The reason I am asking you is because you indicated that you are someone who would engage and discuss it conservatives, to persuade them. Is that fair?
Well, if you are going to do that you should understand their arguments well enough that you could articulate them in such a way that they would agree with them.
This is sort of like saying that the guy who gets rejected by all the women he asks out should be able to articulate why they are rejecting him in a way that the women would agree with.
If he does that, than he understands their viewpoint and can engage it.
Please note that this is not a trap that I am setting or anything like that. Nowhere am I suggesting that you have to agree with a conservative or admit validity to their argument.
I am just saying you should be able to articulate their viewpoint in a way that they would agree with.
For a while I thought I might qualify for this role. I’m pretty sure I don’t.
There were people in the 1840s making the same argument to abolitionists and slaves - “Maybe you should be asking yourselves what’s wrong with you that leads to millions in support of your enslavement”.
It’s a silly argument, no matter what it’s trying to say. I’m sure there are things to discuss about political strategy and tactics. But the problem during slavery was not with the enslaved nor with the abolitionists. It was with slave owners and slavery supporters. Similarly, the problem today is not with those who oppose Trump.
You’ve brought up an interesting point with your concern about Godwinizing.
As you are well aware it is a failing of political discourse almost universally that one will demonize and attack with hyperbole their political opponent.
What the Republicans seem to have done (which is very interesting as a strategy though I doubt it was intentional) is get somebody elected who is completely immune to godwinization. Trump is immune to these attacks simply because almost everything bad that you could say about him is literally true.
So, whatever terrible thing Trump does or says or is said about him, the response is “well, yeah.”
It is literally impossible to attack him on moral or ethical grounds, or on grounds of veracity, because he has already ceded this territory in every meaningful way.
It would be a very interesting strategy to discuss from a game theory standpoint. I’m appalled that it is actually being used in the real world.
I could say that I used to feel that way. Today? I don’t think I’m going to persuade someone who is OK with aligning themselves with White Supremecists because they like the Republican take on tariffs. I’m certainly not interested in modifying the Liberal platform to attract these people.
This is fair concept. Let’s say he plays D&D and the woman thinks bad things about the game, he can engage her to discuss the merits, and perhaps she will come around and agree with him. OTOH, let’s say she thinks his race is ruining the country. He may be able to articulate that, but there’s no reason for him to.
You can’t logic someone out of a position they didn’t logic themselves into. Until a Republican shows up who can suggest to me that they used logic and not hate or bigotry to arrive at their political position, I’m not going to trouble myself.
No. I don’t have a problem with those form of regulations. We even have lies that impact individuals like libel and slander. What I do have a problem with is with a publisher not being able to publish what they want because it may have an impact on an election.
I wonder how stranger will twist those words?
“See, octopus, what you really mean is you want blah blah blah”
I don’t think you would find many making that argument.
Again, in fairness, I don’t think that you will find many Republicans (excepting unfortunately actual white supremacists) who would agree with the statement that they arrived at their political position out of hatred or bigotry.
If they would not agree with that viewpoint than it’s not a fair representation of their viewpoint.
*Sure, I called that homosexual man a sodomite and a sinner who is going to burn in hell, but that’s just the definition of homosexual that a conservative would use. Not sure why you want to be an asshole about it. *
I am a cranky anarchist today, and I have strong feelings about idiots slandering my political beliefs by calling them fucking liberal. Also, I’m openly an asshole, this is the goddamn pit, and I have no obligation to be polite. Feel free to respond in kind. Now would you like me to play a cheerful tune on the world’s tiniest violin to compliment your sad little whine?
I actually get my rocks off by having sex with people in real life. I got annoyed enough to respond to you because you were spouting stupid bullshit. There is no correlation between the two.
I don’t see anyone having a problem with the open border with Canada. So, let’s go with that “talking point” is bullshit. ETA: If people really want “vigorous enforcement”, then they’d be clamoring for serious and vigorous enforcement applied to the companies and people who hire undocumented aliens. Remove the carrot and then you don’t need the stick.
