Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 06-17-2019, 09:12 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
A good example of what I mean about the one sided nature of the complaints: Conservative opponents of abortion rights have been comparing legal abortion to the Holocaust since at least Pope Pius XII comparison in 1951 have been numerous books published directly comparing legal abortion to the Holocaust, such as There The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution and Abortion: The American Holocaust . But apparently in this discussion, this sort of thing doesn't count as vitriol at all! It's only calling actual, literal concentration camps that aren't extermination camps 'concentration camps' that seems to warrant the label.
  #252  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:53 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
I will also note that no one has answered the question from a while back about what time period was actually free of vitriol.
I don't think there ever was such a true zeitgeist of honest, vitriol-free debate. That shouldn't be a barrier to improvement, though, and I do think less vitriol is an improvement. I'm not saying people should roll over and die, just continue to give your opponents the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
"Well, our concentration camps are just at the level of Germany's prewar concentration camps and not up to the level of extermination camps, why do you have to be so rude as to make the comparison to concentraion camps?"
That is almost an accurate paraphrasing. I would say pre-war German concentration camps are yet another level of evil, specifically because the inmates were detained for race/sexual orientation/religion/thought crimes/political affiliation, and they were forced to perform hard labor. Current camps imprison people based on nationality and only then because of the bureaucracy involved with asylum. So in my opinion, to compare Germany's pre-war camps with the current internment camps on the southern border is still a little over the top.

Comparison with Japanese internment camps is fine in my opinion, but it doesn't have the same outrageous and vitriolic reaction as a comparison German concentration camps. This is becacause of detentionuse the current internment camps really aren't as outrageous and offensive as German concentration camps.

~Max
  #253  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:55 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
"Well, our concentration camps are just at the level of Germany's prewar concentration camps and not up to the level of extermination camps, why do you have to be so rude as to make the comparison to concentraion camps?"
Thank you for putting my thoughts into a more readable form.
  #254  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:05 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Thank you for putting my thoughts into a more readable form.
Well, our concentration camps are just at the level of Japanese internment camps and not up to the level of concentration camps as commonly understood, why do you have to be so rude as to make the comparison to concentration camps?

~Max
  #255  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:17 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Well, our concentration camps are just at the level of Japanese internment camps and not up to the level of concentration camps as commonly understood, why do you have to be so rude as to make the comparison to concentration camps?
So something like "Well our concentration camps aren't 100% exactly like the prewar German concentration camps, just close, but are very much like the concentration camps set up in the Us in the past that we deliberately euphemize by not calling concentration camps, why do you have to be so vitriolic as to use the accurate but mean phrase 'concentration camps' instead of something more euphemistic? I mean, kids are dying, people are being held in cages in 100+ degree eat without adequate food and water for months with no charges filed, but there's no need to resort to mildly disparaging but completely accurate language!"

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-17-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #256  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:32 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
A good example of what I mean about the one sided nature of the complaints: Conservative opponents of abortion rights have been comparing legal abortion to the Holocaust since at least Pope Pius XII comparison in 1951 have been numerous books published directly comparing legal abortion to the Holocaust, such as There The Abortion Holocaust: Today’s Final Solution and Abortion: The American Holocaust . But apparently in this discussion, this sort of thing doesn't count as vitriol at all! It's only calling actual, literal concentration camps that aren't extermination camps 'concentration camps' that seems to warrant the label.
It's a very fine line. To say "to me, abortion is like the Holocaust because fetuses are people" is OK. To say "you are as bad as Nazis" is not OK.

To say "to me, outlawing abortion is like enslaving the female sex" is OK. To say "you want to enslave the female sex" is not OK.

~Max
  #257  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:47 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,706
I'm fine with calling them concentration camps because that's what they are. The fact that what's going on behind those walls is presumably not what went in Dachau doesn't mean they aren't concentration camps.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #258  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:06 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So something like "Well our concentration camps aren't 100% exactly like the prewar German concentration camps, just close, but are very much like the concentration camps set up in the Us in the past that we deliberately euphemize by not calling concentration camps, why do you have to be so vitriolic as to use the accurate but mean phrase 'concentration camps' instead of something more euphemistic? I mean, kids are dying, people are being held in cages in 100+ degree eat without adequate food and water for months with no charges filed, but there's no need to resort to mildly disparaging but completely accurate language!"
It's a euphemism precisely because of the connotations. Technically, the American internment camps were concentration camps. Technically, the current facilities are concentration camps. But "concentration camp" and "Work Will Make You Free" implies more than inadequate facilities, long detention time, and some 20-30 deaths over two years. It implies forced labor, imprisonment for thought crimes and political/religious/racial/sexual affiliation, gas chambers, genocide, and Nazism. People say we youngsters don't know how bad the Holocaust was, but surely nobody seriously accuses the U.S. of committing a second Holocaust on our southern border.

So I chalk Budget Player Cadet's simile up to hyperbole. Further, without this hyperbole Budget Player Cadet's post loses its passion; I don't feel the same reaction reading:
"We're running [internment] camps at the southern border, in the facilities we used as Japanese internment camps[...]

At this point, if you don't feel some form of extreme vitriol towards at least some of your fellow countrymen...

*CLAP CLAP* OI! WAKE UP!

You're either asleep, or you're one of the people I'm feeling quite vitriolic towards."
Now don't misunderstand me, Japanese internment was horrible and I think the current situation is horrible, too. It's enough to get worked up over. But it is not the same kind of horrible as Nazi camps, Soviet Gulags, or Maoist Laogai. It is not enough for me to start feeling vitriolic towards people who enforce current policies on the southern border.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 06-17-2019 at 01:09 PM.
  #259  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:10 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Well, our concentration camps are just at the level of Japanese internment camps and not up to the level of concentration camps as commonly understood, why do you have to be so rude as to make the comparison to concentration camps?

