The Many Faces of US Politics...

[sid waddell]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

[sid waddell]

So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin

So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Oh, I learnt from the best. Can't wait for your deflections tonight when your fearless leader tries to declare a national emergency to build his wall. Imagine - a declaration of a non-existent emergency in order to facilitate the building of an imaginary solution to an immigration crisis when immigration at the Mexican border has been at a net deficit for the past two years.

Believe what you want.

A declaration of national emergency to demand funding for the US to pay for a pointless wall which President Fascist spent years telling everybody the US wouldn't pay a cent for.

As the right are wont to say, you couldn't make it up.

I think I smell burning from the Reichstag.

[omaghjoe]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

[whitey]

So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin

So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Oh, I learnt from the best. Can't wait for your deflections tonight when your fearless leader tries to declare a national emergency to build his wall. Imagine - a declaration of a non-existent emergency in order to facilitate the building of an imaginary solution to an immigration crisis when immigration at the Mexican border has been at a net deficit for the past two years.

Believe what you want.

Well for one I am not a Trump supporter, though I do support a handful of his ideas

Secondly, I have never advocated building a wall and think it is a ridiculous waste of time and money

Who did you vote for in the 2016 presidential election?

Bernie in the Primary

I voted for Jill Stein in the General Election.

I didn't vote for Trump because I thought he might win the popular vote, then not accept Hillary's Electoral College victory as legitimate-lol.

And then Hillary went on to do exactly what I thought Trump would do

[sid waddell]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

That's a good question. I suppose for me to know what your "argument" is, you'll have to come up with one first.

Unfortunately, the only semblance of an "argument" I can gather from you so far is "those who claim to be tolerant are the real intolerant ones".

A right-wing cliche which is so inane, twisted and historically ignorant as to not merit a response.

"Historically ignorant" is being kind by the way.

Much more accurate would be to describe it as taking history and shitting all over it.

There's only one reason a person would do that.

[omaghjoe]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

That's a good question. I suppose for me to know what your "argument" is, you'll have to come up with one first.

Unfortunately, the only semblance of an "argument" I can gather from you so far is "those who claim to be tolerant are the real intolerant ones".

A right-wing cliche which is so inane, twisted and historically ignorant as to not merit a response.

"Historically ignorant" is being kind by the way.

Much more accurate would be to describe it as taking history and shitting all over it.

There's only one reason a person would do that.

Oh thanks for telling me what my argument is and then shooting it down. That's called a straw man, but it seems like logic is only sporadically relevant to you

My case is with your attitude and statements, I don't care who you are aiming it at.

But it doesnt seem to be reserved for the far-right, alt-right or whatever they are called. You explicitly take aim at anyone who identifies as a a conservative or indeed anyone who differs from your opinion or as in the case of myself here it appears to call out your inciteful comments and lump everyone together to demonise.

Where do you think comments like "fight to the death" will lead to?
And what are you going to do about it? or perhaps your just an keyboard warrior so what like to see happening?

[sid waddell]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

That's a good question. I suppose for me to know what your "argument" is, you'll have to come up with one first.

Unfortunately, the only semblance of an "argument" I can gather from you so far is "those who claim to be tolerant are the real intolerant ones".

A right-wing cliche which is so inane, twisted and historically ignorant as to not merit a response.

"Historically ignorant" is being kind by the way.

Much more accurate would be to describe it as taking history and shitting all over it.

There's only one reason a person would do that.

Oh thanks for telling me what my argument is and then shooting it down. That's called a straw man, but it seems like logic is only sporadically relevant to you

My case is with your attitude and statements, I don't care who you are aiming it at.

But it doesnt seem to be reserved for the far-right, alt-right or whatever they are called. You explicitly take aim at anyone who identifies as a a conservative or indeed anyone who differs from your opinion or as in the case of myself here it appears to call out your inciteful comments and lump everyone together to demonise.

Where do you think comments like "fight to the death" will lead to?
And what are you going to do about it? or perhaps your just an keyboard warrior so what like to see happening?

You do understand why I used the term "fight to the death", yes?

It's because fascists everywhere have started a war to destroy democracy, destroy tolerance, destroy the notion of objective truth and destroy ordinary people and societies.

