A Call to Trumpers/MAGA/Conservatives

[CivilDiscourse]

I need more rum

The rum is gone.

[carpedm9587]

Just stop Carp! You said: I would dearly love to find one good person who insists on supporting Mr. Trump who can explain to me how they can justify that position.

So of the 100 Trump supporters that you know you can't find one good person in that group who can justify his support for Trump? Are they all either not good or irrational?

What exactly is it that you want me to stop?

They are all people I consider good. None of them is willing to engage in a discussion. They spouts memes, then immediately shutdown if a question is asked. Not a single one has intelligently and rationally defended their position. Whether or not they can is not something I can assess. I can only relate that they do not.

[carpedm9587]

So you think that a broad insult taking a slap at anybody who doesn't share your opinion of President Trump somehow doesn't violate your call for civility and understanding?

Please, I'm not buying that nonsense for a second.

A call for civility and understanding is not the same as a call for agreement. As I now have said multiple times, I can treat
people with respect and still disagree with their position, and even consider their position a danger to the country. I don’t have to see them as “the enemy” and someone I need to “take the country back from.

There is indeed a significant block of people in the U.S who are caught up in a cult of personality. You see them laughing and jeering at Trump rallies, often at things that would have been considered “trollling” and unacceptable before Mr. Trump. Calling out this reality is necessary if we are ever to hope to
counter the effect. Cults are dangerous. Cults headed by immoral (by the measure of most social norms) and narcissistic are more dangerous still. Large cults headed by such people who have access to enormous power should be a cause for concern by all of us.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah…pretty much my take on it.

[seer]

What exactly is it that you want me to stop?

They are all people I consider good. None of them is willing to engage in a discussion. They spouts memes, then immediately shutdown if a question is asked. Not a single one has intelligently and rationally defended their position. Whether or not they can is not something I can assess. I can only relate that they do not.

So out of a hundred Trump supporters not one can articulate good reason for voting for Trump? Really? These must be the cultist you were speaking of. Or perhaps, and more likely, they don't believe you will honestly listen or engage. Because it is not hard to justify voting for Trump over Biden.


I said: Didn't you recently say you didn't know any good people, and rational, who were Trump supporters?




And you replied: Despite the repeated claim to this effect, no. In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly said pretty much the opposite. If you think otherwise, again, show me where I have said this.

[Sparko]

A call for civility and understanding is not the same as a call for agreement. As I now have said multiple times, I can treat
people with respect and still disagree with their position, and even consider their position a danger to the country. I don’t have to see them as “the enemy” and someone I need to “take the country back from.

There is indeed a significant block of people in the U.S who are caught up in a cult of personality. You see them laughing and jeering at Trump rallies, often at things that would have been considered “trollling” and unacceptable before Mr. Trump. Calling out this reality is necessary if we are ever to hope to
counter the effect. Cults are dangerous. Cults headed by immoral (by the measure of most social norms) and narcissistic are more dangerous still. Large cults headed by such people who have access to enormous power should be a cause for concern by all of us.

Except you are not treating people with respect while you trash Trump. You are insulting their intelligence and claiming they are too dumb to explain why they support Trump, and so on. That was my initial objection. You want civility but then turn directly to insulting what your opponents believe and why they believe it. You seem to only want civility towards you but not to give it out yourself.

[Mountain Man]

A call for civility and understanding is not the same as a call for agreement. As I now have said multiple times, I can treat
people with respect and still disagree with their position, and even consider their position a danger to the country. I don’t have to see them as “the enemy” and someone I need to “take the country back from.

There is indeed a significant block of people in the U.S who are caught up in a cult of personality. You see them laughing and jeering at Trump rallies, often at things that would have been considered “trollling” and unacceptable before Mr. Trump. Calling out this reality is necessary if we are ever to hope to
counter the effect. Cults are dangerous. Cults headed by immoral (by the measure of most social norms) and narcissistic are more dangerous still. Large cults headed by such people who have access to enormous power should be a cause for concern by all of us.

You don't merely disagree, carpe, you use deliberately insulting terms like "sycophants" and "cultists" to describe those who support Trump, disparage your friends who do not wish to discuss politics with you (gee, I wonder why?), and then disingenuously play the "Why can't we all just get along?" card.

[alaskazimm]

The rum is gone.

Why-is-the-rum-gone.gif

[carpedm9587]

You don't merely disagree, carpe, you use deliberately insulting terms like "sycophants" and "cultists" to describe those who support Trump, disparage your friends who do not wish to discuss politics with you (gee, I wonder why?), and then disingenuously play the "Why can't we all just get along?" card.

You do have a habit of misreading and misconstruing what I post. I have never used the term “sycophant” outside of the context of the “yes men” that Mr. Trump surrounds himself with. I have never applied the term “cultist” universally to describe all Trump supporters. I have used the term specifically for those who HAVE gotten caught up the the cult of personality, of which there is a significant number.

And I believe I have said several times now, a call not to see each others as enemies to be vanquished and instead as “the loyal opposition” with whom we disagree is not a call to join hands and sing kumbaya. Political disagreement will remain.

I think a few examples might be in order. I’m on my phone right now. That will be easier on my computer.

