Page 8 of 24 [ 380 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 24  Next

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,102
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Nov 2020, 2:11 pm

magz wrote:
Communication is about forming a message in a way likely to be understood.
When you're aware of other people's biases, you can try to take them into account when voicing your opinions.
If you know someone would read "fascist" as the same as "neo-nazi" and then get offended by it, it would be prudent to avoid these terms when explaining why you believe their opinions are harmful.


If someone is that stupid, im not interacting with them and I will ignore them. I'm done catering to idiots.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Alexanderplatz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2015
Posts: 1,524
Location: Chester Britain

21 Nov 2020, 2:49 pm

League_Girl wrote:
I never bought into Godwin's Law. . . .


I think Godwins Law is misused on the internet. AFAIK all Godwin stated was that any internet argument will descend to Nazi comparisons given enough time.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,102
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Nov 2020, 3:00 pm

Quote:
The Nazi slur is way overused and has been for decades by people of all political strips. It undermines understanding of how uniquely evil Nazi’s were and are. It also undermines the evil being compared to the Nazis.


Nazis did eugenics and human experiments, we did the same in the US as well. We also did concentration camps but we didn't torture them but we did provide poor service to Japanese Americans while we treated the Italians better. In fact I remember learning in 9th grade that the Italians and people in Missoula were so sad to leave because the Italians were treated so well there and were given jobs and people in the area liked them and were sad to see them go when they were freed. Even the Italians were sad.

Nazis also did genocide so I don't think it's unreasonable to say it's Nazi to also want to practice eugenics or to get rid of certain humans unless we are talking about monsters like people who can't stop killing or talking about serial rapists or child abusers. I don't think it's unreasonable to say it's Nazi to want to lock up certain people so "they can be rehabilitated." That was the same thing Nazis claimed but it was all lies and misleading.

If someone loves Hitler and likes to worship his party and him and hang up all these Nazi signs, it's not unreasonable to say they are a Nazi. Yes these people actually exist you wonder if they are real life trolls trying to get people upset because who can be this stupid?

Quote:
While all Nazi’s are authoritarians not all authoritarians are Nazi’s. While all Nazi’s are racist every person with bigoted views is not a Nazi. If you given the chance would participate in or support the white race conquering the world and systematically eliminating groups of people by murdering them you are a Nazi. If you think it is too bad Hitler did not finish the job and that he lost the war you are Nazi.


Before WWII, Nazis didn't kill anyone but that doesn't mean they all of a sudden existed when WWII started. Really, people will go with this definition to deny any Nazism and ideologies in people. It's no different how people will say there is no racism because they don't kill black people or bully someone for being black or because no one is lynching them anymore and discrimination against skin color is illegal. This is just naïve.

Quote:
Because people weaponize the above facts to excuse and cover up their authoritarian and bigoted beliefs does not change the above.


What bigot beliefs? Bigoted against bigotry? I see nothing wrong with that. Bigots should be shot down unless they are only being bigoted against bigots. 8) I don't see why they need to be catered and protected. I'm not going to care if my comments offend them, I won't interact with them anyway and they don't care either because they will just keep choosing to believe what they believe. If I say flat earthers are stupid and maybe real life trolls, I won't care if this offends them. If I say it's classism to think poor people aren't allowed to have nice things if given as a gift or something or if they fall on harm times, I won't care if someone is offended over that term I used. If the shoe fits.


Quote:
Autistics especially should want people to be defined correctly.



Isn't that what we are doing? People here just don't want to accept they are having the same dangerous ideologies as them or supporting someone who is similar to Hitler. Deny deny.


Quote:
Godwin got one thing really wrong. Using Nazi or racist for that matter is a proven way of winning an argument because it often leaves the accused fumbling defensively thus whatever merit if any the accused was trying to make has been successfully deflected to being about the accused character.


Again I see nothing wrong with that if what they were saying was a Nazi ideology. What point were they trying to make? That they have the same idea Nazis had?

If someone is denying racism that is happening in today's life, what point were they trying to make? Pretending that there is no systemic racism or no implicit bias against black people or racial profiling? I can call them a racist denier but wait, that would get twisted and I get another warning because oh no did I call them racist because I guess racist and being a racist denier are the same thing. But I guess calling someone a rape apologist is the same as calling them a rapist. :wink:


Quote:
bigoted views being perceived equally bad because bad is bad and needs to be stamped out by any means neccessary.


What bigoted views are good?

