5 ms·

When they say "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" as if it were an undisputed fact, and without any argument at all,

When they say "Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy" as if it were an undisputed fact, and without any argument at all, it really shows how they're incapable of considering an alternative worldview. To an ideologically enslaved mind it literally cannot be denied.

eesmith 7y ago
"Undisputed" is a needlessly strong statement, don't you think? I mean, do you agree that the Earth is not flat, and not younger than 20,000 years old? Yet there are many Flat-Earthers and Young Earth Creationists who dispute those facts. So, if I said "minimum surface distances between different cities on the Earth can be approximated using spherical trigonometry", would you then complain that I was stating that like an undisputed fact, and therefore incapable of considering an alternative worldview for the shape of the Earth? In which case, I am indeed ideologically enslaved to a non-flat model of the Earth. Aren't you? And, why do you say they don't make any arguments? They wrote: > Much of this policy was first written by a roleplaying game site, not unlike Ravelry but for RPGs, named RPG.net. We thank them for their thoughtful work. For citations/references, see this post on RPG.net: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-in-support-of-trump-or-his-administration.835849/ https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-... That in turn lists these "Policy Citations" arguments: > 1. Racism and rhetorical alliance with white supremacist groups. This is a fairly thorough collection of citations in itself, not just a single tweet. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1054669092764966912?s=19 https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1054669092764966912?s=... > 2. Hostility to transgender persons. [ https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-says-transgender-policy-seeks-protect-country-n923266 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-says-transgend...] > 3. Attempting to ban transgender service members from the military [ https://www.sfchronicle.com/lgbt/article/Trump-ban-on-transgender-military-service-blocked-13086811.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/lgbt/article/Trump-ban-on-transg...] > 4. He is personally hostile to both individual reporters and the very idea of a free press. [ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/trump-enemy-of-the-people-media-threats/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/trump-enemy-of-... ] > 5. He mocks the disabled. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA ] > 6. He mocked a sexual assault victim, to applause from his supporters. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m00qAeFHaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m00qAeFHaQ ] > 7. For the record, “Globalists” is almost always code for “Jews,” particularly if it’s in concert with anything about Soros. [ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413356-trump-says-lock-em-up-after-calling-for-unity https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413356-trump-say... ] > 8. When confronted with the fact that his rhetoric may be encouraging domestic terrorism, he has indicated he should maybe encourage it more, and has implied the press has it coming. [ https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tone-down-bomb-threats-1190263 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tone-down-bomb-threats... ] > 9. He is attempting to stoke fear and violence in other arenas, as well. [ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-midterms-2018-violence-republicans-lose-evangelical-christians-antifa-a8512406.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-midt... ] > 10. It is clear from context that his embrace of “nationalism” is a dog-whistled love note to white nationalists. > 11. There are components of his immigration policy that cannot be supported by persons of good conscience. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_se... ] > 12. Further reading on this and all of the above topics are freely available from any reputable news site. [ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/i-am-trash-migrant-children-reveal-stories-detention-separation-n895006 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/i-am-trash-migrant-child... ]
- s9w 7y ago
  2. ?? There are men and women, nothing else 3. These people have an astronomic suicide risk. Not exactly fit for military 5. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5myu6x/let_me_clear_this_up_donald_trump_did_not_mock_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5myu6x/let_me_c... 7. Criticism of a Jewish person is not anti-semitism. Criticism of Soros is very rational. This is one of the most insane threads I've ever seen on HN.
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    Agreed. Unfortunately HN isn't a viable place to have reasonable political discussion.
- aantthony 7y ago
  I have no problem with stating undisputed facts. The point is the claim about Trump is portrayed as undisputed, when it clearly is disputed. So if someone said "It is undeniable that the Earth is flat and anyone who supports the idea of spherical Earth is evil" then yes I'd say that person is stuck in a mindset and unwilling to consider alternatives. Those arguments you copied are for different claims and were made by a different person.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    They are not saying it's undisputed. That's your interpretation. I claim "It is undeniable that the Earth is not flat and anyone who supports the idea of spherical Earth is ignorant of the facts." Am I stuck in a mindset and unwilling to consider alternatives? The arguments I copied were those used by the authors of the new policy to justify their claims. That they were made by a different person is not relevant. I can point to Eratosthenes to defend my anti-flat-Earth stance, without having to write out his arguments myself.
0815test 7y ago
This. The radical progressive's worldview is that our society is itself a white supremacist society - this is taken as axiomatic and a matter of definition, not as something that could be meaningfully argued about, or even be said to depend on anything concrete about the real world! Thus, by definition, any support for existing social structures (including support for President Trump!) can be rightly defined as "support for white supremacy". It's a way of thinking that's lifted straight off of, e.g. religious fundamentalism and, perhaps most significantly, the nihilist politics of the late 19th and early 20th century that ultimately led to fascism, naziism, soviet communism etc. etc.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I can support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - an existing social structure - without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I can support woman's suffrage without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? Eg, I can describe 1970s South Africa as being a white supremacist society, yes? You certainly agree that at one point US laws were based on white supremacy, right? Eg, the Illinois Constitution of 1848, quoting https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 : > The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state;and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free. That sounds pretty white-supremacy, yes? If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how?
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > ...without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I did say "can be", not "is always defined as such, in a logically-consistent way"! One point that should be quite obvious is that one can always say "that doesn't go far enough!" in a totally unfalsifiable way. (And yes, people have made such arguments, seemingly in all seriousness, even about such things as women's suffrage or civil-rights legislation!) It's a mistake to think that this sort of mindset is restricted by any kind of logic or rationality. > How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? ... If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how? Again, the point is that the radical-progressive mindset is not interested in such questions. They are simply not seen as something that's inherently legitimate as a subject of inquiry. You are naïvely assuming that the appeal to notions such as "white supremacy" is intended to be meaningful - to say something, anything about the real world - when in fact it might as well be something that's said purely "for the lulz", for the sheer amusement of making one's political opponents uncomfortable. It's less about "debate" of any sort than it is about sheer intimidation and willful confusion.
eesmith 7y ago
Since my full reply was flagged, I'll highlight its main point, which is to object to aantthony's statement "without any argument at all". The linked-to document gives a pointer to its "citations/references", which is hosted on RPG.net. I then quoted those citations. While many disagree with those arguments, that's quite different than saying they gave no arguments at all.