Fascists being Trump and his Russian puppetmasters, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, Salvini, Orban, the regime in Poland, Duterte, AfD etc. And the big business agents of fascism like the Kochs and Mercer who are backing up this cancerous ideology.

And because if ordinary people don't sit up and take notice that these b**tards are engaged in such a war, they will win.

You seem just fine with them winning.

Again, you're in with your far right lexicon to make up for your lack of ability to debate. Again, it's a dead giveaway as to what your real opinions are.

Did you spot the straw man you introduced there, by the way?

Of course you did. Classic projection. Erroneously accuse others of strawmanism and then do exactly that yourself.

Tut tut.

[sid waddell]

[omaghjoe]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

That's a good question. I suppose for me to know what your "argument" is, you'll have to come up with one first.

Unfortunately, the only semblance of an "argument" I can gather from you so far is "those who claim to be tolerant are the real intolerant ones".

A right-wing cliche which is so inane, twisted and historically ignorant as to not merit a response.

"Historically ignorant" is being kind by the way.

Much more accurate would be to describe it as taking history and shitting all over it.

There's only one reason a person would do that.

Oh thanks for telling me what my argument is and then shooting it down. That's called a straw man, but it seems like logic is only sporadically relevant to you

My case is with your attitude and statements, I don't care who you are aiming it at.

But it doesnt seem to be reserved for the far-right, alt-right or whatever they are called. You explicitly take aim at anyone who identifies as a a conservative or indeed anyone who differs from your opinion or as in the case of myself here it appears to call out your inciteful comments and lump everyone together to demonise.

Where do you think comments like "fight to the death" will lead to?
And what are you going to do about it? or perhaps your just an keyboard warrior so what like to see happening?

You do understand why I used the term "fight to the death", yes?

It's because fascists everywhere have started a war to destroy democracy, destroy tolerance, destroy the notion of objective truth and destroy ordinary people and societies.

Fascists being Trump and his Russian puppetmasters, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, Salvini, Orban, the regime in Poland, Duterte, AfD etc. And the big business agents of fascism like the Kochs and Mercer who are backing up this cancerous ideology.

And because if ordinary people don't sit up and take notice that these b**tards are engaged in such a war, they will win.

You seem just fine with them winning.

Again, you're in with your far right lexicon to make up for your lack of ability to debate. Again, it's a dead giveaway as to what your real opinions are.

Did you spot the straw man you introduced there, by the way?

Of course you did. Classic projection. Erroneously accuse others of strawmanism and then do exactly that yourself.

Tut tut.

Tell me all about my strawman

Thanks for knowing by opinions nice to know impressive clairvoyancey however you will be happy to hear it is inaccurate. Tho I am not sure which you prefer being right or having people to demonise

Yeah guilt by association thats right except the only association I have with the movements you are talking about is that I disagree with yourself. Egocentricity at its finest

So by "Fight to the death" and "ruthless defeat" you were talking metaphorically?
To me sounds like you are are really gonna physically fight. To a lot of others that rhetoric sounds the same.
There's someone up the road from you used similar language for years

[easytiger95]

So EasyTiger.....you're telling me that if the number 2 person at Facebook held secret meetings with Trump, shared "research" with him before the election and said that she desperately wanted him to win, you'd be perfectly fine with that?  Just checkin

So Whitey, you're telling me that if an amoral sociopath engaged in a conspiracy with a geopolitical foe/right wing dictatorship, influenced by both financial and sexual kompromat, to win an election, by subverting social media platforms to carry micro-targeted messages to malleable voters, and in the process bringing down or at least actively trying to destroy, in no particular order, the post war western political order, NATO, modern journalism, pluralism, civility, minority groups (including African-Americans, Jewish people and the LGBTQ community), the American constitution, and of course, the planet itself, you'd be perfectly fine with that?

Just checkin.

Man, it must feel good to own the libs.

If that is what the Mueller investigation finds then I'm all for prosecuting those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.......nice deflection by the way

Oh, I learnt from the best. Can't wait for your deflections tonight when your fearless leader tries to declare a national emergency to build his wall. Imagine - a declaration of a non-existent emergency in order to facilitate the building of an imaginary solution to an immigration crisis when immigration at the Mexican border has been at a net deficit for the past two years.

