I saw a poster make what appeared to be an incorrect claim, and so I took issue with it; and I’d like to think any Doper in good standing would do likewise, rather than let it pass unchallenged. You’re maybe not keen on what you see as nitpicking; I wasn’t keen on what I saw as an incorrect claim. How would you recommend I react the next time I spot such a claim?
The GOP seem to be a party of deception, self delusion and lies. Their current spokesman could be justifiably be called a spawn of the father of lies. But this started a while back with the distortions of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Little tweaks to plant the seed that the media was lying. It became standard to that mind set that there were 2 sides, the media and the conservative commentators. This opened the door to the beast Trump, the abomination that causes desolation, to break their view of reality, to abandon one of those to sides as fake and to accept one view, that of Trump.
This was also the perfect storm, with social media AI algorithms seeking profit, would learn to link their customers to fake stories that would reinforce their views, and to groups and individuals that shared their fake world view, reinforcing their believe that trump’s deception was really the truth, which just pushed them further and emboldened them to start committing atrocities such as becoming vectors of death by being duped into disbelief that COVID-19 is real and a deadly threat. They started spreading it like a pale horse riding across our lands. Still under the influence of the deception to this day they even set up an idol of gold of Trump to worship.
Are these people evil, I would just say most of them are deceived, taking evil for good and good for evil.
Sure, and you’re missing SenorBeef’s response on that, so I’ll have a go at paraphrasing.
The GOP right now is censuring representatives / senators who voted to impeach Trump, or blamed him really in any way. Their most prominent members continue to say the election was stolen, want to remove Covid restrictions and just had a batshit crazy conference of mostly misinformation and dog whistles to the white supremacist factions headlined by Trump himself.
Think about it: covid, global warming, domestic terrorists: the biggest threats to the US and the GOP is helping them all.
If your friend holds reasonable views, but still supports the GOP then at best he’s a fucking idiot who doesn’t understand the first thing about what is going on in the Republican party right now. And the distinction between worshipping Trump and being ignorant enough to support those who publicly worship Trump is just not one worth making.
I tend to think of conservativism like Bitcoin, but instead of computers it’s people’s brains, instead of wasting computing power it wastes attention, and instead of wealth it creates stupidity and cruelty.
It’s definitely an ideology that cares about nothing except promoting the interests of capital, and capital’s prime interest is killing whoever can’t be exploited.
The problem is, I think we’re going to get into hall-of-mirrors stuff here, as I’m not sure what other distinctions you think are worth making.
Put aside, for the moment, that I never actually said the guy in question is my friend — because I’m not sure whether that’s a point worth dwelling on, or even worth mentioning; it’s just an incorrect claim that folks are making right in front of me, is all — to instead consider the point I take you to be making here: oh, sure, he’s maybe not worshipping Trump, and he has no problem (a) explaining that Trump says stuff that simply isn’t true, in between (b) chuckling to himself about the shift in the Supreme Court over the last four years; but he supports other people, the ‘most prominent members’ of the party, who do worship Trump and believe the things Trump says.
I can tell you this: he figures those ‘prominent members of the party’ are — well, dishonest, the way Trump is. It’s not that he thinks they worship Trump in general and believe the stuff that Trump says in particular; he figures that they’re just, y’know, saying stuff, at a convention or otherwise, without ever once thinking to themselves that Trump is especially likely to tell the truth. And so I’d ask: is that, in your opinion, a distinction worth making? That he doesn’t worship Trump, and figures that he’s supporting people who also don’t worship Trump?
Not everything an evil murderous dictator does is evil. It’s usually not.
No one wakes up one morning and says, hey, I think I’ll hitch my wagon to the evil murderous dictator and follow him to the ends of the earth.
They see the evil murderous dictator helping a little old lady and think, “Hey, he can’t be that bad”. The dictator can be charming, when he’s not torturing and murdering his opponents and the democratic social structure.
The dictator may make the economy better, authoritarianism often does. The trains may run on time for the first time ever. They may run better because the conductors are scared they’ll be killed if they are late, but our follower’s not a train conductor and he’s getting to work on time for the first time ever. So you have the guy that wakes up and thinks, this leader is charming and the economy is good and I always get to work on time, what’s not to like? It’s not like they’ve ever seen the dictator murder anyone, that’s happening to other people far away. If he finds the rumors disturbing, he can choose not to view media that talks about it. His life has improved under the dictator and that’s all that matters. He’s not evil, he sometimes wishes the dictator would make the trains run on time without killing people on the side.
He may even voice this opinion to let everyone else know he’s not like the people that like it when the dictator murders his enemies. He’s different.
He’s just a regular guy that likes the economic improvements. He’s not really in favor of the dictator, he’s just an ordinary citizen that wants the best life possible for his family. He may even feel it’s wrong for him to put the life and liberty of some people very distant from him ahead of the economic security of his family. After all, the dictator cut his taxes.