~Max
The best case scenario with concentration camps is something like the Japanese Internment Camps. The best case. The worst case is the most heinous act of mass murder in history. There is no "good" case on that gradient, and the longer it goes, the worse it tends to get. And given that the president has "joked" about shooting immigrants and ICE is riddled with white supremacists who are eager to dehumanize immigrants, we have good reason to believe it's going to get worse.

Why are you splitting this hair? Okay, the camps are currently only "one of the worst blots on America's post-slavery history with very good odds of getting worse" instead of "the worst thing a government ever did on purpose". Why does that matter to you more than seemingly any other part of this? To put it very bluntly, I'm interested in this ending before the mass graves, you seem more interested in saying, "chill, there are no mass graves yet".

... Why? Why is the hyperbole the thing you're complaining about, rather than literally anything else about this? Why?
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-17-2019 at 01:10 PM.
  #260  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:14 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... Why? Why is the hyperbole the thing you're complaining about, rather than literally anything else about this? Why?
Only because this hyperbole thing is the topic of the thread... while I do have strong feelings about the border situation I don't see any point in complaining about the president when my own representatives take unfortunate positions on this issue. Legally I think the president is justified, as in he will win in court. I think the only resolution on the border would be legislative.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 06-17-2019 at 01:17 PM.
  #261  
Old 06-17-2019, 01:26 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Only because this hyperbole thing is the topic of the thread... while I do have strong feelings about the border situation I don't see any point in complaining about the president when my own representatives take unfortunate positions on this issue. Legally I think the president is justified, as in he will win in court. I think the only resolution on the border would be legislative.

~Max
So you're voting for people trying to end it in 2020, right?
  #262  
Old 06-17-2019, 02:55 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It's a very fine line. To say "to me, abortion is like the Holocaust because fetuses are people" is OK. To say "you are as bad as Nazis" is not OK.
So if I find one instance of an anti-abortion activist crossing that line, then you'll admit that the vitriol is nothing new, and has been around for decades in one direction, and that the real difference is that the vitriol is now being directed against conservatives, especially rich, conservative white men? Because it's not really that hard to find such a quote.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
It's a euphemism precisely because of the connotations. Technically, the American internment camps were concentration camps. Technically, the current facilities are concentration camps. But "concentration camp" and "Work Will Make You Free" implies more than inadequate facilities, long detention time, and some 20-30 deaths over two years. It implies forced labor, imprisonment for thought crimes and political/religious/racial/sexual affiliation, gas chambers, genocide, and Nazism. People say we youngsters don't know how bad the Holocaust was, but surely nobody seriously accuses the U.S. of committing a second Holocaust on our southern border.
I'm not clear how this interacts with your earlier post. According to what you claimed just a few posts prior, claiming that the camps are just like Nazi camps is fine and would not cross the line into vitriol. Literally claiming that there was a Holocaust occurring in the Southern US would no more cross the line than anti-abortion activists claiming that legal abortion is another Holocaust. But here you seem to think that using the term 'concentration camp' is vitriolic and inappropriate even though you admit that it is literally the correct term to use! According to your standards, it's fine for anti-abortion activists to directly, literally compare aborting a rapist's baby to the Holocaust, but using the correct term 'concentration camp' for the US's current concentration camps is vitriolic and inappropriate, due to the fact that the term is associated with the Holocaust.

What exactly is different in the two situations, other than the fact that one ends up making conservatives, predominantly rich, white, male conservatives, look bad and the other is directed against a different demographic?
  #263  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:15 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 623
Yes, equating today's "internment camps" with Nazi death camps is far-fetched.

I bet if anybody had predicted 1933's internment camps would become death camps within a decade, that would have been considered far-fetched, too.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #264  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:16 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,750
At what point did the Nazis start separating mothers and babies?
  #265  
Old 06-17-2019, 03:56 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
At what point did the Nazis start separating mothers and babies?
I'm not sure they ever did. Hmmm ... maybe it is unfair to compare today's camps with Nazi Germany's.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #266  
Old 06-17-2019, 05:58 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
So if I find one instance of an anti-abortion activist crossing that line, then you'll admit that the vitriol is nothing new, and has been around for decades in one direction, and that the real difference is that the vitriol is now being directed against conservatives, especially rich, conservative white men? Because it's not really that hard to find such a quote.
I wouldn't add the part I bolded because I think there are previous instances of vitriol against conservative white men for as long as conservatism has been around. Certainly there has been since I first voted in 2014 (not that my vote counted, since I missed the primary). But I will readily admit that vitriol is nothing new and has been around for decades in general, right back to the late eighteenth century and probably earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
But here you seem to think that using the term 'concentration camp' is vitriolic and inappropriate even though you admit that it is literally the correct term to use!
"Concentration camp" may be the correct term in a technical sense but it is a politically charged word with specific connotations that were reinforced when Budget Player Cadet added: "History could not be screaming any louder if someone tacked up "Work Will Make You Free" above the gates." I classify that comparison as vitriolic because it is both insulting and inappropriate. ETA: Inappropriate, as in "does not belong"; a comparison between the border now and concentration camps in Nazi Germany is inappropriate.

If upon examination Budget Player Cadet had said 'no, I meant the technical sense of the word, like a Japanese internment camp, not a Nazi camp' I would say the comparison was insensitive rather than vitriolic. But the pathos of the post falls apart if we remove the implied comparison with Nazi concentration camps.