Believe what you want.

Well for one I am not a Trump supporter, though I do support a handful of his ideas

Secondly, I have never advocated building a wall and think it is a ridiculous waste of time and money

Nice wan!! I win tonight's episode of "Whitey Bingo,". Classic..."i am not a trump supporter"
Lol

Belive what you want.

[sid waddell]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

That's a good question. I suppose for me to know what your "argument" is, you'll have to come up with one first.

Unfortunately, the only semblance of an "argument" I can gather from you so far is "those who claim to be tolerant are the real intolerant ones".

A right-wing cliche which is so inane, twisted and historically ignorant as to not merit a response.

"Historically ignorant" is being kind by the way.

Much more accurate would be to describe it as taking history and shitting all over it.

There's only one reason a person would do that.

Oh thanks for telling me what my argument is and then shooting it down. That's called a straw man, but it seems like logic is only sporadically relevant to you

My case is with your attitude and statements, I don't care who you are aiming it at.

But it doesnt seem to be reserved for the far-right, alt-right or whatever they are called. You explicitly take aim at anyone who identifies as a a conservative or indeed anyone who differs from your opinion or as in the case of myself here it appears to call out your inciteful comments and lump everyone together to demonise.

Where do you think comments like "fight to the death" will lead to?
And what are you going to do about it? or perhaps your just an keyboard warrior so what like to see happening?

You do understand why I used the term "fight to the death", yes?

It's because fascists everywhere have started a war to destroy democracy, destroy tolerance, destroy the notion of objective truth and destroy ordinary people and societies.

Fascists being Trump and his Russian puppetmasters, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, Salvini, Orban, the regime in Poland, Duterte, AfD etc. And the big business agents of fascism like the Kochs and Mercer who are backing up this cancerous ideology.

And because if ordinary people don't sit up and take notice that these b**tards are engaged in such a war, they will win.

You seem just fine with them winning.

Again, you're in with your far right lexicon to make up for your lack of ability to debate. Again, it's a dead giveaway as to what your real opinions are.

Did you spot the straw man you introduced there, by the way?

Of course you did. Classic projection. Erroneously accuse others of strawmanism and then do exactly that yourself.

Tut tut.

Tell me all about my strawman

Thanks for knowing by opinions nice to know impressive clairvoyancey however you will be happy to hear it is inaccurate. Tho I am not sure which you prefer being right or having people to demonise

Yeah guilt by association thats right except the only association I have with the movements you are talking about is that I disagree with yourself. Egocentricity at its finest

So by "Fight to the death" and "ruthless defeat" you were talking metaphorically?
To me sounds like you are are really gonna physically fight. To a lot of others that rhetoric sounds the same.
There's someone up the road from you used similar language for years

What do you mean by "take aim at"?

Be specific now, and tell me what your problem with my "rhetoric" is.

In terms of "fight to the death", when talking about what fascists desire, I think its very clear that inflicting physical death on others is one of the things fascists are very keen on.

History certianly bears that out.

Donald Trump openly courts support from and gives tacit support to Nazis, and tacit support to Nazis is real support, because there is no such a thing as tacit support for such an evil ideology. He openly courts support from and gives support to murderous fascist regimes around the world. He openly incites hatred against people of a certain religion, against immigrants, and against trans people and dog whistles hatred against gay people. He courts support from and gives support to an organisation that is effectively a facilitator for domestic terrorism, the NRA - 13,000 people a year die due to gun violence in the US.

So yes, the threat that many people face of physical death at the hands pro-Trump fascists is something everybody should consider very seriously.

[omaghjoe]

"Polarisation" and "both sides" is the language of legitimisation, though.

There are two sides alright - the side that has a reality-based worldview and the side whose worldview is based on outright denial of reality.

These "two sides" can also be described as "non-fascist" and "fascist", respectively.

Only one "side" is legitimate.

The other "side" needs to be faced down ruthlessly and defeated, because its aim is to destroy democracy, destroy the concepts of knowledge and truth, and to destroy ordinary people and societies.

Are you being ironic here ?? If not .....