Only bigoted views I have seen are racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and people who just hate on others for no reason. I fail to see how any of this is good. :|

And BTW, people who seem to take offense to all this seem to all be the ones who hold these views. I do not are if they get offended when their beliefs are called out even if they were not being talked to or said to directly. If the shoe fits.

If they think they are being victimized and that people are just "accusing" them of bigotry or racism and other things and think this is all just an agenda and a way to silence them and just a way to censor them and that this is all a big conspiracy by the left, I pity them because I think they are a loss cause because of no chance in them learning and they will always have this victim mentality.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,102
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Nov 2020, 3:21 pm

Alexanderplatz wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
I never bought into Godwin's Law. . . .


I think Godwins Law is misused on the internet. AFAIK all Godwin stated was that any internet argument will descend to Nazi comparisons given enough time.



Godwin's Law was invented in 1990 so even back then people did Nazi comparisons.

Quote:
Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27 ... hes%201%22.

So the term evolved but let's now argue about the "correct" use of the word and forget that words and terms evolve. :wink:


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 819

21 Nov 2020, 3:30 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:

Godwin got one thing really wrong. Using Nazi or racist for that matter is a proven way of winning an argument because it often leaves the accused fumbling defensively thus whatever merit if any the accused was trying to make has been successfully deflected to being about the accused character.


The situation you've described is merely an ad-hominem attack using the word "nazi". If I said you were a three toed sloth, would you suddenly start defensively fumbling to prove you're not a three toed sloth? Or would you dismiss the claim entirely because you knew it was absurd, regardless of what someone said. Also, burden of evidence, it would be the accusers job to prove the nazi / sloth claim, not the accused to prove they aren't. Calling someone a bad name and then pressing them to defend against it instead of continuing to discuss the actual topic is merely a disingenuous debate tactic, and does not require the word "nazi" to be effective. Someone could just as easily hold the conversation for ransom by saying "we're not going any further until you PROVE you're NOT a foreign spy, or a paid saboteur, or a political troll!"

If someone calls you a nazi, and you just aren't one, why would you even take them seriously, especially if you knew they were only doing it as an ad hominem attack, or to derail the conversation. People who freak out when called a nazi may not be a literal NAZI, but more often than not they do hold some type of bigoted belief that they're self conscious about, and need to compulsively rationalize, rather than confront. If people fall for it, it has more to do with people's gullibility or insecurity than it does with how "effective" the tactic is. If everyone in a chatroom falls for such a simple debate cheat, reasonable debate was never going to occur in that venue to begin with.

Also, "nazi" isn't the "worst" thing you can call someone. In addition to there being one or two things that most people dislike more than nazis, the "worst" thing to be called is usually specific to the individual.

While the communicator does have some obligation to create a clear and understandable message, it is fairly difficult nigh impossible to create a statement that cannot be subverted by an intentional act of misdirection. It's all well and good when it's a debate in good faith, but anything can be taken out of context or distorted no matter how carefully or mindfully phrased. It is NOT the communicators job to endlessly indulge the whims of someone who is not acting in good faith.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 18,317
Location: I'm right here

21 Nov 2020, 4:21 pm

magz wrote:
Communication is about forming a message in a way likely to be understood.
When you're aware of other people's biases, you can try to take them into account when voicing your opinions.
If you know someone would read "fascist" as the same as "neo-nazi" and then get offended by it, it would be prudent to avoid these terms when explaining why you believe their opinions are harmful.


Or I can dismiss them as an imbecile and not waste my time engaging with them, which is how I've been trying to deal with these people since August.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,102
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Nov 2020, 5:57 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

Godwin got one thing really wrong. Using Nazi or racist for that matter is a proven way of winning an argument because it often leaves the accused fumbling defensively thus whatever merit if any the accused was trying to make has been successfully deflected to being about the accused character.


The situation you've described is merely an ad-hominem attack using the word "nazi". If I said you were a three toed sloth, would you suddenly start defensively fumbling to prove you're not a three toed sloth? Or would you dismiss the claim entirely because you knew it was absurd, regardless of what someone said. Also, burden of evidence, it would be the accusers job to prove the nazi / sloth claim, not the accused to prove they aren't. Calling someone a bad name and then pressing them to defend against it instead of continuing to discuss the actual topic is merely a disingenuous debate tactic, and does not require the word "nazi" to be effective. Someone could just as easily hold the conversation for ransom by saying "we're not going any further until you PROVE you're NOT a foreign spy, or a paid saboteur, or a political troll!"

