Question for Democrats - Restaurant exclusion sign

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, “OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we’re serious. Trump is for reals fascist.”

But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?

“OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time.”

Who is they?

If some subgroup of left wing liberals called Bush a Fascist during the 2000’s, does that mean that the rest of those on the left side of the ideological split are not allowed to have an opinion?

I though bush was an incompetent asshole who allowed others to essentially run his administration for him, and he certainly pointed the country in the direction of Fascism, but I would not call him a fascist.

Does the fact that some on your side called Obama a communist fascist nazi muslim from kenya mean that you are not allowed to disapprove of the actions of a democratic administration? If bernie had won the primary and the general, would the fact that some republicans called obama a socialist mean that you cannot call Bernie a socialist. This following your logic there.

Now, I would not not just out and out call Trump a facist, but when reading the definition of a fascist, and watching his actions, there are some similarities. Authoritarianism and nationalism are big flags for fascism, and he certainly has those. Intolerant views, extreme right wing, those fit too.
Now, back to the point of the thread…

Really, conservatives are getting this worked up about a sign? A sign that was hand written and posted in the window of a tiny diner? A tiny diner in a state that is about as far as you can get from the continental US as you can possibly get and be in the US? A sign that was taken down 3 months ago? Did any of you have to cancel your trip? Just curious, about how that works, anyway. If liberals get offended that a state tells people that they cannot use public bathrooms that correspond to their gender, they get called snowflakes and other such insults. What do we call conservatives that get this worked up about some sign on the other side of the planet? A sign they never ever would have even known about, had it not been for conservatives making a big deal out of it.

Now, me personally, I would not put up such a sign. It would be bad for business. Many, if not most of my clients are Trump supporters, but even still, I try my best to not be political in my business. If I was in a solid blue area like hawaii though, I might think differently. Do you really think he’s going to lose any business for the sign?

[Procrustus]

@Bone

The idea is that when terms get watered down they lose meaning and impact. If there is a consistent accusation of fascism based on flimsy evidence, it dulls other accusations of fascism and makes them easier to dismiss - like I do with the New Yorker article. If the goal is like a rally to hype up the base of folks who are already inclined to agree with you, then great. If the goal is something more than that, then it’s ineffective.

I just don’t see a collective shrug if we get a real honest to goodness fascist in office one day. “Well, they said the same thing about Bush and Trump” isn’t going to assuage many fears.

I guess I generally agree that there are many things to call Trump besides “fascist” that would be more accurate. I won’t list them all here, but they include ignorant, offensive, bigoted, slimy, untruthful, and disgusting.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

If some subgroup of left wing liberals called Bush a Fascist during the 2000’s, does that mean that the rest of those on the left side of the ideological split are not allowed to have an opinion?

If the opinion in question is that Trump is a fascist, that opinion is refuted by merely reminding them of the actual definition of the word. I raised the spectre of earlier claims that Bush was a fascist to illustrate the willingness of commentators to blur definitions in service of rhetoric.

Does the fact that some on your side called Obama a communist fascist nazi muslim from kenya mean that you are not allowed to disapprove of the actions of a democratic administration? If bernie had won the primary and the general, would the fact that some republicans called obama a socialist mean that you cannot call Bernie a socialist. This following your logic there.

Same answer – Bernie identifies as a socialist. My calling him one is not at odds with the actual definition of the word.

I agree, of course, that Obama was not a socialist.

Now, I would not not just out and out call Trump a facist, but when reading the definition of a fascist, and watching his actions, there are some similarities. Authoritarianism and nationalism are big flags for fascism, and he certainly has those. Intolerant views, extreme right wing, those fit too.

Sure. There are more similarities between Trump and a genuine fascist than any president in my living memory.

[QuickSilver]

@Shodan

Seems to me that it is predicated on the assumption that there is no distinction between “Trump is likely to be a bad President” and “TRUMP IS A FASCIST!!!”

I don’t see how Godwinizing the political debate in America helps any more than it usually does on the Internet.

Regards,
Shodan

@Bricker

Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, “OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we’re serious. Trump is for reals fascist.”

But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?

“OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time.”

Hold on a minute.

What was quoted doesn’t say anything about Trum being a fascist. I didn’t say anything about Trump being a fascist. In fact the article specifically says:

Fascism is not our future—it cannot be; we cannot allow it to be so—but this is surely the way fascism can begin.

<bolding mine> “Can begin”. That’s as close as it gets.

