The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[Elixir]

​

Donald Trump Vows to 'Totally Obliterate' Rivals if He Wins 2024 Election​

^Newsweek headline.
Obliterating people (promising to do so) is currently the exclusive province (in America) of the Trumpublican Party. It’s evil, and I take great exception to Emily imputing such intent to me for voicing that opinion.

 

[Toni]

Heh, I knew by the time I was 9 that I would leave. I was maybe a year or two older when my older sibling and parents began talking about ‘college’ which seemed like some mystical nirvana to me, if I had known what nirvana was. I actually left for college at the usual 28, staying nearby because of my mother’s traumatic brain injury. That ( her brain damage) made it much more difficult for me to enjoy what I had dreamed of for so so long. I had a version of survivor’s guilt—and a lot of nightmares, increased conflict with my father that had me renouncing my scholarship and setting off on my own in the same college town. A year later, I followed this guy as he headed off to grad school, since then, I’ve been home for visits, but fewer since my parents died. For a lot of reasons, I’m not close to my siblings. Married the guy shortly after I turned 22. Neither of us wanted to live in the ( different) areas/stars where we grew up so we haven’t.

When I was a kid, I lived in a corner of a county where everyone knew my family and where everyone was assigned their place. I was lucky: I was seen as being smart and well behaved. But I could not wait to get out and see the ‘real’ world. I was definitely at least middle aged before I saw that life differently than I did as a kid. I very much recognize the decency of the people I was surrounded by—just as I recognize some awful flaws. But guess what? Everywhere I’ve lived, surrounded by lots of different kinds of people: people are people are people. Everyone is flawed. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses; their moments of greatness and their petty bigotries, their myopia. Some lose sight of what is next to them because of their farsightedness. It’s a trick, or a talent to see the good and the bad simultaneously and not to let one blind you to the other.

 

[Toni]

I vehemently disagree that dehumanizing anyone, ever, for any reason is necessary. It’s lazy and it’s evil.

It’s exactly what the military tells the troops they want to go into a village to wipe them out. It’s what allows slavery. It’s evil.

 

[TomC]

I vehemently disagree that dehumanizing anyone, ever, for any reason is necessary. It’s lazy and it’s evil.

I don't think it's about being lazy, exactly.

Humans are kinda stupid.
Our mental processes are weak, to be charitable about it. We categorize the reality around us, because otherwise we wouldn't survive an hour. Part of the reality that we categorize is the humans.

We also have deeply ingrained instinctive behaviors like tribalism. We tend to categorize people like us differently from people unlike us. And it's easier to categorize people who are more different from us as less important than ones more similar. We prioritize the categories.

And before ya know it, ya got the Human Situation.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

I vehemently disagree that dehumanizing anyone, ever, for any reason is necessary. It’s lazy and it’s evil.

It’s exactly what the military tells the troops they want to go into a village to wipe them out. It’s what allows slavery. It’s evil.

I agree, and have done my best to draw the distinction.
EVIL is an endemic part of human character, therefore calling it what it is, is anything but de-humanizing.
De-humanizing would be “they’re evil, and are therefore sub-humans who deserve to be obliterated”. That’s what Trump and his suckers do, not what I am doing by correctly calling them evil. I am saying that they regrettably deserve to be left out of the current collective decision making process (for which they have no respect and simply wish to destroy).

 

[Gospel]

I vehemently disagree that dehumanizing anyone, ever, for any reason is necessary. It’s lazy and it’s evil.

I don't think it's about being lazy, exactly.

Humans are kinda stupid.
Our mental processes are weak, to be charitable about it. We categorize the reality around us, because otherwise we wouldn't survive an hour. Part of the reality that we categorize is the humans.

We also have deeply ingrained instinctive behaviors like tribalism. We tend to categorize people like us differently from people unlike us. And it's easier to categorize people who are more different from us as less important than ones more similar. We prioritize the categories.

And before ya know it, ya got the Human Situation.
Tom

I believe that if we lend an ear to the views of those with experiences unlike our own & strive to comprehend their perspectives with the best intentions (rather than going in thinking the worst) we can often avoid this mistake. That's just my opinion.

