4 ms·

The things Donald Trump says (such as "stop Mexicans from coming into our country illegally" or "ban Muslims from immigrating to our country until we're confide

The things Donald Trump says (such as "stop Mexicans from coming into our country illegally" or "ban Muslims from immigrating to our country until we're confident in our terrorist screening process") offend a LOT of people. People who don't believe such things should be said, or even talked about. People who, when someone says these things, viciously attack them, saying they are morally wrong for thinking those things. People that band together as a group to silence those who dare utter what they deem "inappropriate" or "politically incorrect" or "shouldn't be said, it's racist!" In other words, I'd argue that Donald Trump, rather than being a fascist, is a reaction against fascists. Liberal fascists who squash the dissent against their group think with social media lynch mobbing.

ArtDev 11y ago
Its not the racism, the misogynistic comments or the xenophobia. Its the power trip. Its how he treats people directly. For example: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-protester-roughed-up-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-protester-roughe...
hnhg 11y ago
You're misusing the word fascist. You probably mean something more like 'hard-liners' or 'extremist'.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
drewrv 11y ago
This is just the Tolerance Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Except not really. There's no movement on the left to outlaw what trump is saying. Pointing out something is racist on twitter is not "squashing dissent".
- empressplay 11y ago
  Erm, people have been trying to get him tossed off Twitter [1] and banned from entering various countries [2] and apparently some of his most vocal supporters have had their Twitter accounts mysteriously locked-out [3] [1] http://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/01/30/1847207/why-does-twitter-refuse-to-shut-down-donald-trump http://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/01/30/1847207/why-does-twi... [2] http://thevine.com.au/politics/australians-want-ban-donald-trump-entering-country/ http://thevine.com.au/politics/australians-want-ban-donald-t... [3] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/twitters-attempt-to-silence-generation-trump/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/twitters-attempt-to...
  - djmdjm 11y ago
    I know the left is famous for its disorganisation but a single person quoted on Slashdot and some disgruntled Australians hardly demonstrates a movement to silence Trump.
  - drjesusphd 11y ago
    That's just the free market at work!
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    How on earth is Breitbart anything approaching a reliable source.
joesmo 11y ago
TIL: Racism trumps fascism (pun well fucking intended).
drjesusphd 11y ago
People have just as much of a right to call Trump a racist and fascist as he does to say the things he does. No matter how much it might hurt someone's feelings. You use a lot of strong language to describe what is only (free) speech: "viciously attack", "silence those who dare utter", "squash dissent", "lynch mobbing".
- wbillingsley 11y ago
  The difference is that journalism comes with responsibilities, that are largely getting ignored. This article was supposedly exempted from political penalties because it's "so interesting". But if you look at it, it starts with the assertion "Trump’s campaign has stirred bigoted feelings in the electorate and played to voters’ worst fears and prejudices" has the first interview response say "he’s totally foreign to any of the skills that are wanted in a president of the United States" and then hopes you'll consider the rest of the article middle-of-the-road political analysis. Well, maybe if you're inclined to the "anyone who supports the candidate I don't like must be evil or stupid" line of thinking, you'll go for that notion. And you'll keep being befuddled by how more and more of the population seems to have gone mad... Now, here's where I'll stick in the caveat: I'm not American, I don't really care who America elects (it's not up to me), but the problems with journalism in your country are the same elsewhere. It is not politics that is broken; it is journalism, and the public knows it. People do not blame politicians for the 15-second sound bite or for spin, they blame the journalists because they know dang well that the politicians do soundbites because if they did long reasoned speeches the journalists would just cherry-pick whatever bits they liked to paint whatever narrative they liked. In the last few years, journalism has gone over the tipping point -- journalists are all over Twitter as the voice of the public, and Twitter re-tweets the journalists. It all becomes very circular, and quickly spirals away from any reality -- media and social media both get targeted by activism campaigns. Twitterstorms have too often become media headlines in themselves, and it has killed media credibility. Today the narratives all reek of being inventions. "Trump is a clown", "Trump is bigoted", "Is Trump a fascist" and yet his numbers keep going up -- it's nothing about anger or a more prejudiced population (nobody's replaced the US population between 2012 and 2016...) It pushes votes to Trump because media narratives are now actively unbelieved. Sanders and Trump sound extreme? The electorate doesn't care (why should they -- the "establishment" in congress and the courts will stop all the extreme ideas anyway). But it's a marker that they're not saying just what you're allowed to say. Jeb's biggest gaffe was when he commented "you can't say that" about Trump. Do you reckon the US public wants to elect a president who would shirk from expressing their opinion for fear of a Twitterstorm? Sanders is perhaps a genuine socialist campaigner. Trump is essentially a smart operator who was the first to realise that this year you can essentially ride "F you, Twitter" all the way to the bank.

