5 ms·

This is the kind of familiar diatribe I am talking about, that I've heard over and over again about every Republican Party candidate: "But Bush threatens the s

This is the kind of familiar diatribe I am talking about, that I've heard over and over again about every Republican Party candidate: "But Bush threatens the survival of American democracy. Bush threatens world peace. This is not a normal politician. He channels what fascist dictators do: hate, fear, violence, a complete disconnection or disinterest in what the Truth actually is." ^ Does this ring a bell to you? It should. No need for exaggerated inflammatory language. Yes, I don't like Trump at all either, but just vote for Hillary like I am, instead of issuing an opinionated ad hominem attack. You're better than that. There's no reason to believe almost half of our fellow American population is behind a fascist dictator.

eropple 10y ago
You are correct in that the rhetoric used regarding Bush was in retrospect overheated, though it cannot be forgotten that George W. Bush is a literal-not-fictional war criminal by most reasonable readings of international law; Bush was by no means even a mediocre politician but ranks comfortably in the bottom ten of American presidents, ever. He earned every drop of rancor he got. Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system. This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Yes, there is no fallacious reasoning if one takes your well-written hyperbole literally, but given that it is just exaggeration, these arguments are still invalid attacks on character. Regardless, I'm not here to defend Trump (at risk of contradicting myself, I actually agree with everything you say about his character, even if they are "ad hominem" attacks); my position is still that someone shouldn't lose their job over supporting a mainstream political candidate; that is not Democratic, and reeks of infringing on one's First Amendment rights. If we're in North Korea, yes, you should at the very least get fired (and also sentenced to hard labor) over your political views; but this is America. The one aspect of diversity that the Valley needs to work on improving is tolerance of alternative (read: mainstream Republican Party) political views -- it has only gotten worse here over time. I can't possibly see how anyone aware of these principles at stake can somehow feel justified in undermining them.
  - eropple 10y ago
    Because they're not being undermined. No private citizen is required to associate with any other private citizen except for the provision of protected classes in the course of public service or public business (and that is not an obligation of the patron, but rather an obligation of the business; a business is required to accept the custom of a black man, a black man is not required to patronize the Klan). What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      Okay, so a public business shouldn't fire someone for having dissenting political views -- that is discrimination, and it is the same kind of discrimination as any other: racial, sexual, etc. We're not talking about Altman and Thiel's friendship here. In fact, there are laws: California The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. (^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE) So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.

eropple 10y ago

You are correct in that the rhetoric used regarding Bush was in retrospect overheated, though it cannot be forgotten that George W. Bush is a literal-not-fictional war criminal by most reasonable readings of international law; Bush was by no means even a mediocre politician but ranks comfortably in the bottom ten of American presidents, ever. He earned every drop of rancor he got. Trump is a difference of kind, not degree. He is an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite (and not in the "don't agree with Israel, AIPAC says you're an anti-Semite" fashion but the actual, "happy to imply that Jews secretly run the world" anti-Semite position). He has admitted to sexual assault on tape and tries to discredit those with claims against him by implying that the women in question are too ugly to assault. He is actively attempting to undermine trust in American elections by claiming that all of the polls are lying and that the only way he can lose is that the election is rigged. He is the venal id of the reactionary right and he is different from anything that came before. These are not things that have been done even by Republicans. They are not merely things that can be waved away with muddy gray-fallacy middle-ground thinking; that Trump's candidacy is credible in the face of the literal daily drop of another crime or another attempt to undermine the electoral system in which he is participating is an incipient threat to that system. This is not a game of Internet gotcha-fallacy where victory goes to the first person who can quote a bit of Latin they don't understand, but it's not an "ad hominem attack" in the first place. It is a moral argument to character. People aren't saying that arguments made by to Trump or Trump's supporters are invalid because they're blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes, they're saying that Trump and Trump's supporters are abjectly terrifying and blisteringly unqualified to be anywhere near the levers of power to a degree heretofore unseen because they are blisteringly incurious, profoundly ignorant, sexist, white-supremacist assholes. What they are is why the argument is made.

Hydraulix989 10y ago
Yes, there is no fallacious reasoning if one takes your well-written hyperbole literally, but given that it is just exaggeration, these arguments are still invalid attacks on character. Regardless, I'm not here to defend Trump (at risk of contradicting myself, I actually agree with everything you say about his character, even if they are "ad hominem" attacks); my position is still that someone shouldn't lose their job over supporting a mainstream political candidate; that is not Democratic, and reeks of infringing on one's First Amendment rights. If we're in North Korea, yes, you should at the very least get fired (and also sentenced to hard labor) over your political views; but this is America. The one aspect of diversity that the Valley needs to work on improving is tolerance of alternative (read: mainstream Republican Party) political views -- it has only gotten worse here over time. I can't possibly see how anyone aware of these principles at stake can somehow feel justified in undermining them.
- eropple 10y ago
  Because they're not being undermined. No private citizen is required to associate with any other private citizen except for the provision of protected classes in the course of public service or public business (and that is not an obligation of the patron, but rather an obligation of the business; a business is required to accept the custom of a black man, a black man is not required to patronize the Klan). What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    Okay, so a public business shouldn't fire someone for having dissenting political views -- that is discrimination, and it is the same kind of discrimination as any other: racial, sexual, etc. We're not talking about Altman and Thiel's friendship here. In fact, there are laws: California The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. (^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE) So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.