The OP is the one making it his issue of choice!
The OP is the one making a big deal about what it’s like to live in a country where people are noting that lawbreakers are lawbreakers; how is my perception amazing?
I don’t think the “treating lawbreakers like lawbreakers” is quite the airtight, ends-all-argument mic-drop you seem to think it is. But do feel free to continue using it in your every post; maybe it’ll catch on.
Lawbreakers: BLM protesters, immigrants (undocumented), immigrants (Muslim), immigrants (melanin overabundancy), Jews, demoncrats (those nasty ones rioting -Rioting I say!- in Portland and elsewhere), demoncrats (those who voted for that nasty woman), voters (saying mean things about our President Elect), judges (of Mexican heritage), contractors (who wanted to be paid for work done), customers (who wanted educational value for their money), women (who guard their pussies too closely).
I’m sure I’ve missed a few.
I have seen a lot of fortune telling on the left (and I mean that in the sense of a cognitive distortion associated with depression and anxiety.) I think the U. S. is particularly vulnerable to authoritarianism right now, but the idea that it is somehow a given, or even probable, is unlikely. For one thing, Trump is not smart enough to be Hitler. Not only is he clueless, he has surrounded himself with other clueless people. Congress does not think half of his bloviating proposals are a good idea. The majority of people who voted for Trump do not think the sudden suspension of civil liberties is a good idea. The voters are banking on cooler heads prevailing in Congress. Much of what he has proposed, such as mass deportation, is not possible. Trump’s lack of competence may be the biggest saving grace of this election. The secondmost saving grace will be Trump’s juvenile need for approval. He’s going to do whatever the majority of the people want him to do. The majority of the people do not want Hitler.
A minority of the people need to calm the fuck down. We need to take this one day at a time, not assume outcomes before they are in evidence.
I learned from an early age to be sensitive not only to the semantic content of my words, but to the actual effects of my uttering them. So, for example, “we should treat niggers like niggers” is also (close enough to) a tautology (for our purposes), but is clearly something that should basically never be actually said, due to the effects that come along with that utterance.
Even if we stipulate that it’s fair to characterize what Trump said as just “we should treat lawbreakers like lawbreakers,” what is objectionable is the manner in which he presented this view, to what audience, for what purpose, and so on. The things he has said will clearly have the (I don’t care if intended or not) effect of making racists feel more brave about the prospect of harming brown people.
His famous remarks about mexicans and rapists, for example, if read quite literally, have no strictly racist semantic content. And yet, by putting those words together in that order and saying them at the time and place he did, he made certain that more brown people will be treated by many of our fellow citizens as guilty (of whatever, it doesn’t matter) than would have been otherwise. Winning the presidency only exacerbated this.
Now, as to whether it’s a hard question whether “we should treat lawbreakers like lawbreakers,” of course it’s not. Neither is it a hard question whether “we should treat niggers like niggers.” But in the latter case one naturally wonders, “okay but… how does one treat a nigger?” That’s where a particularly naive person may begin to learn how horrific the tautology turns out to be in its actual utterance.
And similarly, there’s the question “okay but… how does one treat a lawbreaker.”
And if you’re not aware of how incredibly complicated and fraught that question is, I don’t know what to say exactly. Can every law be enforced in every instance? If not, how do we choose which ones to enforce in which cases? Is prison an effective consequence for lawbreaking? If deportation is a correct sentence for breaking some crime or other, how should we weight the financial and ethical costs of holding a deportee who no other country will take? And on and on and on. It’s an incredibly difficult question. To skip over all the hard thinking that has to be done in order to have effective solutions to problems like this is to be frankly, lazy.
I don’t call people stupid or dumb anymore. “Foolish” is often okay but typically doesn’t connect with the listener as they simply disagree.
But “lazy,” yes, that’s both apt and, I hope, in some cases, effective. You’re not working hard enough to think about these things. You’re irresponsibly asserting certainty about something you haven’t actually taken seriously. You’re reducing important deliberations to entertainment and drama. You’re being lazy.
You forgot “mental patient.”
Personally, I think the only thing that will hold him down will be the men he surrounds himself with. Even if he tries, he won’t be able to find advisers as crazy as him. Maybe they will be a moderating influence. Og help us otherwise.
Excellent post, Frylock.
And some, I assume, are good people.
This. What the naysayers miss is that DT is not “just another right-wing President” like Nixon or Reagan or Dubya - all of them were at least moderately experienced politicians, with largely political views, aims and goals.
DT is a total wild card with no political experience and increasing evidence that he understands next to nothing about how government works, from the Constitution on down to what a Cabinet and major appointees are supposed to do.
This is not “Aw, shit, the left lost this round.” This is “Holy shit, we’ve handed administration of the country to someone who is proudly ignorant of what his very job represents and means.” If not “Holy Motherfuckin’ Shitballs, we’ve just cheerfully elected the next name in the list of destructive tyrants that includes Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot and others.”
Our choice at this moment is to let this orange bag of exploding shit continue, or have the EC revolt and possibly start something very much like a second Civil War.
That’s comforting, on one level. OTOH, he has announced that he intends to continue holding rallies like the ones his campaign comprised. They majority of the people likely to attend those rallies do want Hitler, if the reactions to his campaign rhetoric have any predictive value. Donald strikes me as likely to interpret the people at his rallies as representative of the populace as a whole.
