7 ms·

> The “silent majority” was used by President Richard Nixon during his presidency and his campaign against the Vietnam war. He spoke to the people who were not

by evan_ 4y ago

> The “silent majority” was used by President Richard Nixon during his presidency and his campaign against the Vietnam war. He spoke to the people who were not actively voicing their opinions and who were overshadowed by the vocal few who were supporting the war. This is a shocking misunderstanding of history. The “silent majority” Nixon spoke of were folks opposed to anti-war protests. Nixon intentionally prolonged the war for political gain- killing additional thousands of people. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vietnam-war-for-political-gainand-johnson-knew-about-it-newly-unclassified-tapes-suggest-3595441/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nixon-prolonged-vi... If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts.

bndr 4y ago
Fixed it. Thank you :) Just took the quote directly from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority#:~:text=The%20term%20was%20popularized%20by,the%20large%20demonstrations%20against%20the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority#:~:text=The%20...
- olau 4y ago
  Just to save time for other people who might be wondering how Wikipedia could get this wrong, bndr seems to have forgotten to read the last part of the admittedly long sentence in Wikipedia. It lists several vocal groups.
- spacechild1 4y ago
  I think you completely misread that article...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 4y ago
>If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts. Actually Nixon did several things "a non-evil person would do", Nixon as evil is a carricature. Like giving back Native American lands, or green-lighting the first major environmental protection legislation, or to get talking with China. And of course the Vietnam war itself was escalated by the "good" JFK, and even more so Johnson. Later presidents did things many times worse than Nixon (his Watergate business included) and got off scot-free. But Nixon had an ugly mug, and was an old-style politician, in an era when the boomers were young and "rebellious" and wanted someone more trendy.
- beebeepka 4y ago
  I've never been into history, so my perception of the guy was "formed" almost entirely by Futurama. So, in reality I don't know anything about Nixon except I do not want him to get Cambodian on my ass
  - oblak 4y ago
    > It is estimated that between 50,000 and 150,000 people were killed during the bombing of Cambodia between 1970 and 1973.[152] I guess Wikipedia is all wrong again, huh
- mcv 4y ago
  He very nearly signed a Basic Income law. I originally read that the Democrats voted against it because it was too low, but more recently read that someone convinced Nixon that a Basic Income would have terrible consequences based on some faulty historical information about the Speenhamland system, which turned Nixon against BI. But it was close; he could have made history in a much more positive way than what we currently remember him for.
  - lifeisstillgood 4y ago
    The seventies were an odd time - the generation who had come of age during WWII were in power. And WWII had the strangest historical anomoly - wealth was most evenly distributed post WWII than at any time prior. And it was working. It seemed a great idea to experiment with other ways to keep wealth fairly distributed. What a shame power and wealth found it's way back to the few. We will have to fix that. preferably without a global war
    - roenxi 4y ago
      Everyone was equal because they bombed most of the existing capital until there were only smoking craters left and set the poor to killing each other. It should be a great example of why inequality is a good thing - everyone wants to solve inequality by raising the poor up to be billionaires, but the only way we actually know how is to destroy all the capital that the billionaires own so we all have access to nothing. Someone else being well off doesn't have to make life worse for anyone. People need to live with that truth.
rl3 4y ago
>If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts. I mean, he did give us the EPA. What the ulterior motive was, I'm unsure.
- ckolkey 4y ago
  I believe it was to undercut the numerous state-level organisations that had started appearing, consolidating power with the federal govt (and executive branch, specifically)
- lordnacho 4y ago
  But you triple checked it, that's the point. Default evil.
  - tempodox 4y ago
    But Nixon said himself [1,2] that “I’m not a crook”! Who would ever doubt the word of a politician? [1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-insists-that-he-is-not-a-crook https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-insists-th... [2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/richard-nixon-im-crook-17736796 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/richard-nixon-im-crook...
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      And most politicians have never said they aren't crooks, so it checks out nicely with the facts.
Aeolun 4y ago
Huh, that’s funny. Even though the author wrote the opposite, I still read exactly what you said.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
> folks opposed to anti-war protests That's a very specific wording; were these people also pro-war, or did they just not like the protests themselves? I think that's an important distinction to make. In my country we've had farmer's protests (environmental legislation has caused the government to target some farmers, things like forced buy-outs. It's all on paper and wouldn't affect that many people or the food supply since 65% is exported anyway, but still); while a lot of people agree and stand with the farmers, what they don't agree with is the protests they've done where they block the highways, first with just slow moving tractors as they made their way to the government seat, more recently with barricades, manure and burning hay bales. That affects people directly, the upsdie-down flags and slogans on fields along the roadside don't.
- Dudeman112 4y ago
  >That affects people directly, the upsdie-down flags and slogans on fields along the roadside don't Those also don't achieve anything. The only form of protesting that the population at large accepts are either illegal or useless
- evan_ 4y ago
  That’s the thing- the war was widely unpopular, but there was a growing reactionary sentiment against the protests, so Nixon gave a speech where he basically said “if you aren’t with me on the war then you’re a dirty hippie” and people feel for it.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
> If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts. Well naturally. He's a right-wing politician. See also Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Benito Mussolini, and any of the rest.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by evan_ 4y ago

bndr 4y ago

Fixed it. Thank you :) Just took the quote directly from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority#:~:text=The%20term%20was%20popularized%20by,the%20large%20demonstrations%20against%20the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority#:~:text=The%20...

