3 ms·

Alright, I'm reading it. It's a sad type of "hit piece" of turning something against Trump. But I think, separating out the anti-Trump craziness there may be so

Alright, I'm reading it. It's a sad type of "hit piece" of turning something against Trump. But I think, separating out the anti-Trump craziness there may be something good there. I shall read on! :P ;) xx ;p (edits from now on, too many comments) edits: 1. Alright it seems like a pathetic "anti-authoritarian" hit piece, where you can get (the two threats of) Trump and China with one stone. As in: Democracy is at risk; yes, but it's not what you think; it's authoritarianism; Trump was authoritarian; hey, look over there, so is China. So far the article is BS, but I'm hoping there is some insight. 2. “Democracies can’t depend on one of two major parties never holding power,” argues Brendan Nyhan, a government professor at Dartmouth College and a co-founder of Bright Line Watch, a group that monitors the erosion of American democracy. But that may be the necessary treatment for now, because Republican leaders “are defining a vision of a Trumpist GOP that could prove more durable than the man himself.” Alright, this is some hope. We need more than just lip service to a two-party state. With each pretending the other is the antiChrist. That's the system, manipulating the people, to keep the "system" in power, the diametrically opposed parties are simply tools of the prolongation of that power. An illusion of choice. But sadly, so far that's as close as the article gets to what I see as truth, but I don't think they even meant it that way. 3. Wow, so got to the end of the article, and it's utter BS. Apparently the Republican Party and Trump represent the "cancer of authoritarianism". Which is just BS democrat posturing. I mean, how ridiculous, in the name of democracy, calling the only other legitimate party choice, the antichrist...while pretending you are upholding democracy by demonizing the only other choice people have? Insanity. Oh well. Most people are so triggered by these discussions as to make clear thought impossible. I hoped this article would contain some useful critique of Western liberal democracies failings, yet is was just a "status quo" hit piece dressed up in sophisticated garb. So sad. Don't drink it or you'll choke on that disgusting swap-water koolaid. blargh.