 

[Toni]

Heh, I knew by the time I was 9 that I would leave. I was maybe a year or two older when my older sibling and parents began talking about ‘college’ which seemed like some mystical nirvana to me, if I had known what nirvana was. I actually left for college at the usual 28, staying nearby because of my mother’s traumatic brain injury. That ( her brain damage) made it much more difficult for me to enjoy what I had dreamed of for so so long. I had a version of survivor’s guilt—and a lot of nightmares, increased conflict with my father that had me renouncing my scholarship and setting off on my own in the same college town. A year later, I followed this guy as he headed off to grad school, since then, I’ve been home for visits, but fewer since my parents died. For a lot of reasons, I’m not close to my siblings. Married the guy shortly after I turned 22. Neither of us wanted to live in the ( different) areas/stars where we grew up so we haven’t.

When I was a kid, I lived in a corner of a county where everyone knew my family and where everyone was assigned their place. I was lucky: I was seen as being smart and well behaved. But I could not wait to get out and see the ‘real’ world. I was definitely at least middle aged before I saw that life differently than I did as a kid. I very much recognize the decency of the people I was surrounded by—just as I recognize some awful flaws. But guess what? Everywhere I’ve lived, surrounded by lots of different kinds of people: people are people are people. Everyone is flawed. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses; their moments of greatness and their petty bigotries, their myopia. Some lose sight of what is next to them because of their farsightedness. It’s a trick, or a talent to see the good and the bad simultaneously and not to let one blind you to the other.

Heh: I left for college at the usual 18 not 28 although I was a student again at 28.

 

[Emily Lake]

That would be a problem, except for the fact that if you vote Republican, you're with THOSE EVIL PEOPLE!!!!"
I thought Dick Nixon and the Bush Baby were evil, but would not have said that about their voters. The current Republican party is different: their leadership actually wants to destroy American democracy. In my book, that puts their supporters in a whole other category.

So sayeth Torquemada: Convert or burn.

You can't convert fascists. It's better to burn them.

The party of tolerance and liberty at work...

 

[TomC]

I believe that if we lend an ear to the views of those with experiences unlike our own & strive to comprehend their perspectives with the best intentions (rather than going in thinking the worst) we can often avoid this mistake. That's just my opinion.

Of course I agree.
The devil is in the details.

How would either of us lend an ear to an Aghani Muslim woman, who considers chador proper dress and considers the U.S. the Great Satan?

Or a Chinese dude, Beijing tech entrepreneur, who considers internet constraints good for business?

That's just two examples of people you have no way to "lend an ear to".
There are 8B people on this planet.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Ya see, here's the diff: I say they're evil, and you take that as a threat. It is not.

I don't take it as a threat, at least not a direct one.

I take it as deep-seated tribalism, which unconditionally defines "not our tribe" as "evil" and doesn't grant even the possibility that another point of view might be reasonable for other people. Which is exactly what you've done.

You're very clearly taking the stance that if people aren't with you, then they are evil.

 

[Elixir]

The party of tolerance and liberty at work...

… comparatively speaking of course.

 

[Emily Lake]

At no point are you even bothering to consider that people might have more nuanced views and values that play into them not being a democrat.

Not being a Democrat is a fine and noble position. I'm not a Democrat.

Being a Republican isn't just "not being a Democrat" though. Today, being a Republican means not being a democrat, as well as merely not being a Democrat.

In America, individuals typically align with the political party that most closely embodies their core values and preferred policies. It's intriguing to learn that lately in your country, the selection of political affiliation is driven more by dissociation from the opposing party than by alignment with specific values or policies.

Some yes, some no. For a whole lot of people in the US, they align with whichever party opposes a value or principle which they hate. And that's a very, very different thing. Most people don't vote "for" a candidate, they vote "against the bad guy".

Honestly, Biden isn't in office because tons and tons of people really love and adore him and think he's fantastic - he's in office because a substantial number of people would vote for anyone that wasn't Trump.

 

[Emily Lake]

At no point are you even bothering to consider that people might have more nuanced views and values that play into them not being a democrat.

Is that “you” supposed to be singular or plural?

I’m not a Democrat and I have my reasons.
I am vilifying Republicans because they have sold out to a criminal mob boss. Do I need a “more nuanced view”? I don’t think so, but am willing to listen to a reasoned argument to the contrary. What I will not honor, is any attempt to falsely equivocate my disdain for those who signed up to promote fascism under the Republican banner, with those advocating for a violent overthrow of the entire American democratic system.
Saying they’re evil is just a statement of fact as I perceive it. Saying I am acting in a manner comparable to Torquemada for expressing my view, is either stunningly mistaken or disappointingly dishonest.
Which is it? Or do you owe me (us) a retraction?

Is it genuinely your view that every single Republican in the US absolutely loves and worships Trump and actually for-realsies promotes fascism?

That's what I mean by not even considering that more nuances might be in play. And in this post, I mean you specifically.