eesmith 7y ago

"Undisputed" is a needlessly strong statement, don't you think? I mean, do you agree that the Earth is not flat, and not younger than 20,000 years old? Yet there are many Flat-Earthers and Young Earth Creationists who dispute those facts. So, if I said "minimum surface distances between different cities on the Earth can be approximated using spherical trigonometry", would you then complain that I was stating that like an undisputed fact, and therefore incapable of considering an alternative worldview for the shape of the Earth? In which case, I am indeed ideologically enslaved to a non-flat model of the Earth. Aren't you? And, why do you say they don't make any arguments? They wrote: > Much of this policy was first written by a roleplaying game site, not unlike Ravelry but for RPGs, named RPG.net. We thank them for their thoughtful work. For citations/references, see this post on RPG.net: https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-in-support-of-trump-or-his-administration.835849/ https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/new-ban-do-not-post-... That in turn lists these "Policy Citations" arguments: > 1. Racism and rhetorical alliance with white supremacist groups. This is a fairly thorough collection of citations in itself, not just a single tweet. https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1054669092764966912?s=19 https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1054669092764966912?s=... > 2. Hostility to transgender persons. [ https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-says-transgender-policy-seeks-protect-country-n923266 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-says-transgend...] > 3. Attempting to ban transgender service members from the military [ https://www.sfchronicle.com/lgbt/article/Trump-ban-on-transgender-military-service-blocked-13086811.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/lgbt/article/Trump-ban-on-transg...] > 4. He is personally hostile to both individual reporters and the very idea of a free press. [ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/trump-enemy-of-the-people-media-threats/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/trump-enemy-of-... ] > 5. He mocks the disabled. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA ] > 6. He mocked a sexual assault victim, to applause from his supporters. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m00qAeFHaQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m00qAeFHaQ ] > 7. For the record, “Globalists” is almost always code for “Jews,” particularly if it’s in concert with anything about Soros. [ https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413356-trump-says-lock-em-up-after-calling-for-unity https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413356-trump-say... ] > 8. When confronted with the fact that his rhetoric may be encouraging domestic terrorism, he has indicated he should maybe encourage it more, and has implied the press has it coming. [ https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tone-down-bomb-threats-1190263 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tone-down-bomb-threats... ] > 9. He is attempting to stoke fear and violence in other arenas, as well. [ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-midterms-2018-violence-republicans-lose-evangelical-christians-antifa-a8512406.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-midt... ] > 10. It is clear from context that his embrace of “nationalism” is a dog-whistled love note to white nationalists. > 11. There are components of his immigration policy that cannot be supported by persons of good conscience. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_se... ] > 12. Further reading on this and all of the above topics are freely available from any reputable news site. [ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/i-am-trash-migrant-children-reveal-stories-detention-separation-n895006 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/i-am-trash-migrant-child... ]