The worrying thing is that when people identify as belonging to a side they do not denounce inflammatory talk like this.

You and a few others I'm not surprised at..... but there is at least one (or two) poster here who I would have thought more from.

Just wonder where I would lie in being "ruthlessly defeated" as I would not believe I belong to any "side" in American politics.
I also wonder where my friends and family would end up as some of them identify as belonging to a "side"

I suppose tho its easier and simpler to categorise into good and bad, and then demonise or cheer on like its football match from your arm chair in a Dublin when when you don't have to interact with people. Life and people are infinitely more complicated than good and bad.

I see this type of attitude in social media frequently (not so much in real life), and I can tell you from my personal experience it doesn't lead to a good place   

I'm not being ironic at all.

There is a fundamental fight to the death here between the politics of tolerance and truth and the politics of intolerance and hatred.

Trump and the Republican party have made it perfectly clear which side of the fence they stand on.

What you are saying is that the those who believe in the politics of tolerance should be tolerant of intolerance, even if it means their destruction.

That would be to say that one should be tolerant of Naziism.

This is genuinely what far right populist fascism of the Trump variety believes.

The paradox of genuine tolerance is that one can never be tolerant of genuine intolerance, because it is a recipe for the destruction of people's rights, and ultimately, carried to its logical conclusion, genocide.

Unforunately you just prove me right in your assesment of how the right go about framing things with your pathetic little attempt to troll me. Such a dead giveaway that you have to resort to such.

In the real world, by the way, it's the communities most exposed to different cultures who tend to be the most tolerant, while those who are most insular tend to be the most infested with irrational hatred.

"Ruthlessly defeated", "A fight to the death", "genuine intolerance" your right the only logical conclusion is genocide

Unfortunately you're still proving me entirely correct in your assessment of what the right do to try and derail debate.

It's clear you have no real confidence in your arguments.

The logical conclusion of the politics of hatred is genocide, and has history has proved this over and over again.

This fact needs to be hammered home at every opportunity.

A common misconception, likely deliberate, among those who seek to defend the politics of hatred, is that Naziism started with the Holocaust. It didn't. It started with exactly the same thing Trump is doing now - vilification of "others", which was ramped up, but by bit, year by year, until the norms of civilised society broke down to such an extent that genocide became acceptable and logical in the minds of people who didn't stand up to the politics of hatred when it could have been defeated, early on.

Instead of less comparisons to fascism and Naziism in public discourse, we need far more of it, because fascism and Naziism tells us what the logical outcome of the politics of hatred is, and if more people knew their history, they'd know to never embrace that politics of hatred.

There is no good politics of hatred, and no good outcome from it.

These are painful historical lessons from the real world.

What's my argument exactly that I dont have any confidence in?

The only thing that I am discussing is your attitude to opinions that differ from your own or your tribe

Believe me I know about the politics of hatred and you are exhibiting it.

That's a good question. I suppose for me to know what your "argument" is, you'll have to come up with one first.

Unfortunately, the only semblance of an "argument" I can gather from you so far is "those who claim to be tolerant are the real intolerant ones".

A right-wing cliche which is so inane, twisted and historically ignorant as to not merit a response.

"Historically ignorant" is being kind by the way.

Much more accurate would be to describe it as taking history and shitting all over it.

There's only one reason a person would do that.

Oh thanks for telling me what my argument is and then shooting it down. That's called a straw man, but it seems like logic is only sporadically relevant to you

My case is with your attitude and statements, I don't care who you are aiming it at.

But it doesnt seem to be reserved for the far-right, alt-right or whatever they are called. You explicitly take aim at anyone who identifies as a a conservative or indeed anyone who differs from your opinion or as in the case of myself here it appears to call out your inciteful comments and lump everyone together to demonise.

Where do you think comments like "fight to the death" will lead to?
And what are you going to do about it? or perhaps your just an keyboard warrior so what like to see happening?

You do understand why I used the term "fight to the death", yes?

It's because fascists everywhere have started a war to destroy democracy, destroy tolerance, destroy the notion of objective truth and destroy ordinary people and societies.