I keep saying Nazis were worse than Americans, because they were, or so we were taught in school. I had one paragraph in American History about Japanese internment, plus maybe a sentence or two in World History. I had an entire spring semester on the Holocaust (part of a civil rights/Holocaust class), plus a good week in World History and at least half a chapter in American History. This was in a public school with a non-Jewish teacher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
According to your standards, it's fine for anti-abortion activists to directly, literally compare aborting a rapist's baby to the Holocaust, but using the correct term 'concentration camp' for the US's current concentration camps is vitriolic and inappropriate, due to the fact that the term is associated with the Holocaust.

What exactly is different in the two situations[...]?
As I said, it is a very fine line. If the pro-lifer's comparison, in context and upon questioning, implied that people who commit or sanction abortion are like those who committed or sanctioned the Holocaust, that would be vitriol, in my opinion. To make such a statement without being vitriolic takes some effort, but it can be done, just like the comparison between certain concentration camps during WWII (the Japanese internment camps) and the current border situation. It is the difference between justifying one's own beliefs and assuming someone else's beliefs in any but the most flattering way.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 06-17-2019 at 06:01 PM.
  #267  
Old 06-17-2019, 06:23 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
"Concentration camp" may be the correct term in a technical sense but it is a politically charged word with specific connotations that were reinforced when Budget Player Cadet added: "History could not be screaming any louder if someone tacked up "Work Will Make You Free" above the gates." I classify that comparison as vitriolic because it is both insulting and inappropriate.
See you consistently seem more upset about me implying that our current concentration camps (y'know, the ones now being put under the Department of Defense, which makes it far easier to avoid outside scrutiny) might be going the way of the nazis than about the actual camps, and that confuses me, because one of these things is a national tragedy that may turn into an international tragedy if not stopped, and one of these things is extremely mild hyperbole in a forum post. You also didn't answer my question about voting to stop it - probably because the answer is "no".

Dachau was not a death camp. Never got around to it. They installed the gas chambers and furnace but never used them before the end of the war. Would you object to me referring to that as a "concentration camp" because my "vitriolic language" implies that concentration camps are like Auschwitz, rather than like the "mere" concentration camp of Dachau?

Let me paint it out as clear as I can, and let's see if you get the picture.

In 1933, Dachau's guards beat a prisoner to death, and a prosecutor indicted them. (This was overruled by Hitler.)

By 1945, the death toll of prisoners in Dachau had reached well past 6 figures.

There's a timeline there. It starts with the establishment of a camp we throw all the undesireables. Sometimes, that's where it stays. Other times, it goes to very dark places. There are good reasons to believe we're heading for those darker places.

"Never Forget" does not mean "if things get as bad as Auschwitz, we riot". It means "Never let things get that bad again". And when an administration that jokes about shooting immigrants throws a whole bunch of immigrants in concentration camps, that is the call to action. If we wait until there are death camps, it will be too late.

Quote:
As I said, it is a very fine line.
Y'know what else is a really fine line?

http://midwoodscience.org/sem/2012/I...102.000016.jpg

There's some expression about those...

You seem pretty into splitting hairs. Be it whether someone really thinks the US is committing mass murder or whether I'm exaggerating by ringing the alarm bells about concentration camps on American soil because they're "only" like Dachau ca. 1933, instead of like Dachau ca. 1945 (the point is to stop them before they go from point A to point B). I don't get it, and frankly it seems like there's more important things to do. Arguing semantics over whether or not ICE is running concentration camps (they are) is a bit like arguing over who gets the last lemon square at the buffet on the titanic - the list of "more important things to do" encompasses fucking everything.
  #268  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:39 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
See you consistently seem more upset about me implying that our current concentration camps (y'know, the ones now being put under the Department of Defense, which makes it far easier to avoid outside scrutiny) might be going the way of the nazis than about the actual camps, and that confuses me, because one of these things is a national tragedy that may turn into an international tragedy if not stopped, and one of these things is extremely mild hyperbole in a forum post.
In my defense, I have admitted the border situation was a travesty or comparable to Japanese internment in almost every relevant post, including the opening of my original reply to you.
SPOILER:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think the border situation is a travesty of justice...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Yes, which sucks majorly and should make the administration reconsider their policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I do think the Japanese internment was a good comparison...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Comparison with Japanese internment camps is fine in my opinion...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Well, our concentration camps are just at the level of Japanese internment camps...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Now don't misunderstand me, Japanese internment was horrible and I think the current situation is horrible, too. It's enough to get worked up over.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
You also didn't answer my question about voting to stop it - probably because the answer is "no".
Actually I missed your response altogether. I've recently started using a linear thread display and I think I'm missing a lot of posts, but eventually I'll get a hang of it.

But the answer will probably be "no", because I don't have a Senator on the ballot in 2020 and my Representative will probably run virtually unopposed. Again. The opposing representative candidate (Democrat) didn't even have a platform in 2018, and nobody else ran in the Republican primary. The 2016 and 2014 Democratic candidate for representative omitted immigration from his platform. My state representative is up for reelection but immigration wasn't an issue last time that job was up for grabs.