[wolfpup]

@Bone

I took the two articles to be more parody than anything else. From the first paragraph of the 2nd linked article:

It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety.

It’s “impossible”? That’s a definitional failure right there. Not to besmirch the New Yorker or the author, but I hope these articles aren’t representative of the publication’s quality.

If your strongest objection to those articles centers around a common figure of speech, I’m tempted to respond “it’s impossible for me to consider that to be a serious criticism.”

Your criticism seems to me to be contrary to the basic spirit of good writing, and it’s probably a safe bet that David Remnick does know how to write. Your criticism takes literalism to an extreme that one rarely sees applied to literature, and that seems more suited to the language of a legal contract. In fact it’s not unusual to see this common figure of speech even in court rulings: “… when we look to the condition of this race in the several States at the time, it is impossible to believe that these rights and privileges were intended to be extended to them” (Supreme Court, Scott v Sandford).

Clearly, Remnick is saying, in effect, “I believe that it would be impossible for any thinking person to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety” but as any good writer would recognize, adding a string of perfectly obvious qualifiers is both unnecessary and deleterious to impactful, effective writing. This is a well-reasoned but obviously impassioned essay written the day after an astounding election, not a legal contract to be dissected with tweezers. My respect for David Remnick and the New Yorker remain safely intact.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist.

Your pronouns lack antecedents.

[Bone]

@wolfpup

Clearly, Remnick is saying, in effect, “I believe that it would be impossible for any thinking person to react to this moment with anything less than revulsion and profound anxiety” but as any good writer would recognize, adding a string of perfectly obvious qualifiers is both unnecessary and deleterious to impactful, effective writing. This is a well-reasoned but obviously impassioned essay written the day after an astounding election, not a legal contract to be dissected with tweezers. My respect for David Remnick and the New Yorker remain safely intact.

If Remnick is saying as you characterize, that it would be impossible for any thinking person to react…that too betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of those that would disagree with him, or a Scotsman fallacy. But yes, I take the author to be speaking more colloquially and that’s why I consider the article to be more parody than anything else. It’s obviously an opinion piece - one that I think exaggerates to such an extent that it cannot be taken seriously (by me). Those exaggerations are in the same vein of the ‘fascism’ discussion above; it gives cover to dismiss the article which I do.

[wolfpup]

I hope you recognize that to be a completely different criticism. Now you’re saying that it’s an opinion piece that you disagree with (no one disputes that it’s an opinion piece, and disagreeing with it is your right). I cited those articles because I thought they were persuasive and well reasoned. Those of a different political bent may have a different world view that will probably not be changed by any one or two pieces of writing, however eloquent they may be. But perhaps they may be changed over time as events unfold. The notion that the articles are “hyperbole” is just the perspective of that particular world view.

I think the core of all the arguments around Trumpism is that even if it achieves some conservative goals that conservatives deem desirable and liberals don’t, there are a great many insidious side effects unfolding that are extremely damaging and are good for no one at all – like the institutionalization of dishonesty, the creation of fictitious realities based on a web of lies, xenophobia and ultranationalism, and contempt for the rule of law.

[Bricker]

@QuickSilver

Hold on a minute.

What was quoted doesn’t say anything about Trum being a fascist. I didn’t say anything about Trump being a fascist. In fact the article specifically says:

<bolding mine> “Can begin”. That’s as close as it gets.

Closer than that right here:

@wolfpup

This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the serious use of a serious political label like “fascism” is justified in this particular extraordinary circumstance. I’ve cited ample evidence that it is.

[octopus]

@Procrustus

I’m not sure what the “problem” is. Some people (I assume) called GWB a fascist. Perhaps some of the same people are calling Trump a fascist. Maybe we’ll get a “true fascist” some time in the future. Each will be judged by the merits at the time. If the next guy is a fascist, I don’t think we’ll forgive that because someone cried wolf about Trump.

BTW, I don’t think Trump is an actual fascist. That’s probably the nicest thing I can say about him.

He’s fascist has jumped the shark. And that is a problem. Just like all the other baseless leftwing accusations. It’s like calling someone a witch or something. It’s eye rolling not alarming.

[iiandyiiii]

@iiandyiiii

Who am I insulting? If you took that as an insult (and I don’t honestly see how – it was a criticism of your post, but not an insult in any way) then I apologize.

“Racist” in common parlance often just means “bigoted”. That may not be the original use of the word, but current use = definition, and current use includes such a broader definition than the older sense of the world.