I think both Scylla and Cheesesteak make good points.
Take, for example, the question of illegal immigration. A Republican might well say something like “I am very concerned about the vast numbers of illegal immigrants flooding into our country, a great many of whom are violent criminals. They hurt our economy and take advantage of social programs intended for our citizens And the Democrats encourage this and refuse to enforce our laws because they know that the illegals will vote for them!”
None of that sounds overtly bigoted; it doesn’t even reference race at all. The concerns it identifies are perfectly valid; nobody likes violent crime, economic harm or political corruption. And yet, it’s all total bullshit. All his major points are objectively untrue.
That statement could be made by someone who sincerely believes himself to be strongly opposed to racism, and who would then be righteously offended when someone accused him of racism based on what he had said.
So, we’re talking here not about avowed white supremacists, but about people who believe stuff that isn’t true. Anyone can be fooled, but the particular set of lies that these people have fallen for is one that IMO could only seem remotely plausible to people who already had strongly negative attitudes about “foreigners”. Therefore, it isn’t at all incorrect to say that the GOP is appealing to “hatred and bigotry” by making arguments like the above, and the success they have achieved by doing so indicates that these attitudes are still very widespread among white Americans.
Just off the top of my head, I’d think truthful labeling or certain mandated labeling for goods would be a legitimate federal power under regulating interstate commerce. I also think there’d be an argument that misrepresentation of what you are selling is fraudulent.
I wouldn’t go quite that far, because in general 50% of Americans think that Trump is as bad as everyone says he is. But then there’s about somewhere around a third of Americans who probably cannot be convinced of any of that criticism under any circumstances. And I’d say there’s some single digit percentage that are happy to say that Trump is doing a good job despite all those criticisms, on the basis that the economy is good or whatever.
Part of what puzzles me about the argument that Trump’s opponents should learn from Trump is that implicit in that statement seems to be a fundamental error: it would make sense if 50% of America loved Trump and 33% hated his guts. But why is the majority of the country supposed to take steps to appeal to a pretty modest minority?
On edit: to say it another way, if you said that Mondale Dems should look at why he lost to a very popular President in 1984, I’d say, oh yeah. Common sense. But if you’re saying that Dems should have looked at Watergate-era Nixon and figured out how to appeal to his base, I’d say… whut?
And doesn’t care! That’s the amazing thing for me – that he’s Baghdad Bob-ish in his willingness to say things that every listener knows are absolutely untrue. With a straight face!
What am I supposed to say when someone argues that if a person, because of their inclusion in a minority group, is refused service at an establishment, that they should just leave and find another establishment that is willing to serve them? Not only is this OK, but the government should rule to protect the person refusing service.
We’ve been down this road before. You know, I didn’t even know the Green Book existed until I was well into my adulthood. I’m a northerner, and I was born years after it stopped being printed, it just never even hit my radar as a thing, and it shocked me when I learned about it. I’m angry that it had to exist, that American Citizens needed a book of places they would be allowed to do business with. Allowed. Right now I’m seething inside just typing about this bullshit that was done to people before I was born.
But Republicans want to say it’s OK. Not to African Americans (cuz they’re not racist ) but to a different group. A group so marginalized that they routinely pretended to not be a part of that group, just for their own safety. It’s OK to treat those people that way, but don’t call Republicans bigots, that’s not fair. They’re “protecting religious freedom”.
Why bother? You’re an asshole, you know you’re an asshole, and now I know you’re an asshole. Which, as I said, proves my point about there being assholes on all sides of the political spectrum.
Well, I could be an asshole that’s wrong about this. Absolutely nothing you have posted yet has convinced me of that, but I’m willing to admit that it’s a possibility. By refusing to engage and just walking away, you’ve just convinced me I’m right, so thank you for that and bless your heart.
) but to a different group. A group so marginalized that they routinely pretended to not be a part of that group, just for their own safety. It’s OK to treat those people that way, but don’t call Republicans bigots, that’s not fair. They’re “protecting religious freedom”.