japhib 4y ago
I mean … if you look at Jan. 6 and don’t think a successful version of it could happen in the future, you’re part of the problem. One of the two parties in America is actively pursuing a war on women’s rights, a war on LGBTQ rights, and a war on voting rights. And it’s not the Democrats. Look, I don’t think the Democrats are perfect, or even that good. But if you don’t think the Trump-fanatic core of the Republican Party is authoritarian, and heading towards fascism, you’re lying to yourself. Sure, the article is probably a bit overdramatic. Butthat doesn’t mean America doesn’t have a problem.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I absolutely do not endorse the Trump Republicans' crazytown. But if you can't see that there's a lot of authoritarianism on the left as well, you are part of the problem. At the moment, there's much more of a threat from the right - an authoritarianism that's a much bigger part of the party's officeholders, voters, and party apparatus. At the moment. So don't sleep on the Democrats' potential for authoritarianism. It's there, even if latent. Worse, it may become more active, because "We have to fight off Trump! He's a threat to the existence of our democracy!" So they feel they have license to do anything necessary to win... (But the voters may not see it that way, or more precisely may not feel it that way. You vote twice every four years, but you go out of your house most days. Restrictions on what you can do, who you can meet with, and whether you have to mask felt more intrusive to many people than restrictions on voting rights. Or so I suspect.)
  - throwaway5959 4y ago
    I live in LA. Aside from certain areas of hospitals I can go anywhere without a mask on, even small, close quarter museums. Restrictions on what I can do? Please, the right is putting way more restrictions on what my wife and I can do than the left. I can’t think of anything more anti democratic than restricting the right to vote (especially when the same party works to make it easier to vote for the right “kind” of voter).
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Sure... today. People remember 2019, though. And they remember who was pushing the mask mandates.
      - kgwxd 4y ago
        And then they got the message loud and clear that most people didn't agree with them and then changed their behavior, like a functioning democratic government should. Republicans double down on everything unpopular and oust anyone in the party that even tries to bring it back to a reasonable state, like a function authoritarian government should.
endemic 4y ago
I mean, both liberals and conservatives have some viewpoints that I don't agree with, and that's OK. Where I draw the line is the whole "I didn't lose, it's fraud!" thing that is gaining popularity. Everyone has to agree on the rules of the game, otherwise you're not going to be asked to play.
- graderjs 4y ago
  This is the same type of language the same type of tactic but more pernicious cuz it's more sophisticated it's like: "look I'm a reasonable person, okay yeah you know everyone's got different viewpoints some of my friends are liberals some of my friends are conservative see me I've got credibility I don't prejudice but hey now listen to me here"... once I build up The credibility, then land the message, "the real thing you should care about" is boom, and now you're going to mislabel a mischaracterize some situation and say look that's the real issue. Sure if that's actually the case I mean if that's the situation "oh okay I didn't lose its fraud." If that's what it actually is then sure why should why should that be popular? But how do you know that's the case how are you sure? Like it's a great stick to beat Trump with right? it's like "Trump lost, the results say so and look I mean come on now we can see he's a crazy nut job and everyone is supported him is too" hey that makes me on the other side feel like I'm so f*** right. Oh and I'm sad for my country to give me credibility as well. But it's like how do you know that's the case how do you know it's fraud? Because if it is fraud then who you going to trust to do the investigation and publicize it? Because if you can pull a fraud on that scale then who you going to trust to reveal that? And anyway I don't see the danger in having that discussion it seems like you know a democracy should constantly interrogate the integrity of its own procedures so these kind of questions like "is everything ship shape" I think that's normal. And there's actually nothing wrong with that the problem is, like I was saying in another comment, is like so you take something reasonable: well we want to make sure the elections are actually fair make sure there's no problems there and then so we take that reasonable thing and then we totally mislabel it and misrepresent it because we editorialize one other tiny part that coincided: and that's f*** dangerous. So now the question of integrity of elections is basically become taboo because the media did such a good job of spinning the January 6th protests as completely represented and reduced to the acts of some vandals and the spectacle of the occupying of the Capitol building. I mean what if there was a problem with election integrity? what if there was a f*** racket and what if Trump et Al, and some republicans were legitimately trying to bring that to light and reform that right I mean... what if that's the case? Then the people running that racket, if it exists, have just played the whole thing so well I mean they had this great opportunity in the occupation of the capital where they could just completely spin the entire question of election integrity as, "oh my God you have to be like a anti-government anarchist like qAnon shaman crazy conspiracy theorist to even consider this." I mean if you really are running a racket on the elections and you don't want people to find out that's the perfect play for you to just a paint any dissent to what you want people to believe as f*** crazy. So what I think is sad is how homogeneous the discourse has become and how afraid of different viewpoints to the extent that you know these types of mislabeling and demonization is now completely commonplace that people are using them on each other like regular folk are using it in casual conversation to be like oh so you know you support this idea well you must be this other thing which is a false equivalence and it's basically this sort of great stabilizing factor for the status quo that we never have to consider any dissenting viewpoints to that because we've already labeled all those possible paths as f*** crazy. I feel sad that people don't actually see this as a scary situation.
kgwxd 4y ago
You're the one who posted the article.
- graderjs 4y ago
  I did. But it didn't mean I'm endorsing it. I basically try to post things that are interesting and I think it's somehow good for people to read. But actually I didn't read this first I just thought it would be interesting. But it turns out it wasn't that interesting but the discussion is reasonably interesting.. so that's okay.
