In defence of Trump

[DrZoidberg]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

 

[ZiprHead]

Speaking of "defending Trump", I think his permanent ban from twitter is an overreaction. I think that a two-week suspension would have been sufficient, and would have served the purpose of stopping him from inciting more violence at the Biden inauguration ceremony.

On the other hand, the world will be a better place without his dumbass tweets. But he'll find some other venue to air his grievances I'm sure.

Twitter relaxed its standards for Trump. For money. They are partially responsible for the outcome.

 

[zorq]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

That would be true if he was banned because his opponents were embarassed by their inability to address the points he made.

That is not why he was banned.

He was banned for making the platforms accessories in the crimes he was committing on them. Constitutional free speech doesn't protect ALL speech. Some speech is illegal. Incitement to violence is one of those illegal forms of speech.

 

[Patooka]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

It could just mean that Facebook and Twitter don't want to be affiliated with, or seen promoting Trump's fascistic fantasies. And don't forget, it was Trump who initially stopped his Press Secretary(s) from doing daily briefings with the media. He was the one who ended correspondence with the American citizen, not Facebook or Twitter. Saying Facebook and Twitter are Comparable to the BBC, CNN, NPR or ABC is a bullshit argument. They are under no obligation to be a bastion or even report hate speech. Social media and actual media are as similar as North Korea and South Korea. Or East Germany and West Germany, if you're old enough to get that reference. Just because they has similar words in their title means fuck all.

 

[prideandfall]

A US President sends a howling mob (their heads full of LIES he created) in full-tilt crazy mode down the street to the Capitol, and you don't know he's a degenerate?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That's not what he's saying. I think. What I think he's saying is that you can support Trump and still think he's a degenerate.

nope, that is incorrect and not what i'm saying.

you both (in this small exchange at least) are operating on a 3 part assumption:
1. that what trump is doing is objectively bad, full stop.
2. that the only way to support trump is to be unaware of what he's doing.
3. that if one was aware of what he was doing, one would no longer support trump.

what i am saying is that if you look at trump's behavior on its face - as in you see what he's doing, you're not buying some news media falsehood about it or listening to alex jones but genuinely watching the real actions he's perpetuating - some people don't see degeneracy, because to them it isn't.

you're assuming that morality is objective and singularly quantifiable and that whatever YOU feel is morally reprehensible is the established baseline for all of reality.
i hate to burst your bubble, but that is a fantasy.

trump is a living personification of conservative moral ideals, it's like somebody found a genie and wished for the ultimate end game of the conservative philosophy to be made into flesh and blood. he embodies everything these people value in a human being, and every time he does something 'stupid' or 'insane' and all the pearl-clutchers around here start getting ready to get the vapors over it, not a single one of you ever stops and considers that he's doing exactly what his base wants him to do and his behavior is exactly what they want out of a president.
they don't need to be lied to to support trump, because what trump is *actually* doing is why they support him in the first place.

this is why i say it's dangerously naive to think that trump supporters must all be victims and why i disagree with things like "if you don't know he's a degenerate you're brainwashed" - because the very concept that he's a degenerate is only true to you, and thinking that your moral viewpoint extends to everyone makes you (and damn near every other left leaning person in this country) stupidly think that conservatives can be reasoned with or gently prodded into thinking the 'right way' if only enough evidence is shown.
this is a fallacy, and a politically dangerous one that leads to a tepid and weak political opposition that ends up going with appeasement and concession as a political tactic, and all you have to do is look as the democrats to see how well that plan is going.

 

[prideandfall]

The public discourse is overwhelmingly liberal, ie the stuff the media talks about, isn't relevant for lots of people. They are voting conservative. And voting blindly for bullshit reasons because they have no intellectual voices in their medias clarifying their thoughts.

this is all patently and obviously false.
i have no idea where the hell you're getting this, because it's not even close to being remotely in the realm of reality.

While the list of public intellectuals on the left is very very long. It's a lucrative business.

name one.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

again i have no idea where you're getting any of this, aside from maybe the fact you're not in the US and so you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are taking that ignorance to an extreme in thinking that ignorance is de facto a position on a subject.
(i legit don't mean that in an insulting way, i mean ignorance in the dictionary sense - you don't know the facts on this subject, and in your ignorance on the subject you seem to have formed an opinion based on that void of a lack of information)

conservatism in the US began a coordinated cultural war against the very idea of intellectualism in the mid 70s, then the political establishment hooked its wagon to the religious whackos.
since then, the shift in conservative philosophy and voting habits has been decidedly away from smart people and rational arguments and towards "someone who reminds me of grandpa" or "a guy you could have a beer with" or "someone who acts like my methhead cousin".
we should want our leaders to be lofty and superior smarty-pants who see themselves as above the petty ground-level struggles of the human condition, because that's the kind of attitude you need to see the bigger picture.
instead, we gravitate towards whatever random shitburg looks 'safe' and 'relatable' because humans are, by and large, reprehensibly god damn retarded.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

Well, it's against the law to incite rebellion. Trump used twitter to to lead the insurrection. His final tweet was tell continue encouraging his minions to attack the US Capital during the inauguration because he won't be there. He should be banned from all media, impeached, and held accountable for the crimes that he committed.

