3 ms·

Furthermore, when people are shocked and go "what did he just say?! whatever will he say next??", that doesn't make his supporters defensive, it makes them prou

Furthermore, when people are shocked and go "what did he just say?! whatever will he say next??", that doesn't make his supporters defensive, it makes them proud. That is, proud of Trump pissing off the people they are sick of being ignored by. I don't mean to paint all Trump supporters with one brush, but I remember when he said stuff like how he could shoot someone in broad daylight and his supporters wouldn't mind... I was instantly reminded of things Hannah Arendt had written about the Nazis. I'm sorry to "Godwin it" like this, but it's important IMO: > To them, violence, power, cruelty, were the supreme capacities of men who had definitely lost their place in the universe and were much too proud to long for a power theory that would safely bring them back and reintegrate them into the world. They were satisfied with blind partisanship in anything that respectable society had banned, regardless of theory or content, and they elevated cruelty to a major virtue because it contradicted society’s humanitarian and liberal hypocrisy. -- Hannah Arendt Ignore the cruelty and all that -- but having lost ones place in the universe? Check, I'd even say that applies to all of us in a way, and for some people it's very painful, unfair and demeaning. I think they're in parts correct to feel betrayed and angry; because it's not all "just the inevitable result of progress", or "how the world changed" -- without hustlers causing pain for personal gain we'd probably have even more progress, with nobody just outright left in the ditch. The trouble is when that turns into blind partisanship with something that makes "respectable" society turns its nose up, but doesn't actually solve those problems, even makes them worse. And then society has literally no response for 2 years and counting than to turn its nose up some more, while sweeping under the rug how insane it was to let Clinton instead of Sanders run against Trump, without skipping a beat. Because hey, at least it's not being or supporting Trump, right? So while I don't know what will come after Trump, I know that if this continues, whatever comes next will be worse, simply because what is going on is more of what "caused Trump" if you will.

krapp 8y ago
In terms of policy, and beliefs, Trump wasn't that far outside the Republican mainstream -- because of course his views are informed by the mainstream. He certainly wasn't the most capable or qualified among the Republican field to actually address anyone's grievances. He wasn't even the most extremist in his ideology. The only things he had going for him were his personal wealth and entertainment value. So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? Trump supporters can't have their cake and eat it too. They could have had a President who was strong on immigration and protectionism but who wasn't also a raving narcissistic blowhard. If you're going to argue that Trump supporters are correct to feel betrayed and angry, fair enough -- but the response of "society" to Trump and his supporters and their exclusionary response to that anger is not entirely unjustified, either. It simply isn't true that "society" is composed of feckless elites incapable of self-awareness on one side (inevitably the side with all of the liberals, feminists, most immigrants, "city dwellers" and Democrats in it), and Trump supporters with their righteous indignation on the other. It isn't true that there has been literally no response to Trump other than "society turning up its nose even more", and it isn't true that the situation with Bernie has been swept under any rug, "without skipping a beat." Unfortunately, it seems that your comment, while rightly denouncing blind partisanship, also falls prey to populist propaganda that encourages a blindly partisan view of society and its issues.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? Well, it's not just their issues, and of course the response would be to address those issues. Also, like it or not, they also are part of society, misguided or evil or racist or not. So what does "not owing a response" mean, then? > If you're going to argue that Trump supporters are correct to feel betrayed and angry, fair enough -- but the response of "society" to Trump and his supporters and their exclusionary response to that anger is not entirely unjustified, either. There is a difference between having an opinion on and talking about the bad things someone else does while doing good things and/or preventing them from doing those bad things, and just talking and making memes. Rolling one's eyes may be "justified", but that's like saying the people who didn't support Trump don't have to be productive because the Trump supporters started it. > It simply isn't true that "society" is composed of feckless elites incapable of self-awareness on one side (inevitably the side with all of the liberals, feminists, most immigrants, "city dwellers" and Democrats in it), and Trump supporters with their righteous indignation on the other. Where did I state it like that? You acknowledge that it could be argued that some people are justified betrayed and angry, now you knock down this straw man, while saying I have fallen "prey" to populist propaganda. So where does the correct feeling of having been betrayed fit in? I guess that just falls between the cracks, once again. Who wants to talk about that when you can scold me for a claim I never made, right? If anything, I'd say there's righteous indignation about racism and sexism on one side, righteous indignation about let's call it oligarchic concerns on both sides, a total lack of self-awareness on both sides. But then you don't get to call me prey of blind partisan views so that doesn't work. But one thing is sure, it wasn't Trump who fucked over Occupy. Republicans sure fought it, but I find it impossible to just pin it on them. Occupy was very easy to get itself to fuck itself over, and it's really high time to talk about why that is. We wouldn't even be talking about Bernie Sanders or Trump if Occupy had gone anywhere good, you know? > It isn't true that there has been literally no response to Trump other than "society turning up its nose even more" Can you give examples? And why did you start your comment with basically explaining how society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, then? > it isn't true that the situation with Bernie has been swept under any rug, "without skipping a beat." The media and people in forums did not skip a beat at least from what I saw, for the most part it was just Trump with a bit of Hillary, no more Sanders after the election. If you disagree, I'd need examples of a beat being skipped and that actually getting any attention. (To not even speak of the claim that it has not been swept under ANY rug) > Take, say, the Bernie Sanders campaign. Which I think is important, impressive, he is doing good and courageous things, he is organizing a lot of people. That campaign ought to be directed to sustaining a popular movement which will use the election as kind of an incentive, but then go on. And unfortunately it's not. When the election's over, the movement's gonna die. And that's a serious error. > The only thing that's gonna ever bring about any meaningful change is ongoing, dedicated popular movements which don't pay attention to the election cycle. It's an extravaganza every four years; you have to be involved in it, so fine, we'll be involved in it. But then we go on. If that were done you could get major changes. -- Noam Chomsky But instead it's circus. What "populist propaganda" did I fall prey to? Populist propanda by whom? Hannah Arendt? Noam Chomsky? Trump? What is the informational content of it, other than your own straw man about completely ignorant elites (which includes immigrants and women etc. apropos nothing of anything I was talking about, just to set the emotional stage some) on one side and righteous indignation on the other?

