3 ms·

supporting trump is only less rational if one values democracy. I know that you are never ever supposed to compare someone with nazis, and if you do, you autom

supporting trump is only less rational if one values democracy. I know that you are never ever supposed to compare someone with nazis, and if you do, you automatically lose. But isn't there a point where someone can act like a nazi to the degree that it becomes dishonest to not call them a nazi? When trump repeatedly lies about the election being stolen, is it really that far-fetched to make that comparison? I can fully understand that you dislike that people on the internet compare trump supporters to isis supporters, but using that to make the both sides are the same argument is really farfetched. America has some serious problems, and it's democracy is really flawed, but it is still a democracy. If you want to mend the country you can't have half the country living in an alternate reality. Truth isn't something you can compromize away just to avoid being "partisan". Since you used the words watch and viewers in relation to news, I can recomend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death

aww_dang 6y ago
Even Godwin allowed for that exception to his rule. The problem I see is when you drill down to the source on these comparisons, there's no there there. Like anything else in the media, the facts are highly distorted to fit partisan ends. Transcripts of his statements contrast starkly with widespread misconceptions about what was said. When I've challenged partisans on these discrepancies they'll claim, "Yes, but we know what he _really_ meant" From that point, you can't argue using evidence. Widespread delusions are more powerful... 'Truth' or at least the will to perceive and the perception of it has become highly partisan. In regards to censorious intolerance, both sides are not the same. We are supposed to value democracy, (tyranny of the masses?) yet we can't trust individuals to consume or digest information without hand-holding from partisan fact checkers. If we are concerned about democracy, this should be problematic. These are themes of technocracy, not democracy. It isn't important to me to establish equivalence. That's not what I am working towards here. I'm attempting illustrate what I see as mass hysteria, widely held delusions. The Hitler comparisons, a common form of hyperbole are part of that.

aww_dang 6y ago

Even Godwin allowed for that exception to his rule. The problem I see is when you drill down to the source on these comparisons, there's no there there. Like anything else in the media, the facts are highly distorted to fit partisan ends. Transcripts of his statements contrast starkly with widespread misconceptions about what was said. When I've challenged partisans on these discrepancies they'll claim, "Yes, but we know what he _really_ meant" From that point, you can't argue using evidence. Widespread delusions are more powerful... 'Truth' or at least the will to perceive and the perception of it has become highly partisan. In regards to censorious intolerance, both sides are not the same. We are supposed to value democracy, (tyranny of the masses?) yet we can't trust individuals to consume or digest information without hand-holding from partisan fact checkers. If we are concerned about democracy, this should be problematic. These are themes of technocracy, not democracy. It isn't important to me to establish equivalence. That's not what I am working towards here. I'm attempting illustrate what I see as mass hysteria, widely held delusions. The Hitler comparisons, a common form of hyperbole are part of that.