I pit over-the-top Anti-Trump hysteria

The BBQ Pit
1222

…so why did you start a thread in the pit where you’ve spent most of your time scolding other people?

They literally answered that question. “They don’t start verbally abusing them, but they don’t waste time trying to recruit them or persuade them into agreement.”

Can you quote the part where scolding is part of the “system?”

This is classic Little_Nemo strawmanning. You are arguing with yourself.

And you keep pivoting arguments. “Passive supporters” are not always my allies. For example Ana Kasparian from the Young Turks pretty much is in complete agreement with me on the issue of Gaza.

But she is also a trans-hating bigot.

Does the former outweigh the other? Not for me. I don’t consider her an ally. As an activist supporter, I wouldn’t stand up for her. If she says something transphobic on Twitter and I see it? I’ll scold her. She’s an adult. She can take it. If she joined the boards and started spreading transphobic hate? I’d pit her.

Do I have some greater responsibility to withhold any criticism for the “greater good”? No, I don’t, because being a “Twitter scold” isn’t what lost the Democrats the last election. I reserve the right to call out bigotry when I see it. I don’t care who they voted for. Because in real life the intersection between the situations you are imagining and how often they actually really happen is vanishingly small.

1223

You acknowledged that the examples exist. And then you said you want to pretend they don’t exist.

1224

I’m not pivoting arguments. My argument has been very simple because I’ve kept it focused on a single issue; removing Trump and the Republicans from power.

A person who is willing to vote against Trump and the Republicans is therefore my ally in this cause, even if they are a terrible person otherwise. I’ll squeeze the vote out of them and then afterwards I’ll berate them for whatever it is that makes them a terrible person.

The problem arises when people try to hold to two positions, which can be in conflict. They want people to oppose Trump and the Republicans but they also want to enforce standards on who is good enough to oppose Trump and the Republicans. This causes a dilemma for them when they encounter a person who opposes Trump and the Republicans but doesn’t meet their standards. Like a transphobe who is planning on voting against the Republicans for economic reasons or a Klansman who is ready to fight against the Nazis in WWII.

1225

How is that going for you, anyway, and … how do you know?

Like I say, ISTM that you are seriously losing ground here. One good piece of evidence for that is that really esteemed, rational, thoughtful, and restrained Dopers are excoriating you repeatedly.

Kudos.

1226

…your arguments are all over the place.

Bolding mine.

Are you fucking stupid?

You already have their vote.

Its right there in the “person willing to vote against Trump” part. You’ve also repeated this upthread.

This person is going to vote against Trump. So what on earth are you “squeezing out of them” exactly?

So if you actually followed through with this that makes you a coward and a liar and someone who doesn’t have the courage of their convictions.

And it makes people like me not trust you. You can see the problem here, right? You lie to them. You will lie to us.

But I doubt you would actually follow through. They are your “allies” after all.

This would be YOU. You claim you support trans rights. But you shake hands with trans-hating-assholes. But you also claim that when Trump loses power, you are going to start berating trans-hating-assholes.

That isn’t what I want at all.

It isn’t about “standards.” Not in the way you intend that to mean. This isn’t a “purity test.”

Because there are certain fundamentals of being a decent human being. Supporting and protecting the marginalised is a “redline”, not a “standard.” Zero tolerance for trans hate is a redline. And there is a difference between “hate and ignorance.” I can tolerate and work with ignorance.

But you talk about hate.

And if hate isn’t a redline for you, and you are willing to shake hands with people that hate trans people and hate Black people and hate gay people and hate women, then no, I’m not going to be your friend.

You frame it as “enforcing standards on who is good enough to oppose Trump and the Republicans.” But I’m not stopping them from opposing Trump and the Republicans. They can do whatever the fuck they like. I just don’t want to have anything to do with them. And if they came up to me in the street and started spewing trans hate, I’d tell them to fuck off.

This isn’t a dilemma because I don’t give a fuck if the person opposes Trump and the Republicans or not. “Hating trans people” should absolutely be a redline for any decent person. So let’s just get that out front. I’m talking specifics. You are handwaving. By “standards” you mean you are happy to throw trans people under the bus. And when you get what you want you will then throw your new “allies” under the bus.

Why would anyone trust you?

The transphobe who is planning on voting against the Republicans doesn’t need any encouragement from me.

And show me any Klansman and I’ll show you someone working hand-in-hand with the Nazis, who is secretly feeding them intel, and will gladly fight in the frontlines for them if given the opportunity. This is literally their dream come true.

1227

This is a critical difference. There are lots of people who are anxious about sexuality and gender roles who find the existence of trans gender people to be disconcerting. Some of those will meet a trans person or learn about the trans experience and realize these are just people who have an unusual challenge. They’ll be okay. And some of them are actually hateful assholes. They’ll be after me, next.