krapp 8y ago

In terms of policy, and beliefs, Trump wasn't that far outside the Republican mainstream -- because of course his views are informed by the mainstream. He certainly wasn't the most capable or qualified among the Republican field to actually address anyone's grievances. He wasn't even the most extremist in his ideology. The only things he had going for him were his personal wealth and entertainment value. So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? Trump supporters can't have their cake and eat it too. They could have had a President who was strong on immigration and protectionism but who wasn't also a raving narcissistic blowhard. If you're going to argue that Trump supporters are correct to feel betrayed and angry, fair enough -- but the response of "society" to Trump and his supporters and their exclusionary response to that anger is not entirely unjustified, either. It simply isn't true that "society" is composed of feckless elites incapable of self-awareness on one side (inevitably the side with all of the liberals, feminists, most immigrants, "city dwellers" and Democrats in it), and Trump supporters with their righteous indignation on the other. It isn't true that there has been literally no response to Trump other than "society turning up its nose even more", and it isn't true that the situation with Bernie has been swept under any rug, "without skipping a beat." Unfortunately, it seems that your comment, while rightly denouncing blind partisanship, also falls prey to populist propaganda that encourages a blindly partisan view of society and its issues.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> So what "response" does society owe a group of people who seem to care more about having a voice for the contempt they feel towards modernity than actually having their issues addressed? Well, it's not just their issues, and of course the response would be to address those issues. Also, like it or not, they also are part of society, misguided or evil or racist or not. So what does "not owing a response" mean, then? > If you're going to argue that Trump supporters are correct to feel betrayed and angry, fair enough -- but the response of "society" to Trump and his supporters and their exclusionary response to that anger is not entirely unjustified, either. There is a difference between having an opinion on and talking about the bad things someone else does while doing good things and/or preventing them from doing those bad things, and just talking and making memes. Rolling one's eyes may be "justified", but that's like saying the people who didn't support Trump don't have to be productive because the Trump supporters started it. > It simply isn't true that "society" is composed of feckless elites incapable of self-awareness on one side (inevitably the side with all of the liberals, feminists, most immigrants, "city dwellers" and Democrats in it), and Trump supporters with their righteous indignation on the other. Where did I state it like that? You acknowledge that it could be argued that some people are justified betrayed and angry, now you knock down this straw man, while saying I have fallen "prey" to populist propaganda. So where does the correct feeling of having been betrayed fit in? I guess that just falls between the cracks, once again. Who wants to talk about that when you can scold me for a claim I never made, right? If anything, I'd say there's righteous indignation about racism and sexism on one side, righteous indignation about let's call it oligarchic concerns on both sides, a total lack of self-awareness on both sides. But then you don't get to call me prey of blind partisan views so that doesn't work. But one thing is sure, it wasn't Trump who fucked over Occupy. Republicans sure fought it, but I find it impossible to just pin it on them. Occupy was very easy to get itself to fuck itself over, and it's really high time to talk about why that is. We wouldn't even be talking about Bernie Sanders or Trump if Occupy had gone anywhere good, you know? > It isn't true that there has been literally no response to Trump other than "society turning up its nose even more" Can you give examples? And why did you start your comment with basically explaining how society owes them no response other than an exclusionary one, then? > it isn't true that the situation with Bernie has been swept under any rug, "without skipping a beat." The media and people in forums did not skip a beat at least from what I saw, for the most part it was just Trump with a bit of Hillary, no more Sanders after the election. If you disagree, I'd need examples of a beat being skipped and that actually getting any attention. (To not even speak of the claim that it has not been swept under ANY rug) > Take, say, the Bernie Sanders campaign. Which I think is important, impressive, he is doing good and courageous things, he is organizing a lot of people. That campaign ought to be directed to sustaining a popular movement which will use the election as kind of an incentive, but then go on. And unfortunately it's not. When the election's over, the movement's gonna die. And that's a serious error. > The only thing that's gonna ever bring about any meaningful change is ongoing, dedicated popular movements which don't pay attention to the election cycle. It's an extravaganza every four years; you have to be involved in it, so fine, we'll be involved in it. But then we go on. If that were done you could get major changes. -- Noam Chomsky But instead it's circus. What "populist propaganda" did I fall prey to? Populist propanda by whom? Hannah Arendt? Noam Chomsky? Trump? What is the informational content of it, other than your own straw man about completely ignorant elites (which includes immigrants and women etc. apropos nothing of anything I was talking about, just to set the emotional stage some) on one side and righteous indignation on the other?