 

[Jokodo]

Are we talking about George “it’s not climate change it’s just summer” Will??

Yeah, he gets a lot of exposure on mainstream media in the USA, doesn't he?

I don't think demagogues who routinely make false claims are intellectuals at all. That's just entertainment.

No intellectual would today question human induced climate change. No matter if they are Liberal or Conservative. Intellectuals are pursuing the truth. It's not a popularity contest. They don't play a political game.

The Conservative side is full of talking heads and witty people good at making sound bites. People like that are not intellectuals

Jordan Peterson is just entertainment, yet you specifically named him as an example of the rare species of public right-wing intellectual.

 

[Deepak]

public conservative intellectuals? George Will, David Frum, Bill Kristol, any economist taken seriously by the big t.v. networks in the States.

They're not household names as their Liberal equivalents are

Not household names? Frum is Senior Editor at the Atlantic, Will is a Pulitzer and Cronkite award winner, and Kristol is the guy who started The Weekly Standard and was pivotal in defeating Clinton's health care plan and the garnering support for the Iraq war.

If you haven't heard of any of these guys in the last 30 years I'm highly skeptical of claim you make about the media. These three have been featured in international media, American media, liberal media, conservative media, and public media. Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions they're pretty much impossible to avoid - and being unaware of who they are really doesn't support the point you're trying to make.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Politically literate Americans know who these people are. I’ve seen them many times on the news shows. It may not be obvious to someone who doesn’t live in the USA what kinds of voices we hear in our reputable media. The glitzy opinion shows and social media have taken over all the hype, but since the idea of intellectuals was brought up its fair to talk about the avenues that intellectuals listen to and read.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Since the OP is about pro-Trump ideologues -- I saw the briefest of clips of Limbaugh at the microphone, post-insurrection. He was comparing the rioters to the Minute Men at Lexington and Concord. Did I get this wrong? Was the clip a bad edit? I don't have enough morbid curiosity to listen to his broadcast, but if anyone has, I'd like to know if the impression I got was mistaken.

 

[Treedbear]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

That would be true if he was banned because his opponents were embarassed by their inability to address the points he made.

That is not why he was banned.

He was banned for making the platforms accessories in the crimes he was committing on them. Constitutional free speech doesn't protect ALL speech. Some speech is illegal. Incitement to violence is one of those illegal forms of speech.

The concept of "clear and present danger" is a rationale for the limitation of free speech originated in a majority opinion written in 1919 by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Nm

 

[KeepTalking]

This is very much along the lines of what I was thinking. The problem may be that DrZ is conflating 'conservative' with 'Republican' (specifically, the current Republican Party). Trumpism has caused a huge fracture in the party, and we are in the early days of it splitting in two. They should emerge from the split with a more sane conservative party, and with Trumpism left behind, but that is only if we emerge from the current turmoil with our country intact.

No, I don't conflate them. But conservatives are more likely to vote Republican. Isn't that so?

Historically, that is so. In the era of Trump, however, most of the intellectual conservatives have left the Republican party. Expect to see more of them leave, as well as conservatives of all stripes, unless the GOP does something quickly to rid itself of Trumpism.

 

[jab]

The public discourse is overwhelmingly liberal, ie the stuff the media talks about, isn't relevant for lots of people. They are voting conservative. And voting blindly for bullshit reasons because they have no intellectual voices in their medias clarifying their thoughts.

What conservative public intellectuals do we have now? It's pretty much Jordan Petersen. That's it. Isn't there? For public intellectuals to be motivated to be public intellectuals, they need to get paid for their work. If they aren't, they're not going to put up with that bullshit. While the list of public intellectuals on the left is very very long. It's a lucrative business.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

public conservative intellectuals? George Will, David Frum, Bill Kristol, any economist taken seriously by the big t.v. networks in the States.