[Sparko]

You do have a habit of misreading and misconstruing what I post. I have never used the term “sycophant” outside of the context of the “yes men” that Mr. Trump surrounds himself with. I have never applied the term “cultist” universally to describe all Trump supporters. I have used the term specifically for those who HAVE gotten caught up the the cult of personality, of which there is a significant number.

And I believe I have said several times now, a call not to see each others as enemies to be vanquished and instead as “the loyal opposition” with whom we disagree is not a call to join hands and sing kumbaya. Political disagreement will remain.

I think a few examples might be in order. I’m on my phone right now. That will be easier on my computer.

Apparently what you think you are writing and what we are reading are two different things. You are not communicating clearly.

[carpedm9587]

You don't merely disagree, carpe, you use deliberately insulting terms like "sycophants" and "cultists" to describe those who support Trump, disparage your friends who do not wish to discuss politics with you (gee, I wonder why?), and then disingenuously play the "Why can't we all just get along?" card.

Part 2:

So I promised examples, and here they are, as I would conceive of them:

Counterproductive "Enemy" language:

- We need to battle the political opposition, by force of arms if necessary, to win.
- We need to take back our country from Party/Group Y
- Party/Group X is unamerican
- Party/Group X is a festering boil poisoning the blood of our country
- Party/Group X hates America
- Party/Group X is destroying our country
- Party/Group X cannot win unless they cheat
- Party/Group X are so corrupt, there probably aren't more than three honest people in the whole party
- Party/Group X is entirely comprised of hypocrites

Most of these are damaging hyperbole, largely untrue, and invite one group to completely dismiss the other - seeing them as an enemy to be destroyed.

Perfectly fine political language:

- The policies of X are leading to X negative outcomes, and need to be resisted/rejected
- The policies of X are a danger to our country and democracy. We have to work against them becoming the law of the land
- There is a large swath of Party/Group X that has gotten caught up in Movement Y, and it is unhealthy and needs to be challenged
- Leader X of Party/Group Y has Unacceptable Characteristic Z
- There is more misinformation/disinformation coming from Party X than there is from Party Y
- There is more corruption in Party X than Party Y, and it needs to be addressed.

None of these statements dismisses an entire party. None of them treats others as "enemies of the U.S.." Some of them will be hard to hear, and will feel insulted. That is not the issue. There is simply no way to tell a person or group, "I think you are caught up in a cult" without insulting them. Do we avoid saying what is seen as true because someone's feelings will be hurt? We can do it without being condescending or ridiculing, but we may not be able to do it without the other person feeling condescended to or demeaned.

I am not going to agree with you position on Mr. Trump. I examine things from a cost/benefit perspective. The cost of another four years of Mr. Trump is simply too high, and the risk to our country and institutions too extreme. And the thought of a Trump in the Oval office wielding the power granted to him by the members of his vast cult of personality is truly frightening. If Pence or Haley had won, I would have stood foursquare against most of their policies; I would not have had the concern about the cult of personality or destruction of our institutions. Desantis is a question mark to me, especially given his behavior in Florida. But Trump combines policies with which I do not agree with an immoral/amoral narcissistic personality that makes him a true danger. An enormous number of his OWN FORMER STAFF have gone on record confirming pretty much all of our worst suspicions and the worst reports leaking from that administration.

Hopefully, that is a bit clearer.

[carpedm9587]

Apparently what you think you are writing and what we are reading are two different things. You are not communicating clearly.

Perhaps. And I have adjusted multiple times. The other possibility is that you folks aren't reading carefully, possibly by beginning with preconceptions you are looking to find confirmed in what I write. This pattern has repeated itself multiple times in multiple threads.

Or perhaps the truth lies in the middle. I will continue to try to clarify as I go. I will have to leave you folks to decide how you want to approach discussions.

But I will add this: it is not my goal to make sure nobody's feelings are hurt. It is my goal to engage civilly, refrain from making personally disparaging comments or insults, and attempt to logically explore issues. Sometimes, that will mean pointing to hard realities. The "cult of personality" that has spread through so much of the Republican party and the ranks of conservatives is real, it is dangerous (given it's object), and it would be negligent of me, as a citizen, not to call it out and challenge it. All that is required for evil to succeed is for good people to remain silent, as they say.

[rogue06]

Why-is-the-rum-gone.gif

that.gif

[carpedm9587]

Except you are not treating people with respect while you trash Trump. You are insulting their intelligence and claiming they are too dumb to explain why they support Trump, and so on. That was my initial objection. You want civility but then turn directly to insulting what your opponents believe and why they believe it. You seem to only want civility towards you but not to give it out yourself.

I have said nothing of the sort. Indeed, I have noted that they do not defend their positions, not why. I have said nothing about anyone being dumb. Not once. If you think otherwise, please point me to the post.

[Roy]

All the documents President Trump took with him after leaving office were documents that were prepared while he was in office, and so, he retains his security clearance to view and access those documents.

And that's why I call you ignorant.

First, that wasn't what you said. You didn't limit your claim to documents prepared while in office. You wrote "... former presidents retain their security clearance after leaving office...". That's total bollocks.

Second, access to those documents is not automatic. It isn't simply retained after leaving the presidency. Access still has to be granted to ex-presidents. It's only the 'need-to-know' requirement that may be waived.

Third, access to a specific document or set of documents is not a "security clearance".

So my prediction was correct. I am being called 'ignorant' by some-one who's uncritically swallowing and posting total bollocks.