to not be greedy. As long as that system and overall way of thinking exists, the consequences will be what they will be.
Until people start realizing that before coming up with oversimplified conclusions that "these people are just so stupid or evil," then maybe the problem can be addressed in earnest.
In Trump's case, "incompetent anti-LGBTQ white nationalist," not Nazi per se, but yes.
Do you realize that I didn't actually call Trump supporters Nazis? It was what we call an analogy.
If you're not going to explain why you think it's incorrect, then I don't really care what you take issue with.
If you're going to split hairs over nuance, then maybe actually fully read the posts you're quoting. I didn't call Trump supporters Nazis; I used an analogy.
No, it's white nationalism.
The Trump phenomenon isn't just the resurgence of some old tradition.
Now, a key element of support for Trump probably is old racists who were incensed at having a black president, but a lot of it doesn't go back any further than the Tea Party movement of the 90s.
Who said "just?" Not me.
We haven't even started talking about solutions here. You haven't let the conversation move past the fact that when someone votes for a president who is responsible for rounding up foreigners into concentration camps and who is willing to let a pandemic ravage states that didn't support him in the election, it does really reflect on the character of that voter.
The question of what to do next is a completely separate issue, bit it's one that's likely going to be hampered if half of the people involved refuse to acknowledge their complicity in evil.
You aren't going to be able to progress to something better until you acknowledge that there were a lot of things very wrong with what you had.
Favored by those who see things in black & white,
ie, if you vote for the lesser of 2 evils, you support evil.
But such people never apply this to themselves.
But if they did.....
By opposing the lesser evil, they support the greater evil.
Tis hard to discuss nuanced issues with people bent on
making it all about simplistic labels.
To illustrate their mischief.....
Sophie Zawistowski would be a supporter of Nazis gassing daughters.
Audie
Veteran Member
I guess I am blind, I just never detected racism,
white nationalism, nor anti LGBT.
Someone have an exsmple?
So far the scary intolerant extremism
and ugly name calling seems primarily from the left.
They take turns with the right.
Audie
Veteran Member
The example of anti lg-etc and racism?
Each side has its flavor, ie, whom they rage against.
Christians, Muslims, men, whites, blacks, capitalists, socialists, etc, etc.
What they have in common is recurring hatred against some groups.
Audie
Veteran Member
L and r seem like each others evil twins.
I wont press for anti / supremist statement from Trump, I don't think they exist.
ecco
Veteran Member
It has nothing to do with my playing "telepsychiatrist" as you so falsely accuse.
He has told over 20,000 lies. that's not my evaluation, that's a proven statistic. There are many lists of them available from reputable sources.
Narcicist? I did not make the diagnosis...
Trump has narcissistic personality disorder, says leading psychoanalyst
You are obviously confusing my reporting facts with my playing "telepsychiatrist". If you want to argue the facts, bring it on. A leading psychoanalyst and clinical professor at the George Washington University School of Medicine has claimed that president Donald Trump suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder”.
What happens when a narcissist loses?
There is agreement among psychologists — and, for that matter, anyone who has been abused by narcissistic personalities — that President Donald Trump fits the psychological profile of a narcissist.
"One does not have to diagnose to recognize pathological or toxic narcissism," Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale and authored the new book "Profile of a Nation: Trump's Mind, America's Soul," told Salon by email. "This is behavior, not a diagnosis
Is Donald Trump Actually a Narcissist? Therapists Weigh In!"One does not have to diagnose to recognize pathological or toxic narcissism," Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale and authored the new book "Profile of a Nation: Trump's Mind, America's Soul," told Salon by email. "This is behavior, not a diagnosis
For mental-health professionals, Donald Trump is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. “Remarkably narcissistic,” said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Textbook narcissistic personality disorder,” echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. “He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.”
Show where someone who told 20,000 lies in four years is not to be considered a pathological liar.
Show a clinical evaluation that shows Trump is not a narcissist.
Audie
Veteran Member
Ah, now I get it. You are confusing someone else's telepsy with facts.
FWIW, I've heard other psychiatrists say that it would be professionally irresponsible to diagnose someone based only on their behaviour on TV.
When they're a con artist.
Trump certainly lies a lot, but a pathological liar lies compulsively. Is he lying because he can't help it, or is he lying as part of a thought-out plan to deceive people to gain some benefit for himself? Neither would surprise me.
Some time ago, I looked into their "proven statistics".
Not saying Trump is an honest guy, but they included
oodles of things that could be mistakes or things
interpreted with the intention of making them wrong.
But the 20K lies is a gospel truth now.
Audie
Veteran Member
The accusation i remember best was Hillary calling " birther" a " racist lie".
Am I stupid that I see neither?
See her as the liar?
Birtherism goes way back in US history.
When whites were accused of non-citizen status,
this was OK. It became "racist" with Obama.
Why?
Because it was a convenient accusation.
Honest?
Say it often enuf, & it feels true.