  - japhib 4y ago
    I recommend reading articles before you publicize them
    - graderjs 4y ago
      Tch. I don't think that's necessary. That wasn't what I reached to do. That would be a mistake here. I know this was a good article to have a discussion and I was right. I think it's in some sense if not more interesting I certainly an interesting take to pick up an article that oh okay I think I'm going to agree with this but actually it turns out it's written from a completely other point of view and then rather than just going oh yeah I totally agree with this I can share exactly why I think it's a crazy article.
bitwize 4y ago
No. Abolish the Republican Party. After Jan. 6, you can get it declared a terrorist organization, freeze its assets, whatever. That won't turn a two-party system into a one-party system. We'll just have it so that the Democrats become the new right-wing party and someone else -- the Greens, say -- take up the left wing. That will bring the USA's Overton window in line with the rest of the developed world.
- incomingpain 4y ago
  >No. Abolish the Republican Party. After Jan. 6, you can get it declared a terrorist organization, freeze its assets, whatever. So after you seize the party, what happens when the people who make up the republican party form their new party representing exactly the same thing? Obviously, more needs to be done? >That won't turn a two-party system into a one-party system. We'll just have it so that the Democrats become the new right-wing party and someone else -- the Greens, say -- take up the left wing. That will bring the USA's Overton window in line with the rest of the developed world. So right wing parties wont be allowed to exist?
  - bitwize 4y ago
    > So right wing parties wont be allowed to exist? Fascist and fascist-adjacent political parties are not allowed to exist in Germany, and Germany is doing just fine (relatively speaking). I wonder how Germany would have fared without its laws against "unconstitutional organizations". I wonder if West Germany would have renazified after WWII.
    - graderjs 4y ago
      Honestly I don't think we should be taking political advice from the country that brought us two world wars in the Nazi party and Adolf hitler. What "works" over there may not apply anywhere else, to put it mildly... I mean you're going to ban the Republican party for questioning the integrity of elections? I mean who looks like the guilty one here and who's trying to cover up their dirty laundry like it's the media discuss about politics in the United States it's just going to f*** nuts. And it's been like that since like 2016 it's f*** crazy I don't know how anyone can expect to think clearly about anything politically in such a contested and you know emotional media climate. And maybe that's the point everyone's just supposed to get distracted by the spectacle of it constantly in a state of triggerness and they're not actually supposed to think clearly... It's fucking sad man. I mean it always just revolves around the same ideological points right? and nobody gets anywhere. This stupid polarity between left and right or whatever it's like a distraction it's like "let's focus on who's now saying the people on the other side are the worst possible thing ever and let's focus on that and let's convince myself it's really important to join that party or to you know join the defense of them" while all of the probably actually substantial stuff outside of like two parties trading insults with each other and dragging all their supporters in to feel something about those insults, like all those substantial issues outside of that crap... I mean who's focusing on them. That's where the mind of the people should be directed if you want them to be sort of effective participants in a democracy right? It's so sad like I mean there's this thing about abusive relationships right where the abusive partner in relationship will constantly try to keep the other party in a triggered state to press their buttons because that gives that abuser control over the other person. What if that's what the media is doing to the American population? you know it's like I just think it's so f*** sad to see this abusive relationship between the media and the people. it's a f*** nightmare and in that situation where the people can't think clearly the politicians inevitably end up with too much power.
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> Alright it seems like a pathetic "anti-authoritarian" hit piece Trying to understand where you're coming from here... are you pro-authoritarian?
- graderjs 4y ago
  Hahaha, that's great that's great. Again you're doing the same thing. Your language encodes that the only possible like dissent to the line is to be something that you want to say is an abomination....so it's basically like a language that encodes an intolerance of other points of you. "Hmm, I'm confused, are you 'pro' something terrible?" Because there's no other way to view what I said there's no other need in an ideological zealotry discourse age there's no need to assess anything apart from someone's ideological purity polarity. 'I don't really understand what you're saying because I can't process anything outside of like a narrow binary are you Pro this terrible thing?" Because clearly there's nothing to add there's no possible criticism of the accepted line so there's no value in anything that dissents from it so the only thing you need to worry about is are they heretic? The reasonable sounding almost bureaucratic language that encodes no tolerance for any points of view that question some viewpoint, is basically messaging that says t"here's no value outside of what we're saying, if you don't agree with us, if you question anything we say then you have to be the enemy." It's a great way to create a monoculture of thought we just label any dissent at all as the worst possible thing you can imagine. Because then you don't have to listen to it oh that's dissenting let's just label it the worst possible thing ever then we don't have to consider it at all. So we can preserve and confirm our existing bias and idea. I'm not taking a shot at you ...these kind of phrases or this kind of language is a trope that I think is sad how people have sort of unwittingly picked up on it: because on the face of it it's a powerful thing to say because you say it it's a simple thing to say and you basically are encoding the viewpoint that you're absolutely right and any dissent to that is absolutely wrong so it's a very satisfying and compelling and powerful thing to say but it's just it's very dangerous. so I'm not having a shot at you it's just this kind of language is a trope and I think it's sad how this type of discourse has spread to so many people.
  - kgwxd 4y ago