olau 4y ago
Just to save time for other people who might be wondering how Wikipedia could get this wrong, bndr seems to have forgotten to read the last part of the admittedly long sentence in Wikipedia. It lists several vocal groups.
spacechild1 4y ago
I think you completely misread that article...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 4y ago

>If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts. Actually Nixon did several things "a non-evil person would do", Nixon as evil is a carricature. Like giving back Native American lands, or green-lighting the first major environmental protection legislation, or to get talking with China. And of course the Vietnam war itself was escalated by the "good" JFK, and even more so Johnson. Later presidents did things many times worse than Nixon (his Watergate business included) and got off scot-free. But Nixon had an ugly mug, and was an old-style politician, in an era when the boomers were young and "rebellious" and wanted someone more trendy.

beebeepka 4y ago
I've never been into history, so my perception of the guy was "formed" almost entirely by Futurama. So, in reality I don't know anything about Nixon except I do not want him to get Cambodian on my ass
- oblak 4y ago
  > It is estimated that between 50,000 and 150,000 people were killed during the bombing of Cambodia between 1970 and 1973.[152] I guess Wikipedia is all wrong again, huh
mcv 4y ago
He very nearly signed a Basic Income law. I originally read that the Democrats voted against it because it was too low, but more recently read that someone convinced Nixon that a Basic Income would have terrible consequences based on some faulty historical information about the Speenhamland system, which turned Nixon against BI. But it was close; he could have made history in a much more positive way than what we currently remember him for.
- lifeisstillgood 4y ago
  The seventies were an odd time - the generation who had come of age during WWII were in power. And WWII had the strangest historical anomoly - wealth was most evenly distributed post WWII than at any time prior. And it was working. It seemed a great idea to experiment with other ways to keep wealth fairly distributed. What a shame power and wealth found it's way back to the few. We will have to fix that. preferably without a global war
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Everyone was equal because they bombed most of the existing capital until there were only smoking craters left and set the poor to killing each other. It should be a great example of why inequality is a good thing - everyone wants to solve inequality by raising the poor up to be billionaires, but the only way we actually know how is to destroy all the capital that the billionaires own so we all have access to nothing. Someone else being well off doesn't have to make life worse for anyone. People need to live with that truth.

rl3 4y ago

>If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts. I mean, he did give us the EPA. What the ulterior motive was, I'm unsure.

ckolkey 4y ago
I believe it was to undercut the numerous state-level organisations that had started appearing, consolidating power with the federal govt (and executive branch, specifically)
lordnacho 4y ago
But you triple checked it, that's the point. Default evil.
- tempodox 4y ago
  But Nixon said himself [1,2] that “I’m not a crook”! Who would ever doubt the word of a politician? [1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-insists-that-he-is-not-a-crook https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nixon-insists-th... [2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/richard-nixon-im-crook-17736796 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/richard-nixon-im-crook...
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    And most politicians have never said they aren't crooks, so it checks out nicely with the facts.

Aeolun 4y ago

Huh, that’s funny. Even though the author wrote the opposite, I still read exactly what you said.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

> folks opposed to anti-war protests That's a very specific wording; were these people also pro-war, or did they just not like the protests themselves? I think that's an important distinction to make. In my country we've had farmer's protests (environmental legislation has caused the government to target some farmers, things like forced buy-outs. It's all on paper and wouldn't affect that many people or the food supply since 65% is exported anyway, but still); while a lot of people agree and stand with the farmers, what they don't agree with is the protests they've done where they block the highways, first with just slow moving tractors as they made their way to the government seat, more recently with barricades, manure and burning hay bales. That affects people directly, the upsdie-down flags and slogans on fields along the roadside don't.

Dudeman112 4y ago
>That affects people directly, the upsdie-down flags and slogans on fields along the roadside don't Those also don't achieve anything. The only form of protesting that the population at large accepts are either illegal or useless
evan_ 4y ago
That’s the thing- the war was widely unpopular, but there was a growing reactionary sentiment against the protests, so Nixon gave a speech where he basically said “if you aren’t with me on the war then you’re a dirty hippie” and people feel for it.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

> If you ever find yourself about to say that Nixon did something that a non-evil person would do, you’d better triple check your facts. Well naturally. He's a right-wing politician. See also Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Benito Mussolini, and any of the rest.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]