They're not household names as their Liberal equivalents are

really, how familiar are you with American households? These are names I know very well from my log exposure to American media.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Since the OP is about pro-Trump ideologues -- I saw the briefest of clips of Limbaugh at the microphone, post-insurrection. He was comparing the rioters to the Minute Men at Lexington and Concord. Did I get this wrong? Was the clip a bad edit? I don't have enough morbid curiosity to listen to his broadcast, but if anyone has, I'd like to know if the impression I got was mistaken.

Not Pro Trump. More along the lines of that clouds have silver linings

 

[DrZoidberg]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

That would be true if he was banned because his opponents were embarassed by their inability to address the points he made.

That is not why he was banned.

He was banned for making the platforms accessories in the crimes he was committing on them. Constitutional free speech doesn't protect ALL speech. Some speech is illegal. Incitement to violence is one of those illegal forms of speech.

You can't stop ideas through censorship. I understand your logic. But I think shutting him down will only make him more popular and powerful. He wants to be a beleaguered underdog. Why give this to him?

 

[DrZoidberg]

this is all patently and obviously false.
i have no idea where the hell you're getting this, because it's not even close to being remotely in the realm of reality.


name one.

The fact that conservative political candidates are winning elections despite zero intellectual backing is pretty telling. It's not good for the future of mankind. Not for the left or right. I think it's the internet that is to blame. It's a shift in technology. To be a public intellectual before the Internet you needed another set of skills than to be one today. For whatever reason the left intellectuals are better at it. The Conservative intellectuals (they do exist) are failing to break through the barrier to be seen on the media stage. So the Right do nothing than read tabloids and send fake news to eachother. Which is what then will inform their voting. Which explains the list of Conservative candidates you posted.

again i have no idea where you're getting any of this, aside from maybe the fact you're not in the US and so you just have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are taking that ignorance to an extreme in thinking that ignorance is de facto a position on a subject.
(i legit don't mean that in an insulting way, i mean ignorance in the dictionary sense - you don't know the facts on this subject, and in your ignorance on the subject you seem to have formed an opinion based on that void of a lack of information)

conservatism in the US began a coordinated cultural war against the very idea of intellectualism in the mid 70s, then the political establishment hooked its wagon to the religious whackos.
since then, the shift in conservative philosophy and voting habits has been decidedly away from smart people and rational arguments and towards "someone who reminds me of grandpa" or "a guy you could have a beer with" or "someone who acts like my methhead cousin".
we should want our leaders to be lofty and superior smarty-pants who see themselves as above the petty ground-level struggles of the human condition, because that's the kind of attitude you need to see the bigger picture.
instead, we gravitate towards whatever random shitburg looks 'safe' and 'relatable' because humans are, by and large, reprehensibly god damn retarded.

You clearly have the same view of this as me, yet don't see it as a problem. Why?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

That would be true if he was banned because his opponents were embarassed by their inability to address the points he made.

That is not why he was banned.

He was banned for making the platforms accessories in the crimes he was committing on them. Constitutional free speech doesn't protect ALL speech. Some speech is illegal. Incitement to violence is one of those illegal forms of speech.

You can't stop ideas through censorship. I understand your logic. But I think shutting him down will only make him more popular and powerful. He wants to be a beleaguered underdog. Why give this to him?

I am not disagreeing with you (or agreeing). Our problem right now is one of propaganda. There is a large infrastructure devoted to it. If twitter bans Trump, there will be propaganda that trump is being stifled and also conservatives generally. Perhaps less effectively since it is spread on one less platform, but also at more intensity because now there is another reason for it. If twitter doesn't ban him, he will use twitter as a platform to spread more propaganda. So basically, it MIGHT be "6 of one, half a dozen of the other..." or "damned if you do, damned if you don't." What we are facing is a problem of propaganda which has been magnified by a huge infrastructure. We don't really know how to solve it. Any action is classified as moves against legitimate speech. Any inaction allows fabricated stories and evidence to spread and following it, incitement to insurrection.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Banning Trump from Twitter and Facebook is just admitting that our arguments suck.

That would be true if he was banned because his opponents were embarassed by their inability to address the points he made.

That is not why he was banned.

He was banned for making the platforms accessories in the crimes he was committing on them. Constitutional free speech doesn't protect ALL speech. Some speech is illegal. Incitement to violence is one of those illegal forms of speech.

You can't stop ideas through censorship. I understand your logic. But I think shutting him down will only make him more popular and powerful. He wants to be a beleaguered underdog. Why give this to him?

But neither should a private company be forced to carry his opinions against the terms of use he agreed to. He has plenty of avenues to express his opinion publicly, as do all Americans.