Well, nobody “deserves” a civil discourse in the sense that you can oblige other people to respond to you politely. You’re free to express your ideas to your heart’s content, but that imposes no mandate on anyone else. You may get a polite response if your initial statement is polite, but this initial politeness has been determinedly absent from the Trump campaign ever since it started, and any occasional calls for rapprochement are typically undone within days by Trump himself lashing out yet again.
I suggest instead pf putting out a general call for politeness (and considering it shattered whenever anyone says anything derogatory), choose a small handful of opponents who you think might be able to maintain civility, invite them specifically to a discussion and, most important, ignore everyone else.
Some of us object to Trump’s appointments — a woman who hates public schools as Sec’y of Education, a man who hates the EPA and doesn’t believe in science to head the EPA, a self-described “Leninist” who supervised a website devoted to racism and anti-Semitism as Chief White House Strategist.
To initiate a constructive dialog, I’d first ask Trump supporters what they think of these appointments.
My objections to Bannon, Pruitt, DeVos et al is not that they’re “inarticulate.” Do you support those appointments? If so, can you cast them in a light conducive to “détente”?
I think this is an impossible mission. Not because the various individual supporters and opponents are all dedicated to being at logger heads, but because the idea that an entire swath of people (supporters/opponents), which are inherently nebulous (very few are 100% either way about EVERY issue), trying to arrange for a GENERAL peaceful dialog is illogical.
Although Trump is by far the MOST intentionally divisive President I have personally experienced, he isn’t the first one. The next closest was Nixon, of course, with his “enemies lists.” Trump has gone far beyond the “enemies list” concept.
Since Trump himself has made it a core element of his Presidency to insist that large segments of the American Public are to be either ignored or outright attacked, there is no way to bring any significant number of his supporters to agree with any significant number of his “enemies.”
Here’s the two biggest ways in which Trump supporters and I live in different universes, from my POV:
Whatever Trump himself believes, his rhetoric and electoral success have resulted in the empowerment and some level of tolerance and legitimization of white supremacists and their rhetoric. There are many examples – prominent and open white supremacists like David Duke and Richard Spencer have been crowing that Trump’s victory legitimizes their grievances (and Trump has never smacked them down with a fraction of the vitriol he’s used for the likes of the Clintons or Barack Obama), and grayer white supremacists like Representative Steve King more openly make crypto-white-supremacist assertions than they used to. If some Trump supporters don’t believe that Trump’s rhetoric and success have empowered and enabled these assholes to some degree, then we live in different factual universes, akin to 9/11 truthers, birthers, and the like. I don’t think it can be reasonably doubted that this is true, even if Trump himself is not a white supremacist (which I’m not sure of, though I don’t think it particularly matters, considering his rhetoric and appointments).
One of the most important duties of American politicians, if not the most important, is continuing the fight against white supremacism and ensuring that it’s a gutter philosophy, no more accepted or tolerated in public than advocacy for the legalization of child molestation. As above, I think it’s undeniable that Trump’s rise has been counter to this duty, based on his rhetoric and appointments (chiefly the monstrously racist tome Camp of Saints-lover, Steve Bannon). If some Trump supporters disagree with me that this is one of the most important duties of American politicians, then we live in different moral universes.
I don’t know how to reasonably and collegially discuss facts with people who live in different factual universes, or morals with people who live in different moral universes.
There can be no détente among those of us who oppose bigotry and those who actively or silently support it.
I don’t want anyone to make the mistaken assumption that I started this thread in an attempt to try to find common ground with bigots.
I want to clarify further that I believe that Trump’s many comments throughout his campaign and nascent presidency can only be characterized as: stupid, ignorant, outright lies, dangerous and illegal. As I’ve often said before, the man is morally and intellectually unfit and unqualified for the position of POTUS. Furthermore, he and his cabinet are, to my mind, a very good example of what the banality of evil looks like.
So, to those who would insist on defending Trump and his representatives, I suggest you find another thread to do so, or start one of your own. To those who are fundamentally opposed to Trump in every way - I completely understand and agree, but please, find another thread for your vehement objections.
This topic is for those who wish to explore any common ground we can find around specific issues and policies that are coming from this administration. I don’t know that there will be very many. It may well be that we find precious little, if any. But to the extent that’s possible, I want to try. Call it a social experiment, or a fool’s errand.