If someone calls you a nazi, and you just aren't one, why would you even take them seriously, especially if you knew they were only doing it as an ad hominem attack, or to derail the conversation. People who freak out when called a nazi may not be a literal NAZI, but more often than not they do hold some type of bigoted belief that they're self conscious about, and need to compulsively rationalize, rather than confront. If people fall for it, it has more to do with people's gullibility or insecurity than it does with how "effective" the tactic is. If everyone in a chatroom falls for such a simple debate cheat, reasonable debate was never going to occur in that venue to begin with.

Also, "nazi" isn't the "worst" thing you can call someone. In addition to there being one or two things that most people dislike more than nazis, the "worst" thing to be called is usually specific to the individual.

While the communicator does have some obligation to create a clear and understandable message, it is fairly difficult nigh impossible to create a statement that cannot be subverted by an intentional act of misdirection. It's all well and good when it's a debate in good faith, but anything can be taken out of context or distorted no matter how carefully or mindfully phrased. It is NOT the communicators job to endlessly indulge the whims of someone who is not acting in good faith.


Here is a good example here I came up with:

I found out recently it isn't that treating an elderly with cancer will kill them, it was because my grandma had Alzheimer's and she wouldn't have understood what was going on with her and been able to tolerate the treatment for her cancer so we let her die peacefully from natural causes and she was pretty far gone anywhere because she didn't know anyone and never knew what was going on around her.

I am pretty sure someone would have called this Eugenics or Nazism for us letting her die and using cancer to let her go and you know what I told my mother, "that would be their opinion." Yes I have seen people online say how democrats are Nazis for thinking people with dementia and Alzheimer's should die. I am pretty sure the "democrats" are talking about the ones who are living like vegetables and can't walk or talk or swallow or even do anything and have no awareness of what is going on around them and they are basically just not there and their brain is dead but not their body. When someone in that state of mind dies, their caretakers and family members feel relieved. I am pretty sure this is what "democrats" are talking about like with my grandmother for example.

I can sit here and argue with someone why this isn't the same as what Nazis did in WWII. For one, none of their victims had Alzheimer's and couldn't know anyone nor know what was happening around them and couldn't even remember more than ten seconds. Two, our grandma wasn't tortured to death, we let her die peacefully and gave her morphine for her pain. But then at the end, this is just their opinion if they see this as us being a Nazi to our grandmother (my dad's father). Why waste your time arguing with someone about why you are not a Nazi? That is their feelings and I can pity them for feeling that way. You can even view them as an idiot and not waste your time with them. Why bother with idiots? They are not going to change their mind into thinking this isn't Nazism what we did with our grandma. :mrgreen:

If you spent all your time caring about what someone thought of you, you would have an unhappy life and have lot of unpleasant time online because you were always busy arguing with a random stranger online because you don't like their opinion. But I am free to not interact with them and they are free to do the same with me. Hey they don't want to interact with Nazis, well I don't want to be around idiots so it's a win win.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,649
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Nov 2020, 6:16 pm

League_Girl wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

Godwin got one thing really wrong. Using Nazi or racist for that matter is a proven way of winning an argument because it often leaves the accused fumbling defensively thus whatever merit if any the accused was trying to make has been successfully deflected to being about the accused character.


The situation you've described is merely an ad-hominem attack using the word "nazi". If I said you were a three toed sloth, would you suddenly start defensively fumbling to prove you're not a three toed sloth? Or would you dismiss the claim entirely because you knew it was absurd, regardless of what someone said. Also, burden of evidence, it would be the accusers job to prove the nazi / sloth claim, not the accused to prove they aren't. Calling someone a bad name and then pressing them to defend against it instead of continuing to discuss the actual topic is merely a disingenuous debate tactic, and does not require the word "nazi" to be effective. Someone could just as easily hold the conversation for ransom by saying "we're not going any further until you PROVE you're NOT a foreign spy, or a paid saboteur, or a political troll!"

If someone calls you a nazi, and you just aren't one, why would you even take them seriously, especially if you knew they were only doing it as an ad hominem attack, or to derail the conversation. People who freak out when called a nazi may not be a literal NAZI, but more often than not they do hold some type of bigoted belief that they're self conscious about, and need to compulsively rationalize, rather than confront. If people fall for it, it has more to do with people's gullibility or insecurity than it does with how "effective" the tactic is. If everyone in a chatroom falls for such a simple debate cheat, reasonable debate was never going to occur in that venue to begin with.