1228

I don’t think @Little_Nemo was trying to argue what you claim he was arguing. It’s just you’ve all turned the argument that way and claimed it originated with him. His original argument was, to paraphrase “Don’t use non-existent threats to try to win voters because if they learn the threat does not actually exist they will no longer be motivated to vote.” It had nothing to do with scolding voters for the “wrong reason.” It’s clear from post #1169 that he thinks yelling at someone for voting for your candidate for what you think is the “wrong reason” is a bad tactic. But somehow you all think he said the opposite, because from what I see you’ve discounted every positive thing he’s said and twisted the rest into the most negative interpretation possible.

1229

And the obvious problem with that argument is …

There simply are no ‘non-existent threats.’

There’s no rational basis for ruling out Trump at least attempting to do anything, whether or not it’s legal, wise, precedented, or constitutional. He tried to overthrow the government, FFS.

The only question then becomes where on the continuum (from 0% likely to 100% likely) a given thing, threat, or action falls at a given time and its likelihood of succeeding.

But the arguments offered – by two Dopers only, it needs to be said – are illogical and irrational.

“It hasn’t happened yet” and “sure, they tried, but they failed” are both illogical and irrational as I have pointed out ad nauseum.

Also, the notion that explaining that the trajectory – both in Trump 1.0 and more so in Trump 2.0 – is toward worse (ie, more authoritarian, more totalitarian, more fascist) is counterproductive, absent even a scintilla of compelling evidence that this (“it’s counterproductive”) argument is valid.

I have seen no such evidence presented, making that argument unsupported, at best, and illogical/irrational/untrue, at worst.

Nobody is saying that Trump will try everything imaginable, and that everything he tries will succeed. Nobody needs to say that. What needs to be said is that – even though not every horrid dictator in history became Hitler – at least one did.

Nobody should fool themselves. Nobody should become complacent. Nobody should trip violently over their own Normalcy Bias.

But neither should anybody suggest that acknowledging and discussing what very well could happen will paralyze or alienate potential voters, supporters, and allies without providing some sort of evidence to support the assertion.

And at this point … I’d say this about both Little_Nemo and Smapti:

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

–Winston Churchill

[And, yes: I’m obviously a willing participant in this shit-show. It passes the time]

1230

He’s pivoted to “I’ll work with the Klan to fight the Nazis”. And the Klan wants me dead just as much as the Nazis do.

1231

But you all stopped making that argument a long time ago. @Banquet_Bear has not mentioned genocide since post #189. Their last post was arguing about willing voters with reprehensible viewpoints.

1232

^ This 100%. We have to start somewhere.

Then we will have to move on to SCOTUS.

1233

At least in my case, may I kindly refer you back to the Churchill quote I offered.

They don’t respond to (at least, my) primary argument. Ever. Pretty sure it’s because they can’t.

1234

See, here’s the thing. If i want better roads, and I’m willing to pay higher taxes to get them, and you want lower taxes, and are willing to put up with potholes and waiting 3 days for the snow to be cleared, we can work together on other topics. But if you want to eradicate me and my kin and everyone like me, we really can’t work together. We can maybe be cautious allies during a war, but we each know the other will turn on us if they have a good opportunity to do so.

1235

I don’t pretend to know the future. All I can do is make the best plans I can based on what I know now.

Right now, the best plan I see is based around the November 2026 elections. We’ll see the results after Election Day.

1236

Good thing that isn’t what I asked about, then, huh?

ETA: Let’s say it’s baseball. What’s your win-loss record to date and the score of the game you’re currently playing? Then you can choose to make predictions about the rest of the season, or not.

Let’s say it’s a sales job? How many deals are done, how many are currently in negotiation, and what – if you’d care to opine – do you project you’ll close in the rest of the year?

Predictions are optional. I’m asking what you’ve accomplished so far.

My guess? You’re losing ground. Yes: I’m repeating myself. So are you. Fair’s fair.

1237

It’s February. The election is in November.

They may be planning on voting against Trump and the Republicans right now. But if you spend the next nine months telling them they’re fucking idiots because they don’t agree with your position on Palestine, they may decide “You know, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. Why should I vote for them?”

1238

You asked if my plan was working.

My plan is based on the November 2026 elections.

November 2026 is the future.

1239

Ain’t it just a hoot that whenever somebody makes this claim they almost never mean “…so I guess I’ll vote Democrat, then.” :roll_eyes:

1240

So you do pretend to know the future?

1241

So, to me, it sounds just exactly like Donald Trump: he’ll abide by the results of the upcoming elections if they were conducted fairly and honestly.

How will he know if they were conducted fairly and honestly? Oh, only if he wins, of course.

How’s your track record so far, sport?

And how do you know?