I highly doubt I'll be voting for the incumbent president of the United States, but then again, my county is so red that my vote literally doesn't matter in the general election. And I don't think Mr. Trump will have any competition in the primaries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Dachau was not a death camp. Never got around to it. They installed the gas chambers and furnace but never used them before the end of the war. Would you object to me referring to that as a "concentration camp" because my "vitriolic language" implies that concentration camps are like Auschwitz, rather than like the "mere" concentration camp of Dachau?
You can call Dachau a concentration camp. Not all concentration camps are extermination camps, although this is sometimes the connotation. Also implied is forced labor, which was the case at Dachau but is not the case with our detention centers. Also implied is that most prisoners are prisoners of conscience or plain racism, which is not the justification with our detention centers. Also implied is that thousands of people are dying, summary execution or not, that being sent to a camp is a death sentence, which is not the case with our detention centers. These are the reasons I object to your comparison with even Dachau.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
"Never Forget" does not mean "if things get as bad as Auschwitz, we riot". It means "Never let things get that bad again".
Things aren't nearly bad as Dachau in 1933. Things aren't even remotely approaching the horrors of Auschwitz. You could say we should drop the pretense of civility because the TSA is getting to the point where they systematically conduct penetrative rape. I've heard horror stories about sexual assault from TSA agents and I think it is a serious problem. But the TSA is not conducting systematic penetrative rape, and such a comparison is insensitive. So to do I think your comparison of asylum seekers' detention centers with Nazi concentration camps is wildly inappropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
You seem pretty into splitting hairs. Be it whether someone really thinks the US is committing mass murder or whether I'm exaggerating by ringing the alarm bells about concentration camps on American soil because they're "only" like Dachau ca. 1933, instead of like Dachau ca. 1945 (the point is to stop them before they go from point A to point B). I don't get it, and frankly it seems like there's more important things to do. Arguing semantics over whether or not ICE is running concentration camps (they are) is a bit like arguing over who gets the last lemon square at the buffet on the titanic - the list of "more important things to do" encompasses fucking everything.
This is a thread for us to discuss hatred and vitriol and the state of America. You compared detention centers for asylum seekers to concentration camps, then said history could not be screaming any louder if we posted "Work Will Make You Free" above the gates. That is a direct reference to Auschwitz and Vernichtung durch Arbeit (extermination through labor) in particular - not gassing. We are nowhere near that level of evil. In my opinion your comparison is insensitive and your call to vitriol misinformed.

~Max
  #269  
Old 06-17-2019, 07:58 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,572
Not to derail the thread (although it's probably irreparably derailed already) but aren't both the abortion and migrant camps Holocaust comparisons both partially right in their own way?


Abortion: IF abortion = loss of a human life (as pro-lifers claim,) and 60 million lives have been lost in America by that logic, then what's so unreasonable about Holocaust comparison?

Camps = if migrants are indeed being "concentrated" in camps, then what's so unreasonable about the Holocaust concentration comparison?
  #270  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:51 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I classify that comparison as vitriolic because it is both insulting and inappropriate. ETA: Inappropriate, as in "does not belong"; a comparison between the border now and concentration camps in Nazi Germany is inappropriate.
If you are insulted when someone points out that the camps you support are torturing and killing people, like the ones being run in the US today, the moral solution is to stop supporting murder and torture, rather than to complain that someone pointing out the murder and torture you endorse is being 'insulting' by pointing it out. The fact that a number of people are significantly more bothered by 'this completely accurate comparison hurts my feelings' than 'there are camps where parents and children are separated, people are held without trial or even charges for weeks or months, people are held without sufficient food or water in 100 degree heat, and armed guards prevent humanitarian aid to them' says a lot.

Quote:
As I said, it is a very fine line. If the pro-lifer's comparison, in context and upon questioning, implied that people who commit or sanction abortion are like those who committed or sanctioned the Holocaust, that would be vitriol, in my opinion.
Since that's exactly what they do in the examples I provided, why are you not willing to outright call that comparison 'inappropriate' and 'vitriolic' the way that you do the comparison between literal concentration camps and historic German concentration camps? Why all of the hedging and claiming that there is a thin line?

Quote:
To make such a statement without being vitriolic takes some effort, but it can be done, just like the comparison between certain concentration camps during WWII (the Japanese internment camps) and the current border situation. It is the difference between justifying one's own beliefs and assuming someone else's beliefs in any but the most flattering way.
Again, you've offered no actual justification for your claim that describing legal abortion as another Holocaust in America is not vitriolic and is appropriate, but that calling what you agree are literally and correctly called 'concentration camps' by that name is vitriolic and inappropriate. Just declaring that there is 'a thin line' is dodging the issue when you either refuse to specify what the line is, or state a definition of the 'thin line' that doesn't actually distinguish the two cases like you do above.

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-17-2019 at 08:52 PM.
  #271  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:59 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Abortion: IF abortion = loss of a human life (as pro-lifers claim,) and 60 million lives have been lost in America by that logic, then what's so unreasonable about Holocaust comparison?
Personally, I didn't state that it was unreasonable in that sense, merely that it is vitriolic and has been repeated for a long time, longer than I think the 'state of America' being referred to in this thread. The idea that widespread vitriol is something recent when there is a long, well-documented history of making comparisons between a simple medical procedure and the holocaust by the right wing, and not just by a small lunatic fringe but by major religious figures like the Pope and major political figures like the President of the US (Ronald Reagan) is absurd, and that's what I was pointing out and providing counterexamples to.

(I don't believe pro-lifer's claims that they actually care about human life or that they regard fetuses as human lives, and wouldn't share the belief even if I did think they believed it, but that's a discussion for another thread.)
  #272  
Old 06-18-2019, 12:02 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
You can call Dachau a concentration camp. Not all concentration camps are extermination camps, although this is sometimes the connotation. Also implied is forced labor, which was the case at Dachau but is not the case with our detention centers.
Nope: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/17/u...uit/index.html
Detainees at the Stewart Detention Center in south Georgia generally make between $1 and $4 a day for tasks such as preparing food, mopping floors and doing laundry, according to the lawsuit, which describes the practice as a "deprivation scheme" and alleges it's a violation of human trafficking laws. Detainees who work double shifts can earn up to $8 a day.

Part of the scheme, according to the lawsuit: Depriving detainees of basic necessities like food, toothpaste, soap and toilet paper, so they have to work to pay for those items from the detention center's commissary.
(Remember, "detainee" does not mean "criminal".)