Also, "nazi" isn't the "worst" thing you can call someone. In addition to there being one or two things that most people dislike more than nazis, the "worst" thing to be called is usually specific to the individual.

While the communicator does have some obligation to create a clear and understandable message, it is fairly difficult nigh impossible to create a statement that cannot be subverted by an intentional act of misdirection. It's all well and good when it's a debate in good faith, but anything can be taken out of context or distorted no matter how carefully or mindfully phrased. It is NOT the communicators job to endlessly indulge the whims of someone who is not acting in good faith.


Here is a good example here I came up with:

I found out recently it isn't that treating an elderly with cancer will kill them, it was because my grandma had Alzheimer's and she wouldn't have understood what was going on with her and been able to tolerate the treatment for her cancer so we let her die peacefully from natural causes and she was pretty far gone anywhere because she didn't know anyone and never knew what was going on around her.

I am pretty sure someone would have called this Eugenics or Nazism for us letting her die and using cancer to let her go and you know what I told my mother, "that would be their opinion." Yes I have seen people online say how democrats are Nazis for thinking people with dementia and Alzheimer's should die. I am pretty sure the "democrats" are talking about the ones who are living like vegetables and can't walk or talk or swallow or even do anything and have no awareness of what is going on around them and they are basically just not there and their brain is dead but not their body. When someone in that state of mind dies, their caretakers and family members feel relieved. I am pretty sure this is what "democrats" are talking about like with my grandmother for example.

I can sit here and argue with someone why this isn't the same as what Nazis did in WWII. For one, none of their victims had Alzheimer's and couldn't know anyone nor know what was happening around them and couldn't even remember more than ten seconds. Two, our grandma wasn't tortured to death, we let her die peacefully and gave her morphine for her pain. But then at the end, this is just their opinion if they see this as us being a Nazi to our grandmother (my dad's father). Why waste your time arguing with someone about why you are not a Nazi? That is their feelings and I can pity them for feeling that way. You can even view them as an idiot and not waste your time with them. Why bother with idiots? They are not going to change their mind into thinking this isn't Nazism what we did with our grandma. :mrgreen:

If you spent all your time caring about what someone thought of you, you would have an unhappy life and have lot of unpleasant time online because you were always busy arguing with a random stranger online because you don't like their opinion. But I am free to not interact with them and they are free to do the same with me. Hey they don't want to interact with Nazis, well I don't want to be around idiots so it's a win win.


When my dad was dying of renal failure and had fallen into a state of dementia because so little oxygenated blood was reaching his brain, the doctors felt his foot needed to be amputated. I realized he could have been told a hundred times what was about to happen, but he would still awaken to sudden horror that his foot was gone. I couldn't let my dad be put through that, and neither could my mom. We decided to stop dialysis treatments and let him go.
As with your grandmother, there was absolutely heartlessly Nazi about this choice. Conservatives need to keep their noses out of other people's choices just to score political points.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,183
Location: A swiftly tilting planet

21 Nov 2020, 6:23 pm

Alexanderplatz wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
I never bought into Godwin's Law. . . .


I think Godwins Law is misused on the internet. AFAIK all Godwin stated was that any internet argument will descend to Nazi comparisons given enough time.


I think it's unconstitutional BS to call some trend a "law" when it concerns political sentiment on religious philosophy.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 18,317
Location: I'm right here

21 Nov 2020, 6:24 pm

https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-giuliani-su ... 45031.html

Is Giuliani the fringe of the Republican party? :scratch:


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,102
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Nov 2020, 6:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:

Godwin got one thing really wrong. Using Nazi or racist for that matter is a proven way of winning an argument because it often leaves the accused fumbling defensively thus whatever merit if any the accused was trying to make has been successfully deflected to being about the accused character.


The situation you've described is merely an ad-hominem attack using the word "nazi". If I said you were a three toed sloth, would you suddenly start defensively fumbling to prove you're not a three toed sloth? Or would you dismiss the claim entirely because you knew it was absurd, regardless of what someone said. Also, burden of evidence, it would be the accusers job to prove the nazi / sloth claim, not the accused to prove they aren't. Calling someone a bad name and then pressing them to defend against it instead of continuing to discuss the actual topic is merely a disingenuous debate tactic, and does not require the word "nazi" to be effective. Someone could just as easily hold the conversation for ransom by saying "we're not going any further until you PROVE you're NOT a foreign spy, or a paid saboteur, or a political troll!"