Thus far there has been a handful of posters willing to give it a go and I want to express my thanks. I invite others to join.
One problem that’s not addressed here but that I see a lot is that there are much more than two camps. To use the issue mentioned in the OP as an example, I don’t think that using ‘wiretapping’ as a general term for listening in on communications is at all unreasonable or obscure, nor do I think that pinning the actions of agencies that report directly to Obama to Obama is a stretch, especially in a short, casual communication like a tweet. I also am significantly left of Clinton on most issues and think Trump is an absolutely awful president. But according to what people are saying in this thread, it’s only Trump supporters that hold my position!
There seem to be a number of vocal people who take the attitude that if you’re not fully outraged about the latest shenanigan from Trump, and especially if you think that the never-ending din of outrage over tweets and harping on a tenuous Russian connection are counterproductive, then you must be a Trump supporter! But there really are people who don’t like Trump but also don’t think some of the accusations against him are vali and do think that focusing on tweets distracts from real issues like dismantling the EPA), and it would be great if there could also be a detente on accusing people of being Trump supporters for not buying the entire outrage package.
So, in other words, it’s OK to falsely accuse a President of a felony without evidence because a) it’s Twitter and b) he didn’t really mean it. :rolleyes:
Pantastic’s interpretation could be reasonable, IHMO, if the tweet simply said, “Obama wiretapped Trump Tower! Sad!” Such a vague statement is surely open to a lot of interpretations. They are probably all still BS, but it would be very thinly spread BS to cover a lot of ground.
But Trump went further. He specifically accused Obama of Nixonian behavior. When one brings up Nixon, it is clearly a reference to illegal abuses of power in which crimes are committed against political enemies. It is simply unbelievable that if, say, the FBI gets a duly-issued warrant to investigate crimes, that they (or by the principle of transference) or the President are “Nixonian.”
Trump was clearly accusing Obama of a politically motivated crime. Just because some people are trying to walk that back now does not change the clear meaning of the tweets.
Trump himself is trying to walk this back now…and not doing a particularly good job of backpedaling, either. And that’s kind of the crux of all of this to me…Trump and by extension his followers attempt to change the definition of terms or other things when they are called on their obvious (and generally easily looked up) horseshit claims. How can you debate with someone who won’t accept, for instance, that the crime rate in the US isn’t, in fact, the highest its been in 47 years or that the GDP isn’t 0 (even redefining what he REALLY meant by 0 as being 0% growth doesn’t work), or that the REAL unemployment rate is 20 or even 30 or 40%?? How can you have a rational conversation with someone who gets their news and views from known CTers, and who tosses out false claims he can’t backup about a former president, then doesn’t see what the fuss is all about? IMHO, you can’t. That doesn’t mean there can’t be meaningful debate between conservatives and liberals (and moderates)…just that I don’t see the possibility of detente between pro and anti-Trump camps being possible or even desirable from eithers perspective.
So there’s a spectrum with this bigotry debate. Trump supporters perceive that modern culture has gone full retard the other direction. Instead of “don’t discriminate, k” it’s "let’s actively let in millions of foreigners. Failing to allow limitless immigration is discriminatory. It’s discriminatory to even give preference to the descendents of families who have been here for generations and fought in America’s wars and worked all their lives to contribute to what has made America an attractive place to live. "
Large elite schools are perceived to actively discriminate against the descendents of the same people who founded those schools. Like it or not, it’s a historical fact that a bunch of old white guys founded basically every elite school you want to attend. Yet if you’re a white male, you feel actively discriminated against by those admissions boards. (and if you’re an asian male, god help you)
Most people are heterosexual and ok with their birth gender. If you can define being deaf a disease, you can define having instincts suited for the wrong set of genitals a disease. So there’s this huge hubbub about how we gotta violate a couple centuries of social customs about which privy or restroom you get to use for the benefit of a tiny minority who arguably have an organic brain disease. (the working hypothesis is that whatever brain wiring gives you gender identity or sexual desire is, well, crosswired. there’s debate over this but this is the most probable explanation that fits all the facts)
Moreover, the whole debate eats precious bandwidth that distracts from relevant issues.
Anyways, what you call bigotry, Trump supporters use the catchall term “snowflake”. They are tired of extreme liberalism the other direction - where white males get actively discriminated against, where the rights of gays and transexuals are this huge issue of national importance despite being a small minority, where we are supposed to just ignore Federal law on behalf of millions of mexicans who snuck in and are now outbreeding the “natives*”.
obviously white americans aren’t really native but they arguably did fight and shoot everyone who challenged them for this land.