Not a huge deal, but still bigoted, IMO, to spread negative stereotypes even in a joking fashion, as did the joke by another poster about Mexican restaurants serving cat. And I thought your defense of this bigotry, which amounted to an incorrect semantic distinction, to be rather weak.

You never responded to this post, octopus. No big deal, but I’m curious.

[Airbeck]

@octopus

He’s fascist has jumped the shark. And that is a problem. Just like all the other baseless leftwing accusations. It’s like calling someone a witch or something. It’s eye rolling not alarming.

And the same goes for all the baseless rightwing accusations we heard for the last 8 years? And are still hearing from the President about his predecessor? Have those all jumped the shark as well? Have you stumbled upon the end of political criticism as we know it? Eye rolls all around now? Is that where we’re at?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@iiandyiiii

You never responded to this post, octopus. No big deal, but I’m curious.

Bone has asked us not to respond to it here; but don’t despair! You can read his response, in all its erudition and wisdom, in this new thread over here.

[RTFirefly]

Coming in late to this one, but:

If you’re in the business of serving the public, you’re in the business of serving the public. And that means everyone.

You can have a dress code, and refuse to admit people who don’t comply with it. (“No shirt, no shoes, no service.”) Once people are in the door, you can kick them out if they behave in a manner that makes the other customers uncomfortable.

But just like a bakery has no business refusing to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they disapprove of the couple on grounds unrelated to their behavior in the bakery or inability to pay, the restaurant has no business refusing to serve people on grounds unrelated to their behavior in the restaurant, unwillingness to comply with the restaurant’s dress code, or inability to pay.

If a restaurant wanted, they could say, “no wearing of hats on the premises,” in which case Trump fans would have to remove their MAGA hats before entering. They could even completely ban clothing with printed messages. And of course if the Trump supporters expressed their support for Trump in a rude and boisterous manner, the proprietor could feel free to send them on their way.

But he shouldn’t be able to exclude them simply for being Trump supporters.

Would I refuse to dine there? Depends on how badly I wanted to eat at that particular restaurant. If it was Mama’s Fish House on Maui, I’d go ahead and eat there, acknowledging the correctness of the Trump supporters’ position, but letting them fight their own damn battles on this one. But for most other places, I’d find somewhere else to eat.

I figure that’s more support than they’d give me if matters were reversed, so that’s more than they deserve.

[Bone]

@wolfpup

I hope you recognize that to be a completely different criticism. Now you’re saying that it’s an opinion piece that you disagree with (no one disputes that it’s an opinion piece, and disagreeing with it is your right). I cited those articles because I thought they were persuasive and well reasoned. Those of a different political bent may have a different world view that will probably not be changed by any one or two pieces of writing, however eloquent they may be. But perhaps they may be changed over time as events unfold. The notion that the articles are “hyperbole” is just the perspective of that particular world view.

I took your introduction of the articles to support the idea that the situation now is different than it had been in the past. That arguments against Trump are not now an ordinary political argument; that this transcends politics. That’s where I disagree. The critiques of Trump that say that labeling him a fascist fits, etc. are not that different than the critiques leveled against other conservatives. The critique is hollow.

[Bone]

@QuickSilver

Hold on a minute.

What was quoted doesn’t say anything about Trum being a fascist. I didn’t say anything about Trump being a fascist. In fact the article specifically says:

<bolding mine> “Can begin”. That’s as close as it gets.

From the first linked article:

To call Donald Trump a fascist of some variety is simply to use a historical label that fits.

[iiandyiiii]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Bone has asked us not to respond to it here; but don’t despair! You can read his response, in all its erudition and wisdom, in this new thread over here.

Oops, disregard!

[Velocity]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

if someone writes about a Chinese restaurant serving stray dogs, I’ll recognize it as racist.

If a Chinese restaurant serves stray dogs, and someone writes about it as such, it’s factual, unless you’re saying facts are racist. FYI there are still some people in Taiwan that as of recent were eating dog meat, although it is indeed an increasingly discouraged activity.

[Typo_Negative]

@Urbanredneck

Question for Democrats.

There is a story of a Hawaiian restaurant that put up a sign saying Trump supporters are not allowed to eat there and called Trump supporters Nazis.

So, would you continue to eat at this restaurant?

Background: It seems a hand written note was posted at this Hawaiian cafe. Since

No, I would not choose a place that hung a sign like this one. There’s enough hysterical hatred in our country. I will not add to it.

[k9bfriender]

opps, wrong thread