Quote:
Also implied is that most prisoners are prisoners of conscience or plain racism, which is not the justification with our detention centers.
Let's just say that while proving racist motivation is difficult (we only know the holocaust was an intentional attept to commit genocide because they arrested one of the participants for Treason before he could shred his copy of the documents related to it), I think you're probably wrong on this one too. Nobody is making detention centers for canadian immigrants. Or european immigrants. The current administration has been unapologetically racist. I mean, did you miss the memo that we weren't using the "protect american jobs" euphemism any more?

Quote:
Also implied is that thousands of people are dying, summary execution or not, that being sent to a camp is a death sentence, which is not the case with our detention centers.
Yeah, we're not there yet. Slave labor? Torture? Denial of basic resources? Imprisoning innocents with no promise of when they will be released and no due process? Widespread dehumanization of those being detained, up to and including "joking" about murdering them? We're all there and a bag of chips.

But mass murder? No, things aren't that bad.

Yet.

But every indication is that things are going to get worse. In fact, that's kinda baked into the camp system. From that Esquire article that I really hope everyone in the thread has read by now:
"There's this crystallization that happens," Pitzer says. "The longer they're there, the worse conditions get. That's just a universal of camps. They're overcrowded. We already know from reports that they don't have enough beds for the numbers that they have. As you see mental health crises and contagious diseases begin to set in, they'll work to manage the worst of it. [But] then there will be the ability to tag these people as diseased, even if we created [those conditions]. Then we, by creating the camps, try to turn that population into the false image that we [used] to put them in the camps to start with. Over time, the camps will turn those people into what Trump was already saying they are."

Make no mistake: the conditions are in decline. When I went down to see the detention facility in McAllen, Texas, last summer at the height of the "zero-tolerance" policy that led inevitably to family separation, Border Patrol agents were by all appearances doing the very best they could with limited resources. That includes the facilities themselves, which at that point were mostly built—by the Clinton administration in the '90s—to house single adult males who were crossing the border illegally to find work. By that point, Border Patrol was already forced to use them to hold families and other asylum-seekers, and agents told me the situation was untenable. They lacked requisite staff with the training to care for young children, and overcrowding was already an issue.

But according to a report from Trump's own government—specifically, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security—the situation has deteriorated significantly even since then. The facilities are overcrowded, underfunded, and perhaps at a perilous inflection point. It found adult detainees are "being held in 'standing-room-only conditions' for days or weeks at a border patrol facility in Texas," Reuters reports. But it gets worse.
(The article then goes on to discuss how, exactly, it gets worse. And boy, does it get worse. Pro tip: when you are regularly, as a matter of course, subjecting non-criminal detainees to torture, it's less a matter of "shit hitting the fan" and more a matter of "a continuous stream of chunky diarrhea hitting a jet turbine".)

There are extremely good reasons to believe it's going to keep getting worse. I'll keep on bringing them up. I don't recall if you've responded to those reasons, and reviewing the recent posts in the thread I don't really think you have. As bad as Dachau 1945? Hopefully not! You know what a good way to ensure they won't get that bad? Stop running concentration camps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Abortion: IF abortion = loss of a human life (as pro-lifers claim,) and 60 million lives have been lost in America by that logic, then what's so unreasonable about Holocaust comparison?
Because abortion, like a great many other things that may lead to human death such as accidents, aging, self-defense, heart disease, etc. is not murder. It's like how we could talk about deaths from suicide (tens of thousands every year!) as a "miniature holocaust" but don't, because that would be stupid and offensive.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-18-2019 at 12:02 PM.
  #273  
Old 06-18-2019, 04:20 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,394
What a ridiculous tangent. Might as well call prisons concentration camps as well. Are conditions good? No. Should they be much better? Yes. But some blame needs to be directed at those breaking the law and those Americans helping and encouraging law breaking for political reasons.
  #274  
Old 06-18-2019, 06:49 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Camps = if migrants are indeed being "concentrated" in camps, then what's so unreasonable about the Holocaust concentration comparison?
If the comparison is about the fact that people are literally "concentrated", as in population density, the comparison is fine. But usually a comparison to Holocaust concentration camps or Nazi concentration camps involves prisoners of conscience subject to summary execution or death by forced labor.

~Max
  #275  
Old 06-18-2019, 06:50 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
If you are insulted when someone points out that the camps you support are torturing and killing people, like the ones being run in the US today, the moral solution is to stop supporting murder and torture, rather than to complain that someone pointing out the murder and torture you endorse is being 'insulting' by pointing it out.
The person pointing at torture and murder might be wrong, in which case I would disagree on that course of action. That is why I defined vitriol as insulting and inappropriate. I also want to point out that I don't support the camps on the border, but still find Budget Player Cadet's post #243 to be vitriolic and misguided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
The fact that a number of people are significantly more bothered by 'this completely accurate comparison hurts my feelings' than 'there are camps where parents and children are separated, people are held without trial or even charges for weeks or months, people are held without sufficient food or water in 100 degree heat, and armed guards prevent humanitarian aid to them' says a lot.
I am not "more bothered" by vitriol on a single forum post than the real life situation in asylum detention centers across the country. I am more bothered by vitriol in general than the real life situation in asylum detention centers across the country, and a variety of other issues. Why? Am I a gormless jerk? No, it is because I think vitriol is exactly what caused the immigration problem and further, vitriol blocks the path to a resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Since that's exactly what they do in the examples I provided, why are you not willing to outright call that comparison 'inappropriate' and 'vitriolic' the way that you do the comparison between literal concentration camps and historic German concentration camps? Why all of the hedging and claiming that there is a thin line?
You did not actually provide any examples, so I did not address them. You asked what I thought if a pro-lifer crossed the line, and my response was that if they crossed the line, "that would be vitriol".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Again, you've offered no actual justification for your claim that describing legal abortion as another Holocaust in America is not vitriolic and is appropriate, but that calling what you agree are literally and correctly called 'concentration camps' by that name is vitriolic and inappropriate.
I think you misunderstand me. Comparing legal abortion with the Holocaust can be vitriolic, but it is not necessarily so. Calling asylum detention centers 'concentration camps' can be vitriolic, but it is not necessarily so. There is a line dividing vitriol from non-vitriol, and in post #243 the line was crossed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Just declaring that there is 'a thin line' is dodging the issue when you either refuse to specify what the line is, or state a definition of the 'thin line' that doesn't actually distinguish the two cases like you do above.
The line is called good faith, specifically as soon as someone assumes another's beliefs (motivation) in any but the most flattering way the line is crossed. To do so is both insulting and inappropriate, therefore vitriolic. If I were a better man, I would provide several quotes from prominent people stressing the importance of good faith in politics. Alas, I am woefully underread and unable to do so.