When a progressive gets fed up and vents someone always has to say “You can’t say that or you will make the conservatives even more mean” And they will have to slink away and feel guilty about it, because everyone has to get along.
When conservatives vent it is seen as the background condition of what they are supposed to be doing. This is being played out on the biggest screen imaginable. Serious business.
This is a reality bubble.
Now I’m not sure why you think I’m not engaging in civil discourse on the merits. But maybe I have been, and this is the condition we are under.
I’d still pay to read a dialogue or even a monologue on behalf of twitler that wasn’t bannon-conway-mcenany BS.
BTW; What are the likes of conway, mcenany, ad nauseum doing to 1) Their own cause; 2) their own voters? and 3) The commonwealth (a civil dialogue among citizens)?
The cruelty and hypocrisy is just bottomless. How can we argue with something when the public spokespeople are so craven and dishonest?
Do you think that the “actual” people have a better grip on the case for donnie than his own people? Why would they have a different philosophy than the reps on TV?
On what topic shall I open? What do you even disagree about? I’m trying to say that Trump supporters (I can’t really call myself one because I know he’s a stuffed suit and has a distorted view of objective reality) have a genuine reason to feel like they do. Some of them are straight up racists, but others have a legitimate grievance against current immigration policies and PC culture.
It’s easy to point to the more racist ones and dismiss all their claims, but that doesn’t mean their overall points of view are invalid.
If you agree with the overall point of view that sexual orientation, for example, is an “organic brain disease”, then I don’t think there is any room for common ground.
Everyone has a “genuine” reason to feel they way that they do.
What that is may not become clear to the person in this lifetime. When you vote for trumpism you are opening the door into this world, where motives are obscure. It comes from the top: Notice how people are always guessing at what donnie means even when they are interviewing HIM! Yesterday he was on tv about his wiretap claim and no one really knows what he was talking about even today.
I hope this is not “elitist” but I can’t believe anyone is that in touch with his motivations that he fully knows why he voted for this person.
…I think it’s you who’s the odd one out here. Every gay friend I’ve talked to about this says it starts at puberty. The same gender just seems really hot and attractive. The explanation that best fits this experience and also autopsies on deceased gay individuals suggests that the actual physical brain circuitry governing attraction is, well, flipped. Why is it flipped? Brain development is a very fragile and error prone process, some genes make the process even more wobbly.
So it’s an organic brain difference. It’s not upbringing, it’s a specific difference in circuitry.
Why is it a disease? This depends on your definition of disease, I suppose. But most people agree that being deaf is a bad thing. You are less fit for survival because you are missing an entire communication channel. Wanting to get with people in a way that can’t propagate the species means that, bluntly put, you are failed biological being. That’s an empirical fact. You’re literally a reject from a process.
Now, a lot of Trump zealots actually think that being gay is a choice and that people are choosing it because…umm…I don’t know. I guess idiots think gays are actually evil or something. Or they think they can be cured, which obviously is not possible if the circuitry is basically soldered in and not really adjustable through learning. Some regions of the brain are thought to be more or less untrainable like that. This is why you can’t train yourself not to breathe even when unconscious.
But yes, if we can’t even agree on objective reality - what I said is supported quite well by the available evidence - then, well, we can’t really discuss anything. Both of us think the other believes in “fake news” I guess. What’s your theory? Why are people gay? What makes it not a weakness or disability to have?
And that’s kind of the crux of all of this to me…Trump and by extension his followers attempt to change the definition of terms or other things when they are called on their obvious (and generally easily looked up) horseshit claims. How can you debate with someone who won’t accept, for instance, that the crime rate in the US isn’t, in fact, the highest its been in 47 years or that the GDP isn’t 0 (even redefining what he REALLY meant by 0 as being 0% growth doesn’t work), or that the REAL unemployment rate is 20 or even 30 or 40%?? How can you have a rational conversation with someone who gets their news and views from known CTers, and who tosses out false claims he can’t backup about a former president, then doesn’t see what the fuss is all about? IMHO, you can’t. That doesn’t mean there can’t be meaningful debate between conservatives and liberals (and moderates)…just that I don’t see the possibility of detente between pro and anti-Trump camps being possible or even desirable from eithers perspective.