japhib 4y ago

I mean … if you look at Jan. 6 and don’t think a successful version of it could happen in the future, you’re part of the problem. One of the two parties in America is actively pursuing a war on women’s rights, a war on LGBTQ rights, and a war on voting rights. And it’s not the Democrats. Look, I don’t think the Democrats are perfect, or even that good. But if you don’t think the Trump-fanatic core of the Republican Party is authoritarian, and heading towards fascism, you’re lying to yourself. Sure, the article is probably a bit overdramatic. Butthat doesn’t mean America doesn’t have a problem.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I absolutely do not endorse the Trump Republicans' crazytown. But if you can't see that there's a lot of authoritarianism on the left as well, you are part of the problem. At the moment, there's much more of a threat from the right - an authoritarianism that's a much bigger part of the party's officeholders, voters, and party apparatus. At the moment. So don't sleep on the Democrats' potential for authoritarianism. It's there, even if latent. Worse, it may become more active, because "We have to fight off Trump! He's a threat to the existence of our democracy!" So they feel they have license to do anything necessary to win... (But the voters may not see it that way, or more precisely may not feel it that way. You vote twice every four years, but you go out of your house most days. Restrictions on what you can do, who you can meet with, and whether you have to mask felt more intrusive to many people than restrictions on voting rights. Or so I suspect.)
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  I live in LA. Aside from certain areas of hospitals I can go anywhere without a mask on, even small, close quarter museums. Restrictions on what I can do? Please, the right is putting way more restrictions on what my wife and I can do than the left. I can’t think of anything more anti democratic than restricting the right to vote (especially when the same party works to make it easier to vote for the right “kind” of voter).
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Sure... today. People remember 2019, though. And they remember who was pushing the mask mandates.
    - kgwxd 4y ago
      And then they got the message loud and clear that most people didn't agree with them and then changed their behavior, like a functioning democratic government should. Republicans double down on everything unpopular and oust anyone in the party that even tries to bring it back to a reasonable state, like a function authoritarian government should.

endemic 4y ago

I mean, both liberals and conservatives have some viewpoints that I don't agree with, and that's OK. Where I draw the line is the whole "I didn't lose, it's fraud!" thing that is gaining popularity. Everyone has to agree on the rules of the game, otherwise you're not going to be asked to play.