s9w 7y ago
2. ?? There are men and women, nothing else 3. These people have an astronomic suicide risk. Not exactly fit for military 5. https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5myu6x/let_me_clear_this_up_donald_trump_did_not_mock_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5myu6x/let_me_c... 7. Criticism of a Jewish person is not anti-semitism. Criticism of Soros is very rational. This is one of the most insane threads I've ever seen on HN.
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  Agreed. Unfortunately HN isn't a viable place to have reasonable political discussion.
aantthony 7y ago
I have no problem with stating undisputed facts. The point is the claim about Trump is portrayed as undisputed, when it clearly is disputed. So if someone said "It is undeniable that the Earth is flat and anyone who supports the idea of spherical Earth is evil" then yes I'd say that person is stuck in a mindset and unwilling to consider alternatives. Those arguments you copied are for different claims and were made by a different person.
- eesmith 7y ago
  They are not saying it's undisputed. That's your interpretation. I claim "It is undeniable that the Earth is not flat and anyone who supports the idea of spherical Earth is ignorant of the facts." Am I stuck in a mindset and unwilling to consider alternatives? The arguments I copied were those used by the authors of the new policy to justify their claims. That they were made by a different person is not relevant. I can point to Eratosthenes to defend my anti-flat-Earth stance, without having to write out his arguments myself.

0815test 7y ago

This. The radical progressive's worldview is that our society is itself a white supremacist society - this is taken as axiomatic and a matter of definition, not as something that could be meaningfully argued about, or even be said to depend on anything concrete about the real world! Thus, by definition, any support for existing social structures (including support for President Trump!) can be rightly defined as "support for white supremacy". It's a way of thinking that's lifted straight off of, e.g. religious fundamentalism and, perhaps most significantly, the nihilist politics of the late 19th and early 20th century that ultimately led to fascism, naziism, soviet communism etc. etc.

eesmith 7y ago
I can support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - an existing social structure - without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I can support woman's suffrage without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? Eg, I can describe 1970s South Africa as being a white supremacist society, yes? You certainly agree that at one point US laws were based on white supremacy, right? Eg, the Illinois Constitution of 1848, quoting https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848 : > The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state;and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free. That sounds pretty white-supremacy, yes? If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how?
- 0815test 7y ago
  > ...without being rightly defined as supporting white supremacy. I did say "can be", not "is always defined as such, in a logically-consistent way"! One point that should be quite obvious is that one can always say "that doesn't go far enough!" in a totally unfalsifiable way. (And yes, people have made such arguments, seemingly in all seriousness, even about such things as women's suffrage or civil-rights legislation!) It's a mistake to think that this sort of mindset is restricted by any kind of logic or rationality. > How do you distinguish between "taken as axiomatic" and "is the case"? ... If so, when did the US stop being a white supremacist society, and how? Again, the point is that the radical-progressive mindset is not interested in such questions. They are simply not seen as something that's inherently legitimate as a subject of inquiry. You are naïvely assuming that the appeal to notions such as "white supremacy" is intended to be meaningful - to say something, anything about the real world - when in fact it might as well be something that's said purely "for the lulz", for the sheer amusement of making one's political opponents uncomfortable. It's less about "debate" of any sort than it is about sheer intimidation and willful confusion.

eesmith 7y ago

Since my full reply was flagged, I'll highlight its main point, which is to object to aantthony's statement "without any argument at all". The linked-to document gives a pointer to its "citations/references", which is hosted on RPG.net. I then quoted those citations. While many disagree with those arguments, that's quite different than saying they gave no arguments at all.