[Silencer]

@worry - which is all well and good for people who are informed of that. Which is almost zero percent of the voting population and about as much on the internet. Which was my point. Unless the actual words that they are actually saying is clearly referencing Nazi ideas, drawing that link with things like the speech and the haircut are effectively Godwin'ing the argument - from the other side's perspective. And that's all that really matters, unless you have a plan to make sure everyone is informed of and more importantly believes the history of these people - because if the people you're talking to think it's all a smear campaign, you're just entrenching them deeper every time you cry Hitler.

Now, that's fine for the die-hard Trump supporters. But think of me and Sombra. We didn't know about the 14 words link. Now imagine if we were on the opposite side of the fence - but only barely. Throwing around a claim that it's all very white supremacist might have made me roll my eyes and think it's just another smear. Then I get harder to swing. And more defensive. That's not good.

I'm not saying you shouldn't point out the dog whistling, but make sure it's pretty clear what is being said or there is a comprehensive and easy to follow explanation ready to go that doesn't rely on people already believing that these people are white supremacists. Because otherwise the argument creates more enemies than allies and ends up just preaching to the choir.

[worry]

I won't argue with that advice at all, since I generally agree, but just as a matter of perspective here I have a different one. I'm not thinking of a general audience, or hypothetical people. From my perspective, I was specifically addressing people in this thread, who I consider near-universally well informed (even though I don't expect everyone elsewhere to be up on every detail of American goings-on), and who have been participating in a now years-long conversation about the Trump campaign & admin (including conversations about white/Western supremacy in the admin). Sombra expressed his unfamiliarity (or even skepticism) on the 14 Words thing, and I followed up with more info for why I believed what I was saying (note my original post was about Palin, not the speech itself, which the thread didn't really cover). Then you mentioned the "long bows to draw" thing (which is fair, since again, we didn't actually cover the speech here), and I followed up with information for why I thought it wasn't. I understood what you were saying about Eric's Hitler Youth haircut, so I didn't address it. I was just responding to the "long bows to draw" critique regarding the speech.

I think maybe you're just more academically minded than I am, in terms of making an essay-style argument from top to bottom, and I'm just thinking in simpler terms of conversation. Like I thought it was interesting that Sarah Palin made text out of what Trump (and Miller) hoped to keep subtext, and that she'd so openly reference the 14 Words thing, and that as a grifter she remora'd herself to an even bigger grifter's play, and I hoped for conversation on any of that. But anticipating the direction of that conversation, including critiques and counterarguments and soft spots in my own post, isn't my strong suit. I'm better at responding to it as it comes. I'm not even necessarily assuming my givens are everyone else's givens, though I might be assuming too much (with the length of this thread, and others) that everyone already knows my basic beliefs and how I've come to them.

This post has been edited by worry: 11 July 2017 - 08:04 AM

[Silencer]

Fair enough, and I guess that might just be down to difference of approach. My response was also predicated on the fact that there are actual media outlets talking about this (admittedly, it started with some of the less journalistically minded of those) in much the same terms, and it is providing fodder for media with a bias the other way to make arguments about people being biased about making Trump look like Hitler. So as much as this thread is probably a well turfed ground for us to be discussing on a level playing field, it still has relevance to the wider debate going on about the same issue, and I tend not to like to assume that the only people ever venturing in here will be the regulars. So a bit of my criticism of the way you put things is literally not about you specifically doing it here, but rather that it reflects what is going on across the internet (and therefore contributes to echo chambers and polarization). *shrug*

[worry]

Ah that makes total sense. I'll just say even there I likely have a different perspective on polarization that isn't worth getting into since it'll verge on meta-boarding. But I take your point on non-regulars, and I'd just say I invite them to become regulars!

[HoosierDaddy]

I'd like to think I'm fairly in-tuned to the political spectrum, but the "14 words" thing is brand new to me. Probably because I'm too old, but it wasn't covered in my Pol Sci major classes 20 years ago.

Assume the best and not the worst; we all get along here.









Except for the Nazi Administrators. They are anti-free speech! BOOOO!

[Gust Hubb]

How can proceedings on this move so slow. I mean, the longer we wait the worse it gets... oh wait. I see....