ArtDev 11y ago

Its not the racism, the misogynistic comments or the xenophobia. Its the power trip. Its how he treats people directly. For example: http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-protester-roughed-up-2015-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-protester-roughe...

hnhg 11y ago

You're misusing the word fascist. You probably mean something more like 'hard-liners' or 'extremist'.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

drewrv 11y ago

This is just the Tolerance Paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Except not really. There's no movement on the left to outlaw what trump is saying. Pointing out something is racist on twitter is not "squashing dissent".

empressplay 11y ago
Erm, people have been trying to get him tossed off Twitter [1] and banned from entering various countries [2] and apparently some of his most vocal supporters have had their Twitter accounts mysteriously locked-out [3] [1] http://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/01/30/1847207/why-does-twitter-refuse-to-shut-down-donald-trump http://tech.slashdot.org/story/16/01/30/1847207/why-does-twi... [2] http://thevine.com.au/politics/australians-want-ban-donald-trump-entering-country/ http://thevine.com.au/politics/australians-want-ban-donald-t... [3] http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/twitters-attempt-to-silence-generation-trump/ http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/08/twitters-attempt-to...
- djmdjm 11y ago
  I know the left is famous for its disorganisation but a single person quoted on Slashdot and some disgruntled Australians hardly demonstrates a movement to silence Trump.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  That's just the free market at work!
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  How on earth is Breitbart anything approaching a reliable source.

joesmo 11y ago

TIL: Racism trumps fascism (pun well fucking intended).

drjesusphd 11y ago

People have just as much of a right to call Trump a racist and fascist as he does to say the things he does. No matter how much it might hurt someone's feelings. You use a lot of strong language to describe what is only (free) speech: "viciously attack", "silence those who dare utter", "squash dissent", "lynch mobbing".

wbillingsley 11y ago
The difference is that journalism comes with responsibilities, that are largely getting ignored. This article was supposedly exempted from political penalties because it's "so interesting". But if you look at it, it starts with the assertion "Trump’s campaign has stirred bigoted feelings in the electorate and played to voters’ worst fears and prejudices" has the first interview response say "he’s totally foreign to any of the skills that are wanted in a president of the United States" and then hopes you'll consider the rest of the article middle-of-the-road political analysis. Well, maybe if you're inclined to the "anyone who supports the candidate I don't like must be evil or stupid" line of thinking, you'll go for that notion. And you'll keep being befuddled by how more and more of the population seems to have gone mad... Now, here's where I'll stick in the caveat: I'm not American, I don't really care who America elects (it's not up to me), but the problems with journalism in your country are the same elsewhere. It is not politics that is broken; it is journalism, and the public knows it. People do not blame politicians for the 15-second sound bite or for spin, they blame the journalists because they know dang well that the politicians do soundbites because if they did long reasoned speeches the journalists would just cherry-pick whatever bits they liked to paint whatever narrative they liked. In the last few years, journalism has gone over the tipping point -- journalists are all over Twitter as the voice of the public, and Twitter re-tweets the journalists. It all becomes very circular, and quickly spirals away from any reality -- media and social media both get targeted by activism campaigns. Twitterstorms have too often become media headlines in themselves, and it has killed media credibility. Today the narratives all reek of being inventions. "Trump is a clown", "Trump is bigoted", "Is Trump a fascist" and yet his numbers keep going up -- it's nothing about anger or a more prejudiced population (nobody's replaced the US population between 2012 and 2016...) It pushes votes to Trump because media narratives are now actively unbelieved. Sanders and Trump sound extreme? The electorate doesn't care (why should they -- the "establishment" in congress and the courts will stop all the extreme ideas anyway). But it's a marker that they're not saying just what you're allowed to say. Jeb's biggest gaffe was when he commented "you can't say that" about Trump. Do you reckon the US public wants to elect a president who would shirk from expressing their opinion for fear of a Twitterstorm? Sanders is perhaps a genuine socialist campaigner. Trump is essentially a smart operator who was the first to realise that this year you can essentially ride "F you, Twitter" all the way to the bank.