Fascists being Trump and his Russian puppetmasters, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, Salvini, Orban, the regime in Poland, Duterte, AfD etc. And the big business agents of fascism like the Kochs and Mercer who are backing up this cancerous ideology.

And because if ordinary people don't sit up and take notice that these b**tards are engaged in such a war, they will win.

You seem just fine with them winning.

Again, you're in with your far right lexicon to make up for your lack of ability to debate. Again, it's a dead giveaway as to what your real opinions are.

Did you spot the straw man you introduced there, by the way?

Of course you did. Classic projection. Erroneously accuse others of strawmanism and then do exactly that yourself.

Tut tut.

Tell me all about my strawman

Thanks for knowing by opinions nice to know impressive clairvoyancey however you will be happy to hear it is inaccurate. Tho I am not sure which you prefer being right or having people to demonise

Yeah guilt by association thats right except the only association I have with the movements you are talking about is that I disagree with yourself. Egocentricity at its finest

So by "Fight to the death" and "ruthless defeat" you were talking metaphorically?
To me sounds like you are are really gonna physically fight. To a lot of others that rhetoric sounds the same.
There's someone up the road from you used similar language for years

What do you mean by "take aim at"?

Be specific now, and tell me what your problem with my "rhetoric" is.

In terms of "fight to the death", when talking about what fascists desire, I think its very clear that inflicting physical death on others is one of the things fascists are very keen on.

History certianly bears that out.

Donald Trump openly courts support from and gives tacit support to Nazis, and tacit support to Nazis is real support, because there is no such a thing as tacit support for such an evil ideology. He openly courts support from and gives support to murderous fascist regimes around the world. He openly incites hatred against people of a certain religion, against immigrants, and against trans people and dog whistles hatred against gay people. He courts support from and gives support to an organisation that is effectively a facilitator for domestic terrorism, the NRA - 13,000 people a year die due to gun violence in the US.

So yes, the threat that many people face of physical death at the hands pro-Trump fascists is something everybody should consider very seriously.

BY take aim at I mean you constantly berate those who disagree with you that they are prejudice in some form or another, that they are stupid, or categorised into various groupings that you dogmatically oppose such as antivaxers, alt-right, brexiteers,.... This is known as ad hominen, or playing the man, there is a rule on this forum against it (not that anyone pays any attention to it).
But by doing so you are not discussing the point and the endless barrage of insults creates a siege mentality, your either with me or against me.

Specifically in your retoric
Incitement: You use terms such as "fight to the death" and "ruthlessly defeat" they remind me of recuriment campaigns for countless ideological wars over the past 200 years. Taken as you write it mean that if we dont physically fight we will be killed.

Division: Talking about sides and no talk about bringing the other side over just demonise them. Once you dehumanise other human being you are facilitating violence against them

Lack of compromise/dissent: Your opinion is treated like an axiom, if anyone differs from it in anyway they are automatically wrong and thrown to the lions and are subject to all your tactics aforementioned

Horrific conclusions: You claim the worst possible outcome (genocide, murder) will occur if we dont agree with you and get on board with whatever you want. We are not inevitable on some apocalyptic slippery slope and adhering to an aggressive attitude, dehumanising attitude like yours is less likely to stop it than to assist it.


All in all you just need to chill out, breathe and think about where you are going without the vitirol of others.
Just because other people have irrational opinions doesnt mean you have to have one.
Read some books with differing opinions of your own..... with a genuine open mind.

[whitey]

Does he know or has he ever spoke to a big city cop who faces life and death situations every day of the week?

Does he know or has he ever spoken with someone who conducts raids for ICE who could tell him about the absolute fvckin scumbags who are being shielded by Democrats from deportation?

Does he know or has he spoken with one single person who has served a combat mission in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Has he ever filed a tax return or had a CPA explain the new tax laws to him?


My guess is he would answer no to all four questions, but yet he's willing to come in here and disparage and vilify people who have opinions have been formed from living here for decades.

[sid waddell]

BY take aim at I mean you constantly berate those who disagree with you that they are prejudice in some form or another, that they are stupid, or categorised into various groupings that you dogmatically oppose such as antivaxers, alt-right, brexiteers,.... This is known as ad hominen, or playing the man, there is a rule on this forum against it (not that anyone pays any attention to it).
But by doing so you are not discussing the point and the endless barrage of insults creates a siege mentality, your either with me or against me.