[Morgoth]

HoosierDaddy, on 12 July 2017 - 03:43 AM, said:

I'd like to think I'm fairly in-tuned to the political spectrum, but the "14 words" thing is brand new to me. Probably because I'm too old, but it wasn't covered in my Pol Sci major classes 20 years ago.

Assume the best and not the worst; we all get along here.









Except for the Nazi Administrators. They are anti-free speech! BOOOO!

Silencer is the true nazi.

[Vengeance]

Gust Hubb, on 12 July 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:

How can proceedings on this move so slow. I mean, the longer we wait the worse it gets... oh wait. I see....

The watergate investigation took 2 years. This is actually going faster then watergate right now. I would still not expect it to conclude before the middle of 2018 at the earliest.

[Abyss]

Trump Jr twit'ing the emails in some attempt to control the... spin... get ahead of... something something... ok i have zero idea what he was thinking.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 12 July 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Trump Jr twit'ing the emails in some attempt to control the... spin... get ahead of... something something... ok i have zero idea what he was thinking.

Yeah, I heard this to, and it does SEEM like that. But jeezus what is coming then? It's gotta be a big revelation for him to do this...

Or perhaps he's really just this stupid.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 12 July 2017 - 03:17 PM, said:

Trump Jr twit'ing the emails in some attempt to control the... spin... get ahead of... something something... ok i have zero idea what he was thinking.

It wasn't really getting ahead of much.

The NY Times had the emails, wrote a story breaking them down, and asked him to comment. He asked for time to comment then put them out himself.

There is a little spin benefit to be had from that (he is the first that gets to comment and gets to act transparent and unafraid). But it is mostly a spiteful swipe at the Times to scoop their reporting.

And the fun bit becomes ... what else do their sources give them next, and do they even ask for comment next time before publishing?

[QuickTidal]

Trump Jr.'s comments about it are bafflingly contradictive though.

On FOX News: "I can't help what someone sends me over email." "My sirens didn't go up."

Actual email content/repsonse: "Russian dirt on Clinton? I love it!"

I mean...is he this stupid?

[Abyss]

I'm surprised he didn't lawyer up hard and try for an injunction.

As for what's next... i'm expecting evidence of a pact with Satan.

[Nevyn]

QuickTidal, on 12 July 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

Trump Jr.'s comments about it are bafflingly contradictive though.

On FOX News: "I can't help what someone sends me over email." "My sirens didn't go up."

Actual email content/repsonse: "Russian dirt on Clinton? I love it!"

I mean...is he this stupid?

He is this busted, and betting that fox news viewers are wilfully stupid enough to buy it.

But he is also kind of trapped between the PR needs of his father's administration and his own legal interests. He really probably should have no commented it all and let his lawyers challenge the source and authenticity of the emails.

[worry]

Everyone's being a little diplomatic, perhaps because the horrors of this reality are too much to bear. In direct answer to your question, QT: yes, DJTJ is this stupid. DJT is one of the stupidest men in America, and his kids (at least the ones he had a hand in raising) are watered down versions.

[worry]

Since I talk too much about the grifters on the right, here I'll post an excellent article by Roqayah Chamseddine about the grifters on the "left" -- those who line their pockets convincing people that progress is slapping rainbow flags on the bombs we drop and that civility is more important than policy.
https://shadowproof....s-age-of-trump/

[QuickTidal]

Is THIS what Don Jr. was trying to get out in front of?

And can we talk about Don Jr. saying he wanted to be transparent with his statements...but lied about who all was there? What a clown.

[Tsundoku]

Well, there's at least one record Trump can claim. Probably won't be too proud of it though.

I wonder what line he's going to use to spin this as fake news?

Yuge. Biggest ever. Believe me.

http://www.news.com....2c3b571854b1397

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 16 July 2017 - 11:12 AM

[QuickTidal]

Holy Crap!

[Aptorian]

Just the notion of discussing whether you can pardon yourself or your shit eating family members.

I'm not a person who believes that government offices are sacred or any other romantic crap like that, but good lord. How big of an ass do you have to be that you so willingly mess with the peoples fate in the government like this?

If I was working for the secret service I'd be having talks with the boys down in the basement about which one of us has to shoot Big Orange if this gets further out of hand.