graderjs 4y ago
This is the same type of language the same type of tactic but more pernicious cuz it's more sophisticated it's like: "look I'm a reasonable person, okay yeah you know everyone's got different viewpoints some of my friends are liberals some of my friends are conservative see me I've got credibility I don't prejudice but hey now listen to me here"... once I build up The credibility, then land the message, "the real thing you should care about" is boom, and now you're going to mislabel a mischaracterize some situation and say look that's the real issue. Sure if that's actually the case I mean if that's the situation "oh okay I didn't lose its fraud." If that's what it actually is then sure why should why should that be popular? But how do you know that's the case how are you sure? Like it's a great stick to beat Trump with right? it's like "Trump lost, the results say so and look I mean come on now we can see he's a crazy nut job and everyone is supported him is too" hey that makes me on the other side feel like I'm so f*** right. Oh and I'm sad for my country to give me credibility as well. But it's like how do you know that's the case how do you know it's fraud? Because if it is fraud then who you going to trust to do the investigation and publicize it? Because if you can pull a fraud on that scale then who you going to trust to reveal that? And anyway I don't see the danger in having that discussion it seems like you know a democracy should constantly interrogate the integrity of its own procedures so these kind of questions like "is everything ship shape" I think that's normal. And there's actually nothing wrong with that the problem is, like I was saying in another comment, is like so you take something reasonable: well we want to make sure the elections are actually fair make sure there's no problems there and then so we take that reasonable thing and then we totally mislabel it and misrepresent it because we editorialize one other tiny part that coincided: and that's f*** dangerous. So now the question of integrity of elections is basically become taboo because the media did such a good job of spinning the January 6th protests as completely represented and reduced to the acts of some vandals and the spectacle of the occupying of the Capitol building. I mean what if there was a problem with election integrity? what if there was a f*** racket and what if Trump et Al, and some republicans were legitimately trying to bring that to light and reform that right I mean... what if that's the case? Then the people running that racket, if it exists, have just played the whole thing so well I mean they had this great opportunity in the occupation of the capital where they could just completely spin the entire question of election integrity as, "oh my God you have to be like a anti-government anarchist like qAnon shaman crazy conspiracy theorist to even consider this." I mean if you really are running a racket on the elections and you don't want people to find out that's the perfect play for you to just a paint any dissent to what you want people to believe as f*** crazy. So what I think is sad is how homogeneous the discourse has become and how afraid of different viewpoints to the extent that you know these types of mislabeling and demonization is now completely commonplace that people are using them on each other like regular folk are using it in casual conversation to be like oh so you know you support this idea well you must be this other thing which is a false equivalence and it's basically this sort of great stabilizing factor for the status quo that we never have to consider any dissenting viewpoints to that because we've already labeled all those possible paths as f*** crazy. I feel sad that people don't actually see this as a scary situation.

kgwxd 4y ago

You're the one who posted the article.

graderjs 4y ago
I did. But it didn't mean I'm endorsing it. I basically try to post things that are interesting and I think it's somehow good for people to read. But actually I didn't read this first I just thought it would be interesting. But it turns out it wasn't that interesting but the discussion is reasonably interesting.. so that's okay.
- japhib 4y ago
  I recommend reading articles before you publicize them
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Tch. I don't think that's necessary. That wasn't what I reached to do. That would be a mistake here. I know this was a good article to have a discussion and I was right. I think it's in some sense if not more interesting I certainly an interesting take to pick up an article that oh okay I think I'm going to agree with this but actually it turns out it's written from a completely other point of view and then rather than just going oh yeah I totally agree with this I can share exactly why I think it's a crazy article.

bitwize 4y ago

No. Abolish the Republican Party. After Jan. 6, you can get it declared a terrorist organization, freeze its assets, whatever. That won't turn a two-party system into a one-party system. We'll just have it so that the Democrats become the new right-wing party and someone else -- the Greens, say -- take up the left wing. That will bring the USA's Overton window in line with the rest of the developed world.