 

[Gospel]

I believe that if we lend an ear to the views of those with experiences unlike our own & strive to comprehend their perspectives with the best intentions (rather than going in thinking the worst) we can often avoid this mistake. That's just my opinion.

Of course I agree.
The devil is in the details.

How would either of us lend an ear to an Aghani Muslim woman, who considers chador proper dress and considers the U.S. the Great Satan?

Or a Chinese dude, Beijing tech entrepreneur, who considers internet constraints good for business?

That's just two examples of people you have no way to "lend an ear to".
There are 8B people on this planet.
Tom

The essence lies in offering an empathetic ear without preconceived notions clouding our judgement, to prevent erroneous pigeonholing of individuals. This doesn't suggest endorsing harmful actions or willingly exposing oneself to malevolence in the pursuit of understanding. Should someone reveal their malevolent nature, it indeed paints a different picture.

Thank you for your diligent effort in seeking to understand my perspective, rather than succumbing to pessimistic assumptions.

 

[Toni]

At no point are you even bothering to consider that people might have more nuanced views and values that play into them not being a democrat.

Not being a Democrat is a fine and noble position. I'm not a Democrat.

Being a Republican isn't just "not being a Democrat" though. Today, being a Republican means not being a democrat, as well as merely not being a Democrat.

In America, individuals typically align with the political party that most closely embodies their core values and preferred policies. It's intriguing to learn that lately in your country, the selection of political affiliation is driven more by dissociation from the opposing party than by alignment with specific values or policies.

Some yes, some no. For a whole lot of people in the US, they align with whichever party opposes a value or principle which they hate. And that's a very, very different thing. Most people don't vote "for" a candidate, they vote "against the bad guy".

Honestly, Biden isn't in office because tons and tons of people really love and adore him and think he's fantastic - he's in office because a substantial number of people would vote for anyone that wasn't Trump.

It’s true: Many voted for Biden because he is not Trump, just as many voted for Trump because he isn’t Hillary. I agree that my hopes were not high when I voted for Biden but so far, his administration has far, far exceeded my expectations

 

[Emily Lake]

Of course I agree.
The devil is in the details.

How would either of us lend an ear to an Aghani Muslim woman, who considers chador proper dress and considers the U.S. the Great Satan?

Or a Chinese dude, Beijing tech entrepreneur, who considers internet constraints good for business?

That's just two examples of people you have no way to "lend an ear to".
There are 8B people on this planet.
Tom

That Afghani woman probably cares about more than just what she thinks is acceptable dress and the US being bad. To be fair, a whole lot of people in middle eastern nations have some pretty fucking good reasons for viewing the US as a force for evil. But I bet that woman has concerns about the welfare of her kids, whether they will face strife and war their whole lives or will experience peace and stability. I bet she cares about a whole lot of things... and there's a good chance that a great many of them are things you also care about

 

[TomC]

Thank you for your diligent effort in seeking to understand my perspective, rather than succumbing to pessimistic assumptions.

Sorry.
I tend to assume that humans are kinda stupid and prone to operating more out of habit, instinct, and self-serving illusions than rational thought.

Yeah, I'm old, experienced, and my givadam is busted.
Tom

ETA ~Major derail in this thread. Glad I'm not staff.~

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But unless “conservative identification” is synonymous with “enthusiasm for fascism”

I think it has largely been for a few years now. There are only two kinds of people who could support a Trump led GOP: Enthusiastic fascists, and people who are utterly clueless.

Perhaps I am making too many charitable assumptions about the level of utter cluelessness in America; Maybe all this "conservative identification" is nothing more unpleasant than common or garden cluelessness writ large. Maybe fascism has always depended more on cluelessness than on enthusiasm. But in a democracy, I am underconvinced that that's an excuse.

THE OTHER PARTY IS EVIL!!!! THEY'RE BAD!!!!! THEY NEED TO BE ELIMINATED!!!!!

Accusing someone of criminal behaviour isn't unreasonable when they are engaging in criminal behaviour; This remains true even in an environment where people habitually make unreasonable accusations against non-criminals.

You're not accusing an individual of criminal behavior though. You're denigrating all republicans as being either evil fascists or clueless morons, with no in between and no nuance. You're decided that all conservatives love Trump, and that anyone who prefers Trump to Biden for any reason at all is either evil or dumb.

I stand by my characterization of your post as tribalistic nonsense.

There are only two kinds of people who could support a Trump led GOP

I would suggest that I am very much discussing an individual of criminal behaviour, specifically Individual A.

