3 ms·

When Trump calls Democrats "enemies from within," that's anti-American. When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent and instead

When Trump calls Democrats "enemies from within," that's anti-American. When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent and instead plays "heads I win tails you cheated," that's anti-American. When Trump sends the FCC chair to suppress speech "we can do this the easy way or the hard way," or yucks it up with the president of El Salvador over suspending Habeas Corpus, that's anti-American. The "American Experiment" isn't an empty concept, but it is about democracy and law and rights as opposed to conservative cultural values, and when people in power start to argue that the former must be sacrificed for the latter they certainly deserve to be clowned on. Not because they are wrong to imagine an American Ideal, but because they have its contents exactly backwards.

rickdeckard 11d ago
While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.
- pc86 11d ago
  I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.
  - rickdeckard 11d ago
    It could e.g. be "anti-democratic" by a universal definition of democracy and civil liberties which no single country then gets to fork and redefine...
    - smallmancontrov 11d ago
      Let's suppose you had your way and the cultural concept of America as a set of ideas and values related to democracy was erased. Would the universal non-national concepts of democracy and civil liberties have been able to inspire Mike Pence to stand up to Donald Trump on January 6th?
      - rickdeckard 11d ago
        Sorry, I don't know what this conversation is about. This is not about a "concept", it is about the label itself. When the term "anti-American" is used, it is a placeholder for "against my values". Noone is ever anti-American himself, it is only a label applied upon others. That's why IMO it should be rejected when used by people in a public role, see original comment. You are free to think otherwise, which I may then label as "anti-American" in passing, while quickly moving on to you mentioning Mike Pence and some random conspiracy I have /s Again, /s/s/s/s
        smallmancontrov 11d ago
        "Trump is misusing a term, better roll over and let him do it!" Gross.
        rickdeckard 10d ago
        Which is not what I'm saying, I'm saying to NOT let him use this term. How can you miss this fundamental aspect of what I'm repeatedly stating? "Sad."
    - 8note 11d ago
      its encoded in the US constitution, so its anti-american. it can be anti-other things too, but its certainly anti-american
  - Joker_vD 11d ago
    Ah, I see, it's the same as "un-American", only without being a word too onerous to use (yet) due to obvious historical implications.
    - lioeters 11d ago
      > The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives created in 1938. Their goal was to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist ties. It was abolished in 1975. I'd heard of this but didn't realize it went on for decades. Turning it around, I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do. At least according to the values for which the nation stands (or supposed to stand).
      - Joker_vD 11d ago
        > I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do Dude. Dude. You've said yourself: this Congress committee went on for almost four decades. And before it, it was Yellow Peril, or anti-Irish sentiments, or manifest destiny with its "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". So, no, it's a very American thing to do, has been since the foundation of the US and arguably from even before than that.
    - pc86 10d ago
      I'm not sure what point your trying to make? I would also say trying to abridge speech is generally "un-American" as well as "anti-American." Are you trying to differentiate between the two terms? Or are you saying because HUAC existed half a century ago that nothing can possibly be considered un/anti-American?
- parineum 11d ago
  Not really. America stands for something, they wrote a whole document about it. There is a big difference between being "American" and being something like "German" because Germany has existed for so long as different governments and the thing that ties it together is not an ethos, but an ethnicity. Being American is different, there's no ethnicity that makes one American, there is only it's ethos. The ideals written in the declaration of independence are American values.
  - rickdeckard 11d ago
    And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country: The group elected to lead and represent this location also represent ideals and values, so THEIR ideals and values become inseparable of the location they were elected to represent. For a certain period in the mid-1900s, "German values" meant something different than it did before and after, because Germany was represented by a different leader...
    - parineum 11d ago
      > And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country My entire post is about exactly how this is not the case, American values are defined in a document[1]. [1]https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
      - rickdeckard 11d ago
        And what I'm trying to explain is, that this paper doesn't matter if it is represented by someone who doesn't uphold its content. Germany had the Paulskirche-, the Bismarck- and the Weymar-Constitution, all of them before that certain Leader elected into power. He got to define who is worthy/unworthy, decide how to read the document his party represents and change the definition of "un-German"
        parineum 11d ago
- deleted 11d ago
  [deleted]
- georgeecollins 11d ago
  It's just the idea that vague terms get misused so much I demand the specific. "Anti" anything can just mean you aren't "pro" it enough, or not pro a particular version. So for restricting speech, you could say not honoring the first amendment or something like that. I think about this because sometimes people or ideas are described as "problematic". Sometimes for very good reason, but sometimes you find out the speaker has trouble being specific. I like to hear the specific reason when I can to understand the facts or logic. Sometimes these classifications come third hand.