~Max
  #276  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:24 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I am not "more bothered" by vitriol on a single forum post than the real life situation in asylum detention centers across the country. I am more bothered by vitriol in general than the real life situation in asylum detention centers across the country, and a variety of other issues. Why? Am I a gormless jerk? No, it is because I think vitriol is exactly what caused the immigration problem and further, vitriol blocks the path to a resolution.
So in your mind, the problem of people being held without charges, tortured, killed, and separated from their families is caused by people objecting in too strenuous of terms to the camps. That's an incredibly level of victim blaming and blame shifting, and it's simply an absurd claim. The camps were built and run by the people who built and ran them, not in some sort of time traveling reverse of cause and effect by people who are complaining about them now.

Quote:
There is a line dividing vitriol from non-vitriol, and in post #243 the line was crossed.

The line is called good faith, specifically as soon as someone assumes another's beliefs (motivation) in any but the most flattering way the line is crossed.
Post #243 says nothing about beliefs or motivation (which are two different things), it talks only about people's support for particular actions. So no, you still haven't made a line. I believe that inferring people's actual beliefs from their actions is a good thing so I certainly wouldn't object to that, and motivations are irrelevant, since "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Most people who do terrible things have or claim the highest reasons as their motivation.
  #277  
Old 06-18-2019, 09:43 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The line is called good faith, specifically as soon as someone assumes another's beliefs (motivation) in any but the most flattering way the line is crossed. To do so is both insulting and inappropriate, therefore vitriolic.
~Max
...they are concentration camps. Its bad faith to argue otherwise.
  #278  
Old 06-19-2019, 01:43 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
"Insisting that the Holocaust was uniquely evil and can't be compared to anything else is a ploy to place it outside of history & politics.

People who do this are trying to distract from the obvious parallels with the campaign of escalating dehumanization happening here and now.

And that effort - to use the memory of victims of white supremacy to shield the people in power who are currently enacting white supremacists policies from critique - is profoundly offensive."
- Leah Greenberg, https://twitter.com/Leahgreenb/statu...681823744?s=19
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #279  
Old 06-19-2019, 02:42 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Also, Mike Godwin (yes, that Godwin) thinks they're concentration camps.

And, stealing this wholesale: “Yet” should not be the thing differentiating us from Nazis.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
  #280  
Old 06-19-2019, 12:42 PM
Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
"The State" isn't some nebulous force that acts without thinking. It's a group of people, elected by a second group of people, and victimizing a third group of people to please the second group.
Yeah, politicians elected by the rich victimizing the rest of us in service of the rich.
__________________
Zeke
  #281  
Old 06-19-2019, 12:59 PM
Zeke N. Destroi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not A Real Country
Posts: 1,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's not tortured logic. You can't control everything that an employee does with their money but you can refuse to pay into a fund that lists abortion as a completely neutral medical cost.
And this is the real reason for not wanting to supply birth control or abortions it is about not wanting to cover anything they can get out of covering. The instant that Christianity enters capitalism in a meaningful and honest way we will see the collapse of the entirety of the western fucking world.

Whenever a business fuck says, "Jesus won't let me" you should hear, "I'm not fucking paying."
__________________
Zeke
  #282  
Old 06-19-2019, 01:47 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,462
Wow. Reading the links in this thread, I had no idea migrants were being treated so poorly.

How is this even legal? Saying, "You're lying" to an asylum seeker is hardly the innocent until proven guilty standard that this administration applies to itself. If imputing motives onto people they don't like is a good enough reason to lock people up in... concentration camps... where does it stop?

Not going to help with the vitriol problem. It is hard to imagine a more divisive program. I guess that is what Russian agents are for. Jesus.
__________________
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
  #283  
Old 06-19-2019, 03:38 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What a ridiculous tangent. Might as well call prisons concentration camps as well. Are conditions good? No. Should they be much better? Yes. But some blame needs to be directed at those breaking the law and those Americans helping and encouraging law breaking for political reasons.
It's amazing how conservatives consider it 'ridiculous' to have an accurate but unflattering use of a term pointed at them, when they are the ones that decry other people as 'snowflakes' for expressing offense, and they've been using and endorsing a similar but less grounded analogy for decades. When national leaders who are held up as icons of conservative principles like Ronald Reagan compare aborting fetuses to the Holocaust, the right wing is fine with it. When the term 'concentration camps' is applied to actual concentration camps that historians agree parallel historical concentration camps in multiple documented ways (though the Nazis did mostly refrain from separating parents from children), all of a sudden it's 'ridiculous' and 'improper' and 'vitriol' to make any mention of anything associated with Nazi Germany. (And even more amazing is the objections to the use of the label 'Nazi' for people who give Heil Hitler salutes and wear swastikas and their supporters).