If there is to be a saving grace, I’m afraid it will have to come from insufficient GOP legislators having the stomach to usher in the Fourth Reich.
More likely, he’ll just be Berlusconi - complete with Bunga-Bunga parties in the Lincoln Bedroom.
I did notice the other day that a woman who posted a really racist remark on whateverbook about Michelle Obama not only got herself in trouble but also got her friend (who said it was a great post) fired from being mayor of a small town in West Virginia. Maybe “the people” are not as eager to embrace racism as some of you seem to fear. Even though W. Va. voted heavily for Trump.
I agree he’s not a “normal” politician, but I don’t think the end of democracy is coming this year or next. I do think we should keep on calling out racism wherever it appears, though. As we seem to be doing so far.
The first thing you said, very much. Trump will probably go down as the most ineffective president in history. He is a national embarrassment and a terrible person. His racist, misogynist legacy will have a negative impact on our country. He is a total wildcard and we don’t know what is going to happen. We could even, in the worst case scenario, lose Roe v. Wade, in which case thousands of women could die. This is bad.
Your second assertion seems farfetched. Again, those fascist guys were actually intelligent strategists. I think most people in this country are decent people who would oppose outright fascism. I think few people are uncomfortable enough to actually risk their lives for their right to discriminate. You are right, however, in that throwing the EC would likely cause an outbreak of violence. So, between that or “allowing” the democratically elected insufferable asshole to continue, the choice is rather evident to me.
As a person who is frequently beset by anxiety, it kind of blows my mind to have to be the voice of reason among my liberal friends. It seems they are fed a steady diet of propaganda much like the right, and thus are being driven into hysterics about rumors and hearsay. The most recent piece was a horrifying conversation with Megyn Kelly in which some conservative blowhard justified Japanese internment. People seemed to confuse that one guy’s stance with that of our future President and our entire Congress, absent any evidence. It is disappointing to see leftwing media go the way of Fox News, and for liberals to swallow it. Whether that characterization applies to posters here, I cannot say. But it’s pretty hard to provide evidence for what someone is going to do.
Given that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, Trump will likely continue to say outrageous things, behave like a petty, vindictive asshole, and flounder in his own incompetence. Trump voters will occasionally say and do racist shit and ignore facts. Liberals will continue with their worst case scenario fortune telling and probably exacerbate the problem. As it is, it always shall be.
Trump’s status as a proto-Hitler is almost beside the point. The point is that we’ve (sort of) elected somebody who is able to be credibly portrayed as a proto-Hitler.
Yes it’s true that when Obama took office, the right was going ballistic with dire predictions about Fema camps and death panels, etc. But, having read a lot of what passes for thought on that side of the spectrum, it quickly becomes clear that that sort of rhetoric is a manifestation of what the mental health boys call projection.
They were worried about us doing it to them because it’s exactly what they want to do to us.
One must see the end in order to resist the beginning, because if you wait til the end to resist, it’s already too late.
I strongly doubt the election of Trump will lead to civil war and am confident the people will correct their mistake after (what could be a disastrous) four years.
However, if it did lead to civil war, as a patriot I know which side I would be on, and it would not be Trump’s.
But what did Obama run on in his election that would make people think he was a dictator? That is the difference. THe fear of Obama was hyperbole.
The fear of Trump is because we have actually listened to what he has been saying.
Trump has said or called for the following things
Suppress the media
Assassinate or arrest his political opposition
Register Muslims with the government
Deport millions of Immigrants
Intimidation of anyone who accuses him of crimes (threatening to sue the women who accused him of sex crimes).
What did Obama say that even remotely came close to those things?
I hope I’m wrong about Trump, but we are basing our fears on actually listening to Trump speak. When did Obama call on his supporters to murder his political opponents the way Trump did with his 2nd amendment comment?
When Dick Cheney was VP, he was head of an international death squad. We just gave that kind of power to Trump (an emotionally unstable man who has called for the assassination, arrest and intimidation of his critics) and we aren’t supposed to be worried?
Trump has committed or been accused of many crimes, and he knows he doesn’t really have to worry about accountability.
Comparing this to Obama is absurd. Obama’s critics just made up facts whenever it suited them, this is different.
Whew … glad nobody’s trying to make the case that The Donald = Stalin … because that would be bad …
That is my impression. The reason they are terrified of having their guns taken away is because if the table were turned, they would do that (and historically have) to people they oppress. Under various Jim Crow laws it was illegal for blacks to own firearms. Reagan passed gun control in California when black panthers started walking around armed.
Their fear of gun control, fear of electoral fraud, fear of their religion being oppressed, fear of a brutal government crackdown, etc. is because that is exactly what they would do, want to do and have done (either now or in history) to other people.
The fear of an abusive dictator from the far right (maybe 10-15% of the country) was because they secretly wanted an abusive dictator to push their agenda on others.
Actually, this is what mass hysteria and a moral panic looks like.
You may want to check on the outcomes of such things throughout history.
One side peddle a metric tonne of bullshit meant to push emotional buttons. How should the other side respond to redolent bullshit?