I pit over-the-top Anti-Trump hysteria

The BBQ Pit
301

It’s worth noting how many non-genocides have genocidal aspects to them. The ethnic Vietnamese of Cambodia were wiped out straightaway, before Pol Pot settled in on the Cambodian middle class. The USSR, with a white Slavic population majority, killed off suspect minorities in lopsided proportions, even taking the Ukrainians into account. Turkmen, Siberians and especially ethnic Poles.

OTOH, I read today how a green-card New Zealand woman and her daughter were nabbed in Washington State and slammed-up for weeks in Texas. That had to be some comfort to their Hispanic cell mates.

302

Then what is the point of the thread?

303

Mannn, I shoulda called this in a post 'cause I knew it was coming. I really coulda used the quatloos.

But nice to know that if Trump starts rounding up and slaughtering Americans it still won’t be a “real” genocide.

304

Same as it’s always been.

305

If? What do you mean if? I have been repeatedly told in this thread that Trump has already committed genocide. Don’t backslide. The others are all watching.

306

There were distinct groups - there were the Khmer Rouge, and there was everyone else. Although there was also a substantial ethnic component as well, you’re right that it was ethnically largely autogenocide.

But it’s still generally considered a genocide, one of the archetypical ones.

307

It’s almost as if the folks that are disagreeing with you don’t all share the same strawman opinion you need to argue against.

308

The others are just looking at a tired grammar Nazi act coming from you.

309

Which is …?

310

Seriously? I quoted my post. Do you want me to quote it again?

311

I must’ve missed it. You keep repeating yourself, but not in a way that feels like conversation.

Don’t bother quoting yourself. I’ll either find it, if I’m bored enough, or I won’t. Enjoy your scolding session!

312

Oh, I see. You think you answered my question by requoting your post. That was not sufficient, because that post still reads as telling people what to do/not do.

313

You asked me what I felt was the point of this thread. I told you what I thought it was. And as the person who wrote the OP, I feel I have a valid idea of what I meant when I wrote it.

You may not agree with what I said. And you may not agree with what I think. But this is what I said and it is what I think. Asking me the same question a fourth time isn’t going to produce a new answer.

314

The truth is indeed on our side, the truth also includes that ignoring what Trump and henchmen can and want to do next has support thanks to what history tell us about past dictators.

Incidentally, Trump can deny that he will commit genocide, but then again, he is already denying that he is slouching towards mass murder, when that is happening already.

315

That is OK, that you are branding yourself as a Grammar Nazi is your problem.

316

It would if you were a better conversationalist. But I get it, that’s not your goal.

Your goal is to scold people. Which, fine. It’s the pit. But let’s not pretend this is doing anything in the fight against Trump. You have a peeve, and you want to scold people for it, and you don’t much care about accuracy or how the psychology of persuasion works or anything. You want to whine about other people’s whining.

317

One more thought.

I rarely miss a YouTube video from Heather Cox Richardson. One of her recurrent themes (paraphrasing) is that people who value small-d democracy don’t need to coalesce around a common platform right now. Not at all.

Rather, I think she puts the onus on the politicians to listen to their constituents’ many voices, many thoughts, many goals, many values, many concerns, and many proposals, and then apply their own breed of wisdom as to where the country is and how best to package that into policy positions and proposals.

I might cite Gavin Newsom as a case in point. Not long ago, he was a frequent guest on podcasts in the ‘Manosphere,’ apparently thinking that a rightward shift on the cultural issues might be a winning strategy.

Then, most of Trump 2.0 happened, and Newsom – savvy politician that I think he is – pivoted (arguably, back) to the left.

Richardson tends to point to Abraham Lincoln as perhaps a standout example of supply arising out of popular demand – maybe an idealized case of the voters picking the politician.

I think there’s room in the conversation, at this point, for most of this and all of us. It’s a vetting process – one that, ideally, should be watched by those who aspire to elected office.

I also support Richardson’s constant refrain that we need to be allies with any who value, cherish, support, and are concerned about democracy, so clearly on the line. The only non-negotiable caveat that I can ever recall her offering up is no violence [ETA: which I presume she would extend to vandalism and property destruction]. I don’t even get the sense that she’s a pacifist, per se. It’s more that, once that line is crossed, you lose the support of the masses.

Short of that … Laissez les bons temps rouler.

318

You declaring what my goal is doesn’t make it my goal.

319

Me branding myself a Grammar Nazi would be a silly thing for me to do.

You branding me a Grammar Nazi isn’t a problem for me.

320

Trump’s federal forces have taken Washington D.C. and he’s threatening other cities next. When does the anti-Trump hysteria simply become the Trump truth?