Why was an unjustified direct comparison to the Nazis fine for seven decades when well-respected people like Reagan used it, but all of a sudden is now a historically justified use of a term that is associated (but didn't originate) with the Nazis is a beyond the pale and symptom of the recent breakdown of civil political discourse? And in a more general, why don't things like protestors shouting racial slurs at five-year-old black kids back when schools were being integrated count as incivility, but even mild opprobrium directed at republicans today does?
  #284  
Old 06-19-2019, 04:31 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Wow. Reading the links in this thread, I had no idea migrants were being treated so poorly.
Yeah, shit's gotten bad. Regardless of what you want to call it (it's a concentration camp, if you want to disagree with the many experts I keep citing, maybe bring more than your own baseless non-expert opinion, octopus), what we're looking at is the gross violation of human rights, and a level of callous disregard for our fellow man that is just... disgusting. It feels like every day, we hear new horror stories from the camps. Which is kind of surprising, given how hard it is for journalists to gain access to begin with. But the truth comes out eventually. And the truth is beyond disgusting.

Again, it is very telling that some people, when confronted with this horror, respond by complaining that I (and multiple historians, journalists, human rights advocates, et cetera) am using language to describe it that's too strong.
  #285  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:12 AM
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
When national leaders who are held up as icons of conservative principles like Ronald Reagan compare aborting fetuses to the Holocaust
Do I detect an odor of tu quoque?
  #286  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:38 AM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
It's amazing how conservatives consider it 'ridiculous' to have an accurate but unflattering use of a term pointed at them, when they are the ones that decry other people as 'snowflakes' for expressing offense, and they've been using and endorsing a similar but less grounded analogy for decades. When national leaders who are held up as icons of conservative principles like Ronald Reagan compare aborting fetuses to the Holocaust, the right wing is fine with it. When the term 'concentration camps' is applied to actual concentration camps that historians agree parallel historical concentration camps in multiple documented ways (though the Nazis did mostly refrain from separating parents from children), all of a sudden it's 'ridiculous' and 'improper' and 'vitriol' to make any mention of anything associated with Nazi Germany. (And even more amazing is the objections to the use of the label 'Nazi' for people who give Heil Hitler salutes and wear swastikas and their supporters).

Why was an unjustified direct comparison to the Nazis fine for seven decades when well-respected people like Reagan used it, but all of a sudden is now a historically justified use of a term that is associated (but didn't originate) with the Nazis is a beyond the pale and symptom of the recent breakdown of civil political discourse? And in a more general, why don't things like protestors shouting racial slurs at five-year-old black kids back when schools were being integrated count as incivility, but even mild opprobrium directed at republicans today does?
Because Republicans are delicate and hypocritical as well as monstrous.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #287  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:43 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Do I detect an odor of tu quoque?
No, that's rank hypocrisy you're smelling. Assuming I read pantastic's post aright, the point is that Republicans have been perfectly happy to use Nazi and Holocaust metaphors when it suits their own purposes, but when used by Democrats such things suddenly become verboten even when the terminology is literally accurate.

Tu quoque would be excusing the Democrats' [hypothetically incorrect] use of the terms on the basis that the GOP have done so too.
  #288  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:12 AM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
Do I detect an odor of tu quoque?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia Example of Tu Quoque
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
Nope. Tu Quoque is a specific logical fallacy, where one makes an argument stating 'X person did a bad thing, therefore X's argument is not true'. What is not a fallacy is pointing out "X group says Y group started doing Z thing and that the addition of Z is a new problem, but X group has been doing Z thing for decades themselves, so Z is not actually new, and if introducing Z is a problem then X is the one who is guilty of it'. Using examples of a group engaging in behavior as examples to show that the behavior is not new is extremely far from a logical fallacy.

This is similar to the fact that insults are not actually examples of argumentum ad hominem; if I say "Fred is a scumbag", I'm just insulting Fred, not engaging in a fallacious argument, I would have to say "Fred is a scumbag, therefore his argument is invalid" to actually be guilty of the fallacious argument in that case.

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-20-2019 at 11:15 AM.
  #289  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:22 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,750
Right, it's not "tu quoque", it's just "no u".
  #290  
Old 06-21-2019, 12:25 PM
Pantastic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Right, it's not "tu quoque", it's just "no u".
Let me make an analogy to make it clearer:
I say "Joe should not be treasurer, he's a car thief and that's not who should be handling our money".
You say "Whoa, you should not use terms like 'car thief', that's too confrontational."
I say "But Joe was arrested for and convicted of Grand Theft Auto on three occasions, 'car thief' is a perfectly correct description of him. Also you've been calling Jose a carjacker for the past three years whenever he ran for treasurer with the only justification that he's a fan of the Fast and Furious movies."
You say "It is terrible and inappropriate that you're injecting all this vitriol into politics, and now you're just using a 'no u' defense!'