If someone calls you a nazi, and you just aren't one, why would you even take them seriously, especially if you knew they were only doing it as an ad hominem attack, or to derail the conversation. People who freak out when called a nazi may not be a literal NAZI, but more often than not they do hold some type of bigoted belief that they're self conscious about, and need to compulsively rationalize, rather than confront. If people fall for it, it has more to do with people's gullibility or insecurity than it does with how "effective" the tactic is. If everyone in a chatroom falls for such a simple debate cheat, reasonable debate was never going to occur in that venue to begin with.

Also, "nazi" isn't the "worst" thing you can call someone. In addition to there being one or two things that most people dislike more than nazis, the "worst" thing to be called is usually specific to the individual.

While the communicator does have some obligation to create a clear and understandable message, it is fairly difficult nigh impossible to create a statement that cannot be subverted by an intentional act of misdirection. It's all well and good when it's a debate in good faith, but anything can be taken out of context or distorted no matter how carefully or mindfully phrased. It is NOT the communicators job to endlessly indulge the whims of someone who is not acting in good faith.


Here is a good example here I came up with:

I found out recently it isn't that treating an elderly with cancer will kill them, it was because my grandma had Alzheimer's and she wouldn't have understood what was going on with her and been able to tolerate the treatment for her cancer so we let her die peacefully from natural causes and she was pretty far gone anywhere because she didn't know anyone and never knew what was going on around her.

I am pretty sure someone would have called this Eugenics or Nazism for us letting her die and using cancer to let her go and you know what I told my mother, "that would be their opinion." Yes I have seen people online say how democrats are Nazis for thinking people with dementia and Alzheimer's should die. I am pretty sure the "democrats" are talking about the ones who are living like vegetables and can't walk or talk or swallow or even do anything and have no awareness of what is going on around them and they are basically just not there and their brain is dead but not their body. When someone in that state of mind dies, their caretakers and family members feel relieved. I am pretty sure this is what "democrats" are talking about like with my grandmother for example.

I can sit here and argue with someone why this isn't the same as what Nazis did in WWII. For one, none of their victims had Alzheimer's and couldn't know anyone nor know what was happening around them and couldn't even remember more than ten seconds. Two, our grandma wasn't tortured to death, we let her die peacefully and gave her morphine for her pain. But then at the end, this is just their opinion if they see this as us being a Nazi to our grandmother (my dad's father). Why waste your time arguing with someone about why you are not a Nazi? That is their feelings and I can pity them for feeling that way. You can even view them as an idiot and not waste your time with them. Why bother with idiots? They are not going to change their mind into thinking this isn't Nazism what we did with our grandma. :mrgreen:

If you spent all your time caring about what someone thought of you, you would have an unhappy life and have lot of unpleasant time online because you were always busy arguing with a random stranger online because you don't like their opinion. But I am free to not interact with them and they are free to do the same with me. Hey they don't want to interact with Nazis, well I don't want to be around idiots so it's a win win.


When my dad was dying of renal failure and had fallen into a state of dementia because so little oxygenated blood was reaching his brain, the doctors felt his foot needed to be amputated. I realized he could have been told a hundred times what was about to happen, but he would still awaken to sudden horror that his foot was gone. I couldn't let my dad be put through that, and neither could my mom. We decided to stop dialysis treatments and let him go.



This also makes me wonder about people who have severe or profound intellectual impairments, they also wouldn't be able to understand what they were going through if they got sick with cancer as well or got into some sort of accident where they would need tremendous treatment to get better. What about if they would be in pain 24/7 after some sort of accident or sickness and not understanding what their body is going through.

I have heard of one story about someone forcing their intellectually impaired daughter get an abortion because she had the mentality of a 5 year old and wouldn't have been able to understand what her body is going through. Then there was another story of a family wanting to get their daughter's uterus removed because of her young mentality and she wouldn't have understood what her body is going through on her time of the month. But this is a whole another debate about human rights and ableism.

I did hear of one sad story from someone at my autism group that someone in her family had this great aunt. She one day got a tooth infection decay and she eventually died from it because she wouldn't open her mouth. She was too terrified and didn't understand what was going to happen and what they were going to do in her mouth. Her IQ was so low, she did not understand and you couldn't make her understand because of her lack of intelligence. Eventually she died from the infection. Definitely not the same as my grandma. But what if this great aunt also got cancer like my grandma? Then this becomes another argument about if they shall let her die peacefully or try and save her when she wouldn't understand what is going on and been able to tolerate it.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

21 Nov 2020, 6:30 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-giuliani-suggests-cutting-heads-155445031.html

Is Giuliani the fringe of the Republican party? :scratch:


It's unlikely (though I guess possible) that Guiliani was being literal with his comments. It's pretty easy to interpret that as saying the Clintons should be removed from a position of influence in the Democratic party.