This is how it always starts and this “soft evil” is how people get corrupted. But this complicity is still evil, even if it’s a soft kind of evil.
This. There may be Republicans out there that truly do not support the crap their Party is pushing, and not just saying it to stay low and reap the supposed benefits, but they are too stupid to realize what their own leaders think of them, and they are such a minority as to be totally ineffective. They are sheep belonging to The National Wolf Society.
So, he simply enables evil to further his own interests?
That doesn’t seem a distinction worth making.
But, again, that brings me back to what brought me into this thread to begin with: let’s say that a week from now, or a month from now, I see a poster hereabouts stating something else that (a) seems false, but that (b) you’d presumably say involves a distinction that’s not worth making. What, then, do you recommend I do? Point it out, or just shrug and let it go by?
If you want to explain that there are other reasons people support evil than those listed, then sure, go ahead.
But the thrust of your post was to make a distinction, that he wasn’t evil, he was just supporting evil because it aligned with his self interest. (I’d also argue that his self interested desires are on the evil end of the spectrum as well, but that’s a slightly different subject that we can get into if you would like.)
Not everyone supported Hitler because they hated the Jewish people, some were just in it for the Riesens.
Sure whatever, let’s call him Stupid McStrawman then.
No.
The point is, not only is the republican party saying dishonest things, they are also doing terrible things; on covid, on voter suppression etc. Plus of course their disinformation is hardly benign; it’s putting Americans at risk in numerous ways.
So McStrawman is either a bad person, or simply ignorant. And this is one of those contexts where ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse. You’re supposed to have engaged your brain when you decide to go vote.
And it certainly doesn’t work as a retort to SenorBeef’s point about actual Republicans.
Speaking of covid, what the republicans did and are still doing, does amount to being a party in favor of death, very little pro-life there.
How the heck do you figure it doesn’t work as a retort to SenorBeef’s point about actual Republicans? His claim was this: “Being a republican in 2021 is not about some hypothetical good-faith position on abortion. It’s about being part of the cult. It’s about worshipping Trump as the God-emporer. If he tells you that he had the biggest inauguration crowd in history, you need to believe it.”
As far as I can tell, that’s false. And I’d like to think that, if some right-winger made a significantly similar post about Being A Democrat In 2021, folks hereabouts (a) would manage to agree with me that it’s false, and (b) wouldn’t be saying a thing or two about distinctions and differences — sure as they wouldn’t say pointing out a falsehood doesn’t work as a retort.
I think that it is a lack of reading comprehension on your part here. SenorBeef didn’t say that you do believe it, but that you have to believe it.
If your hypothetical friend is at a gathering of fellow travelers, and someone says, “Trump had the biggest inauguration in history.”, your friend would nod in agreement. Not because he believes it, but because he needs to believe it in order to not be thrown out of the cult.
If a right winger made a similar comment being a democrat in 2021, it would be false, because Democrats are not required to believe falsehoods in order to not be exiled from their party.
And so we begin again.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you’re incorrect: that I’ve seen the guy in question note, in the company of fellow Republicans, that, oh, heh, no; Trump of course wasn’t telling the truth about the inauguration. Should I, in response to what you’re saying here, mention that? Or do you figure it’d fall under the heading of not being worth mentioning?
Heck, would you say that I need to, as it were, nod in agreement?
Well, you can build hypotheticals that don’t reflect reality all day long, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that he pipes up and says, “No, Trump was lying about that.” How does that go over with his fellow travelers? If he were on Parlor or other rightwing social media site, he’d be banned. If this was in person, he’d be shown the door.
Yes, if you wish to be accepted as a Republican, and not a RINO or worse.
::shrugs:: Okay, here goes: not a hypothetical; I saw him pipe up; it was in person; everyone present, including multiple Republicans, seemed to blandly agree with him. I’m bringing this to your attention in hopes that it’ll get you to rethink what you’re claiming.
Because his point is about Republicans, not about a hypothetical person who may vote republican once for illogical reasons.
Stupid McStrawman is a person who:
- May not exist at all (you’re being a little coy on that)
- It’s debatable whether he would count as “A Republican” just for voting for them once and actually being unaware or in active opposition to their policies
- Would be one counter-example. Which is fucking stupid. There are probably supporters of ISIS who are bonnie swell people too.
Oh you’re such a tease.
Who gives a fuck if McStrawman exists or not? It’s such a stupid attempt at a point.
The guy exists; he’s voted Republican for decades rather than just once; and while you might think it’s fucking stupid to point at one counter-example, I think it was pretty fucking stupid of SenorBeef to phrase something such that one counter-example would make it false: why not criticize him for that, and not me for pointing it out?
So, finding one Republican guy that accepts climate change, that Biden won fair and square, that covid is not a hoax, masks work and vaccines too; makes it all false that the current Republicans are denying reality for very bad reasons? (I would think that your friend will not accept a few of those items)
Point being, SenorBeef may had an issue with perspective, but what most Republicans are doing now is the real fucking stupid thing.