Last edited by Pantastic; 06-21-2019 at 12:29 PM.
  #291  
Old 06-21-2019, 12:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,494
This is the kind of thing that makes it so, so hard for me to see those who willingly and knowingly continue to support as other than immoral and dishonorable people:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...m_campaign=nym

Quote:
When Carroll meets Donald Trump in Bergdorf Goodman, the encounter starts as a friendly one. Trump recognizes her as “that advice lady”; Carroll recognizes him as “that real-estate tycoon.” Trump tells Carroll that he’s there to buy a gift for “a girl,” and though we don’t learn the identity of this mystery woman, Carroll places the ensuing incident in late 1995 or early 1996, during which time Trump was married to Marla Maples. When Trump asks Carroll to advise him on what to buy, she agrees, and the two eventually make their way to the lingerie section. Trump suggests a lace bodysuit and encourages Carroll to try it on; she, deflecting, jokingly suggests that he try it on instead. After they reach the dressing rooms, events turn violent. In Carroll’s account, Trump shoves her against a wall inside a dressing room, pulls down her tights, and, “forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.”
It's not a good thing for me to have hateful feelings for other Americans, just for supporting someone politically... but how can any decent person, knowing the above account and the numerous other allegations against him, possibly continue to support Trump?
  #292  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:53 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
but how can any decent person, knowing the above account and the numerous other allegations against him, possibly continue to support Trump?
Because politics, that's why. People can tolerate almost anything if it means their political team/side/agenda advances, and there is almost nothing they can tolerate if it goes against their team/side/agenda. People are intensely tribal; no amount of "why do you still support such a monster?" will change that fundamental aspect of human nature.
  #293  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Because politics, that's why. People can tolerate almost anything if it means their political team/side/agenda advances, and there is almost nothing they can tolerate if it goes against their team/side/agenda. People are intensely tribal; no amount of "why do you still support such a monster?" will change that fundamental aspect of human nature.
Lots of people overcome this. I think it's a mark of character, or lack thereof.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #294  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:12 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,212
Really. It's not like Democrats didn't tell Al Franken to take a hike. And they sure as shit didn't cover for him, ignore it or try to make it go away.

Last edited by bobot; 06-21-2019 at 02:14 PM.
  #295  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:37 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Really. It's not like Democrats didn't tell Al Franken to take a hike. And they sure as shit didn't cover for him, ignore it or try to make it go away.
That's because Franken's replacement was a Democrat (Tina Smith,) so there was no loss in Senate seats to be had. If the choice was a matter of "Would you rather have Franken, or a Republican?" then it would be very different.


Sure, perhaps people are asking, "Why do Trump supporters support Trump instead of wanting Pence, the VP, to succeed him? Pence is more ethical." And if so, then yes that makes perfect sense. But that often isn't what is being asked - the subtext is, "Why won't Trump's voters ditch him and vote for an ethical, upright Democrat?"
  #296  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
That's because Franken's replacement was a Democrat (Tina Smith,) so there was no loss in Senate seats to be had. If the choice was a matter of "Would you rather have Franken, or a Republican?" then it would be very different.





Sure, perhaps people are asking, "Why do Trump supporters support Trump instead of wanting Pence, the VP, to succeed him? Pence is more ethical." And if so, then yes that makes perfect sense. But that often isn't what is being asked - the subtext is, "Why won't Trump's voters ditch him and vote for an ethical, upright Democrat?"
Republicans have that opportunity, and most of them have failed it, again and again.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #297  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:49 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Republicans have that opportunity, and most of them have failed it, again and again.
Yes, and so, if the argument is "Replace Trump with Pence," that makes total sense.


But this "why do Republicans support Trump if he is such a monster" argument was already rearing its head during the 2016 election when it was Trump vs. Hillary. In that sort of situation, Republicans had a binary choice: Either a "monster" like Trump, or a Democrat like Hillary. It wasn't a "good conservative or bad conservative?" choice.
  #298  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yes, and so, if the argument is "Replace Trump with Pence," that makes total sense.





But this "why do Republicans support Trump if he is such a monster" argument was already rearing its head during the 2016 election when it was Trump vs. Hillary. In that sort of situation, Republicans had a binary choice: Either a "monster" like Trump, or a Democrat like Hillary. It wasn't a "good conservative or bad conservative?" choice.
I'm talking about now. Republicans have had the opportunity for more than 2 years now, to have a shred of honor and decency and most of them have refused that chance. Why do you keep defending them with irrelevancies like Hillary?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #299  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:51 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
That's because Franken's replacement was a Democrat (Tina Smith,) so there was no loss in Senate seats to be had. If the choice was a matter of "Would you rather have Franken, or a Republican?" then it would be very different.
Here's a bad argument. "Okay, we've consistently backed monsters and terrible people out of tribalism, and you consistently haven't. But if the conditions were slightly different, you totally would be just as bad as us!"

First of all: prove it. Second of all: no we aren't. Thirdly: congratulations, IF we were in a position of having to choose between a groper and someone supporting the dude running concentration camps at the border, we may have a serious mental quandry on our hands, well done for pointing out the fucking obvious. What's your equivalent moral quandry? "Possibly slightly higher taxes and spending on social programs"?

Hell, your side even does it when it's politically bad for them! How's generic republican vs. Doug Jones looking? Why are you guys running the pedophile again?
  #300  
Old 06-21-2019, 08:20 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, if we are going that far down the line, then we can point to analogues on the other side that would cause "harm or death." Almost any policy position taken by anyone helps some and harms others.

If those are your issues then I submit that you are, respectfully, substituting hate for mere political disagreement.
WTF? NO. This is utterly false. In every aspect.

He did not go down any line at all. These are direct policies that were implemented by the President of the United States. Not only did he not have to go down the line to more fringe theories, he didn't even have to consider policies implemented by other Republicans. And they directly affect our loved ones. We actually know the people being harmed by these (unlike most Republicans who think of them as OTHERS rather than US).

And, no, you absolutely cannot in any way point to analogs from the other side. You clearly couldn't come up with any in the time you wrote your post. Democrats don't elect psychopaths.

And the things he describes, while hateful, are in fact political positions. He is not fueled by hate, and you have not established such in any way. You have not alleged any act of his that is fueled by hatred.

And, finally, albeit least importantly, such things are not remotely being respectful.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017