So you think anti-vaxxers, the alt-right and crackpot Brexiteers don't deserve to be berated?

How have you come to this conclusion?

Is it through reading their considered debate in support of their arguments - which is none - because it doesn't exist?

Would you argue with somebody who continually said gravity doesn't exist?

Now, in terms of playing the man, you're one of the masters here. Like other posters who claim to be "conservative", you continually throw in passive agressive trolling comments in your posts which serve no other purpose than to insult and wind up the person you're debating with. Like other "conservative" poster, you continually misrepresent and twist the arguments of those you argue with.

And then you start claiming imagined victimhood.

Whatever happened to your love for "free speech"?

Like pretty much all other right-wing  "free speech warriors", your support for free speech ends the second you get exposed.

Specifically in your retoric
Incitement: You use terms such as "fight to the death" and "ruthlessly defeat" they remind me of recuriment campaigns for countless ideological wars over the past 200 years. Taken as you write it mean that if we dont physically fight we will be killed.

I find it very interesting that you have a problem with my use of these terms, yet don't appear to have a problem with the actual Nazis who have decided to fan the flames of racial hatred both in the US and in Europe, and are quite willing to create a situation in which it becomes normal and logical to kill large numbers of innocent people.

It's a curious feature of mainstream "conservative" thought that it's never the bullies who are the problem, it's those who speak out against bullies.

See Rashida Tlaib's comments about "impeach the motherfucker". See the laughable Republican concept of the "war on civility".

"Conservative logic" is to defend the bullies. Never mind that Mr. Trump has a lifetime of of vile, misogynist, racist, sectarian hate speech behind him. For people like you, those who speak out against him are the problem.

Orewell, how are ya.

Division: Talking about sides and no talk about bringing the other side over just demonise them. Once you dehumanise other human being you are facilitating violence against them

There are two sides in this fight. One side is on the side of reality. The other side denies reality and denies objective truth.

Again, your Orwellian inversion of reality is very much in evidence.

Lack of compromise/dissent: Your opinion is treated like an axiom, if anyone differs from it in anyway they are automatically wrong and thrown to the lions and are subject to all your tactics aforementioned

Fascism and Naziism should never be compromised with in any way.

Horrific conclusions: You claim the worst possible outcome (genocide, murder) will occur if we dont agree with you and get on board with whatever you want. We are not inevitable on some apocalyptic slippery slope and adhering to an aggressive attitude, dehumanising attitude like yours is less likely to stop it than to assist it.

Again, I didn't say that. You introducde yet another straw man because you can't debate honestly. I said the logical conclusion of the politics of fascist hatred, if it is allowed to take root and spread its cancerous idology, is genocide. Which it is. Hostory has proved this over and over again. That you are denying this says so much about your real views, doesn't it?

All in all you just need to chill out, breathe and think about where you are going without the vitirol of others.
Just because other people have irrational opinions doesnt mean you have to have one.
Read some books with differing opinions of your own..... with a genuine open mind.

My opinion is entirely rational, thanks.

Rationality has no truck with fanatical fascist hatred of the sort we see being propagated by demagogues with nothing to offer anybody except misery.

But sure, you're alright, Jack, therefore, bigotry and hatred which doesn't affect you is just fine.

The real world, as long as you don't have to live in it.

[sid waddell]

Does he know or has he ever spoke to a big city cop who faces life and death situations every day of the week?

Does he know or has he ever spoken with someone who conducts raids for ICE who could tell him about the absolute fvckin scumbags who are being shielded by Democrats from deportation?

Does he know or has he spoken with one single person who has served a combat mission in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Has he ever filed a tax return or had a CPA explain the new tax laws to him?


My guess is he would answer no to all four questions, but yet he's willing to come in here and disparage and vilify people who have opinions have been formed from living here for decades.

You say you've lived there for decades.

So why then, do your views come across as somebody who has never left the house for the last 40 years and whose only contact with the outside world is listening to Rush Limbaugh and waching Fox News?

You appear to live an extremely sheltered life indeed.