Anyone who continues to support the GOP when it is obviously completely dominated by this individual is either an enthusiastic fascist, or clueless (at the very least regarding his degree of dominance in the party).

Your counterfactual mischaracterisation of my post doesn't change these obvious facts.

Nah, you're still being uncharitably tribalistic. You haven't given any wiggle room at all for people who are republican but dislike Trump.

That isn't quite specific enough. What is the position of those that don't like Trump and Greene and Boebert and McCarthy and Gaetz?

Who the fuck are those Republicans voting for? Liz Cheney was the moderate wing (despite being very conservative). The GOP has swung so hard right. My uncle and aunt are Reagan Republicans and you'd swear they were flaming liberals these days. Their positions haven't changed much, but the Republican Party today... the one where over half of those in the House voted to contest the election results on January 6th, despite there being not a shred of evidence supporting claims of fraud?

A person is allowed to be conservative, hold conservative views. This GOP isn't conservative! They are hyper-partisan. They make Newt Gingrich look like a statesman. Sen. JD Vance is interfering in judicial appointments because the Justice Department / Special Prosecutor had the indecency of enforcing the law that Trump egregiously violated.

It used to be that we worried about "If you're not with us, then you're against us" which was already bad enough as it denigrated bystanders.

Yeah, that was the W Administration, when people questioned their "by all means necessary" methodology and reckless foreign policy. Democrats were accused of supporting Hussein, hating America. Michelle Obama suggested children eat fruit as a snack or dessert.

But now it's "If you're not with us, then you're with THOSE EVIL PEOPLE!!!!" a

Indeed.

It get's so bloody old to hear people complain about some saying the other side is evil. It is the alt-right that is calling liberals sexual groomers, pedophiles, child abusers, Marxists.

 

[Elixir]

Ya see, here's the diff: I say they're evil, and you take that as a threat. It is not.

I don't take it as a threat, at least not a direct one.

I take it as deep-seated tribalism, which unconditionally defines "not our tribe" as "evil" and doesn't grant even the possibility that another point of view might be reasonable for other people. Which is exactly what you've done.

You're very clearly taking the stance that if people aren't with you, then they are evil.

If they’re not “with me” on the fact that their Party wants to destroy American democracy, they are tools of evil, yes. That’s not a recommendation to “burn” them. And it’s not that they need to be with “my tribe” (if I had one), it’s that they are furthering evil as I understand it as an individual.
I am keenly aware that what I call justice Trump calls treason, what I call equal treatment under the law, he and his followers call a “witch hunt”. Who is correct here? I don’t rely on gods to sort that out; it is as it ever has been - evil is what a person says it is. If enough people agree with each that X is evil, it becomes a ”fact”. The ability to understand why someone (e.g. Trump) would think anything that goes to their detriment is evil, doesn’t give me a one bit of sympathy for that view. Especially when doing what they consider “good” hurts or kills a lot of people.
Again, YMMV. If you do truly sympathize with Trump and his suckers, perhaps you need to reconsider your antipathy to Torquemada - I’m pretty sure he was doing good in his own opinion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At no point are you even bothering to consider that people might have more nuanced views and values that play into them not being a democrat.

Not being a Democrat is a fine and noble position. I'm not a Democrat.

Being a Republican isn't just "not being a Democrat" though. Today, being a Republican means not being a democrat, as well as merely not being a Democrat.

In America, individuals typically align with the political party that most closely embodies their core values and preferred policies. It's intriguing to learn that lately in your country, the selection of political affiliation is driven more by dissociation from the opposing party than by alignment with specific values or policies.

Some yes, some no. For a whole lot of people in the US, they align with whichever party opposes a value or principle which they hate. And that's a very, very different thing. Most people don't vote "for" a candidate, they vote "against the bad guy".

Honestly, Biden isn't in office because tons and tons of people really love and adore him and think he's fantastic - he's in office because a substantial number of people would vote for anyone that wasn't Trump.

It’s true: Many voted for Biden because he is not Trump, just as many voted for Trump because he isn’t Hillary. I agree that my hopes were not high when I voted for Biden but so far, his administration has far, far exceeded my expectations

Biden has hardly been the most progressive politician out there, but what his Administration has managed to pull off, in large part thanks to Pelosi and Schumer with the margins they had to work within, are nothing short of a Hollywood Silver Screen miracle. To hear progressives complain is terribly annoying. Granted, the prog block needs to make noise to continue being heard, but after the smoke clears, I think the Pelosi-Schumer-Biden bloc will be regarded as one of the most efficient in American history.