Chuck Schumer made comments that appeared to threaten the lives of Supreme Court Justices earlier this year, and pretty much everyone with a brain knows he meant a political price.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 18,317
Location: I'm right here

21 Nov 2020, 6:34 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-giuliani-suggests-cutting-heads-155445031.html

Is Giuliani the fringe of the Republican party? :scratch:


It's unlikely (though I guess possible) that Guiliani was being literal with his comments. It's pretty easy to interpret that as saying the Clintons should be removed from a position of influence in the Democratic party.

Chuck Schumer made comments that appeared to threaten the lives of Supreme Court Justices earlier this year, and pretty much everyone with a brain knows he meant a political price.


When your base is as unhinged as Trump's you probably shouldn't use that sort of language. Especially when they were recently plotting to kidnap and murder a governor. Do they need to start an uprising in a beer hall before you stop downplaying their behaviour?


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

21 Nov 2020, 6:50 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-giuliani-suggests-cutting-heads-155445031.html

Is Giuliani the fringe of the Republican party? :scratch:


It's unlikely (though I guess possible) that Guiliani was being literal with his comments. It's pretty easy to interpret that as saying the Clintons should be removed from a position of influence in the Democratic party.

Chuck Schumer made comments that appeared to threaten the lives of Supreme Court Justices earlier this year, and pretty much everyone with a brain knows he meant a political price.


When your base is as unhinged as Trump's you probably shouldn't use that sort of language. Especially when they were recently plotting to kidnap and murder a governor. Do they need to start an uprising in a beer hall before you stop downplaying their behaviour?


I don't think I'm downplaying anything, just not up-playing everything. Its an irresponsible choice of words. You should be more responsible when you're a public voice. I doubt we'll see it, but Guiliani should apologize and clarify. It will be a mark against him if he doesn't.

Again the use of language is only marginally worse than what Chuck did earlier when he appeared to threaten the lives of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Remember, a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Republican member of congress, so its not just the republican base that has taken outrageous actions.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 18,317
Location: I'm right here

21 Nov 2020, 6:56 pm

Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Antrax wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/rudy-giuliani-suggests-cutting-heads-155445031.html

Is Giuliani the fringe of the Republican party? :scratch:


It's unlikely (though I guess possible) that Guiliani was being literal with his comments. It's pretty easy to interpret that as saying the Clintons should be removed from a position of influence in the Democratic party.

Chuck Schumer made comments that appeared to threaten the lives of Supreme Court Justices earlier this year, and pretty much everyone with a brain knows he meant a political price.


When your base is as unhinged as Trump's you probably shouldn't use that sort of language. Especially when they were recently plotting to kidnap and murder a governor. Do they need to start an uprising in a beer hall before you stop downplaying their behaviour?


I don't think I'm downplaying anything, just not up-playing everything. Its an irresponsible choice of words. You should be more responsible when you're a public voice. I doubt we'll see it, but Guiliani should apologize and clarify. It will be a mark against him if he doesn't.

Again the use of language is only marginally worse than what Chuck did earlier when he appeared to threaten the lives of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Remember, a Bernie Sanders supporter shot a Republican member of congress, so its not just the republican base that has taken outrageous actions.


It's a good thing the FBI understands that the vast majority of political terrorism in the US right now is tied to far-right groups instead of pretending like things are equal. You're welcome to read their report:

https://www.scribd.com/document/4846025 ... from_embed


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,450
Location: Derby, UK

21 Nov 2020, 7:14 pm

If anything I'd say the term "Nazi" is under-used in American politics.

Mainly because the whole system has been right wing for so long that nobody recognises right wing extremism any more. That's just situation normal.

Trump exhibits a lot of behaviours that are Nazi-esque. American political ideology is so anti-Communist that right wing extremes are accepted as a necessary evil, and continually pandered to, instead of being called out for what they are.

I am not a fan of extremism in any form. The messy, compromised, contradictory middle ground is where it's at. But that's difficult territory for voters and the media, it's complicated, picking polarized sides is easy. Or inventing them if actually you have very little to choose from in your political system.