incomingpain 4y ago
>No. Abolish the Republican Party. After Jan. 6, you can get it declared a terrorist organization, freeze its assets, whatever. So after you seize the party, what happens when the people who make up the republican party form their new party representing exactly the same thing? Obviously, more needs to be done? >That won't turn a two-party system into a one-party system. We'll just have it so that the Democrats become the new right-wing party and someone else -- the Greens, say -- take up the left wing. That will bring the USA's Overton window in line with the rest of the developed world. So right wing parties wont be allowed to exist?
- bitwize 4y ago
  > So right wing parties wont be allowed to exist? Fascist and fascist-adjacent political parties are not allowed to exist in Germany, and Germany is doing just fine (relatively speaking). I wonder how Germany would have fared without its laws against "unconstitutional organizations". I wonder if West Germany would have renazified after WWII.
  - graderjs 4y ago
    Honestly I don't think we should be taking political advice from the country that brought us two world wars in the Nazi party and Adolf hitler. What "works" over there may not apply anywhere else, to put it mildly... I mean you're going to ban the Republican party for questioning the integrity of elections? I mean who looks like the guilty one here and who's trying to cover up their dirty laundry like it's the media discuss about politics in the United States it's just going to f*** nuts. And it's been like that since like 2016 it's f*** crazy I don't know how anyone can expect to think clearly about anything politically in such a contested and you know emotional media climate. And maybe that's the point everyone's just supposed to get distracted by the spectacle of it constantly in a state of triggerness and they're not actually supposed to think clearly... It's fucking sad man. I mean it always just revolves around the same ideological points right? and nobody gets anywhere. This stupid polarity between left and right or whatever it's like a distraction it's like "let's focus on who's now saying the people on the other side are the worst possible thing ever and let's focus on that and let's convince myself it's really important to join that party or to you know join the defense of them" while all of the probably actually substantial stuff outside of like two parties trading insults with each other and dragging all their supporters in to feel something about those insults, like all those substantial issues outside of that crap... I mean who's focusing on them. That's where the mind of the people should be directed if you want them to be sort of effective participants in a democracy right? It's so sad like I mean there's this thing about abusive relationships right where the abusive partner in relationship will constantly try to keep the other party in a triggered state to press their buttons because that gives that abuser control over the other person. What if that's what the media is doing to the American population? you know it's like I just think it's so f*** sad to see this abusive relationship between the media and the people. it's a f*** nightmare and in that situation where the people can't think clearly the politicians inevitably end up with too much power.

UncleOxidant 4y ago

> Alright it seems like a pathetic "anti-authoritarian" hit piece Trying to understand where you're coming from here... are you pro-authoritarian?

graderjs 4y ago
Hahaha, that's great that's great. Again you're doing the same thing. Your language encodes that the only possible like dissent to the line is to be something that you want to say is an abomination....so it's basically like a language that encodes an intolerance of other points of you. "Hmm, I'm confused, are you 'pro' something terrible?" Because there's no other way to view what I said there's no other need in an ideological zealotry discourse age there's no need to assess anything apart from someone's ideological purity polarity. 'I don't really understand what you're saying because I can't process anything outside of like a narrow binary are you Pro this terrible thing?" Because clearly there's nothing to add there's no possible criticism of the accepted line so there's no value in anything that dissents from it so the only thing you need to worry about is are they heretic? The reasonable sounding almost bureaucratic language that encodes no tolerance for any points of view that question some viewpoint, is basically messaging that says t"here's no value outside of what we're saying, if you don't agree with us, if you question anything we say then you have to be the enemy." It's a great way to create a monoculture of thought we just label any dissent at all as the worst possible thing you can imagine. Because then you don't have to listen to it oh that's dissenting let's just label it the worst possible thing ever then we don't have to consider it at all. So we can preserve and confirm our existing bias and idea. I'm not taking a shot at you ...these kind of phrases or this kind of language is a trope that I think is sad how people have sort of unwittingly picked up on it: because on the face of it it's a powerful thing to say because you say it it's a simple thing to say and you basically are encoding the viewpoint that you're absolutely right and any dissent to that is absolutely wrong so it's a very satisfying and compelling and powerful thing to say but it's just it's very dangerous. so I'm not having a shot at you it's just this kind of language is a trope and I think it's sad how this type of discourse has spread to so many people.
- kgwxd 4y ago