- rpdillon 11d ago
  I mean, there are American values. The country was built around the idea of limiting the federal government's power, and adherence not a person, but to a set of values (like freedom of speech). We're explictly founded on the concept of rule of law. Through that lens, it is very clear what anti-American means: adherence and loyalty to a person instead of a set of values, expansive government overreach, erosion of individual liberties, including the ability to express dissent.
  - iamnothere 11d ago
    It was also built around a process by which those values can be codified and changed to reflect changing times, i.e. the amendment process. Which we have forgotten about entirely.
  - cestith 11d ago
    What Trump and his followers mean by it, though, is that any disagreement with Trump on policy, strategy, tactics, procedure, or belief is anti-American. The way they use the term "anti-American" is anti-American. Therefore the term outside of context is meaningless. It's been coopted, twisted, and perverted.
- flir 11d ago
  Is it exists, something must be antithetical to it. (Truth is its just rhetoric and it doesn't mean much of anything. That's why its main use is as a cudgel).
  - saltcured 11d ago
    Clearly, the southern Indian Ocean and a tiny slice of the Antarctic coast are the most anti-(US of) American. It only involves a swathe of South-East Asia and China once you are inclusive of South America... ;-)
- RobRivera 11d ago
  I disagree. I would define confidently that Anti-American is aligned with Anti-Constitutional. By definition, it is this nation's founding document and treatise. An the Supreme Court's ultimate role is to affirm or deny nebulous case law as aligned with the Constitution.
  - rickdeckard 10d ago
    For you that might be a confident definition, for others it might not mean "anti-constitutional" but "against the declaration of independence", for even others it might not create any clear association at all. That's because something being "American"/"anti-American" is not sufficiently defined in this context. It triggers a highly subjective assumption of what it means, allowing people to evoke "us vs. them" solidarity without actually taking a position. Example: I can (probably) break your assumed association by stating "women owning credit-cards is anti-American". It (probably) doesn't fit your mental model of what being "anti-American" means, but women were in fact not allowed to own credit cards in US until 1974. So my definition might be more in-line with the era of the constitution than yours. That's a blunt example. Now imagine I use "anti-American" in a context of "law and order" and then keep talking. People instinctively glance over it because they create the meaning by taking their personal association of being "American" and invert it. You may feel like agreeing but I might actually say the complete opposite of what you think. That's why IMO the phrase should be rejected from people in a public role.
- bryanrasmussen 11d ago
  If you will not say what something is against, then it is by definition for nothing. on edit: fixed grammatical error, based on bad keyboard gesture moving stuff around.
pc86 11d ago
> When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent When did this happen? I didn't realize Biden wasn't inaugurated. I could have sworn he was the President for 4 years.
- smallmancontrov 11d ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_Unit...
  - pc86 11d ago
    I'm skimming the "Aftermath" section and I'm not seeing where Biden's inauguration was cancelled or Trump retained power or anything else? If Trump "refused to peacefully transfer power" how was power peacefully transferred to Biden exactly on schedule the same way it's happened in every other election? I do see this happened on Jan 7th though: > 7:10 p.m.: Shortly after Twitter unlocked Trump's account, Trump released a video statement condemning the violence at the Capitol, saying that "a new administration will be inaugurated" and that his "focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly, and seamless transition of power" to the Biden administration.
    - smallmancontrov 11d ago
      The American people deserve to know that President Trump and his advisors didn’t just ask me to pause, they asked me to reject votes, to return votes, to essentially overturn the election. To keep faith with the oath that I made to the American people and to almighty God, I rejected that out of hand and I did my duty that day. - Vice President Mike Pence This is why the Jan 6 crowd was carrying around an improvised gallows and chanting "hang Mike Pence." The crowd was there to serve as a pretext for what Trump wanted Pence to do, but Pence refused to do it so the self-coup attempt failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot Show me where this happened in every other election.
deleted 11d ago
[deleted]
caseysoftware 11d ago
> The "American Experiment" isn't an empty concept, but it is about democracy and law and rights as opposed to conservative cultural values, and when people in power start to argue that the former must be sacrificed for the latter they certainly deserve to be clowned on. Not because they are wrong to imagine an American Ideal, but because they have its contents exactly backwards. From the many responses on this thread, it appears that many either don't want a defintion of "pro-American" or "anti-American" or "an American Ideal" or don't have one but these are core to your point. How would you define each?
gaze 11d ago
if you're explaining, you're losing
zahlman 10d ago
> When Trump calls Democrats "enemies from within," He did not say this. Please spare me the part where you show me the things that you think establish the claim. I have already seen them and they do not establish the claim. At best you are intentionally conflating "Democrats" collectively with specific individuals who happen to be part of the Democratic party. I could continue on with the rest but you get the idea.

rickdeckard 11d ago

While I understand the intention of what you're saying, you're still attempting a definition of the term "anti-American", which needs no definition as the term should be rejected as a whole.

pc86 11d ago
I mean, to pick what is perhaps the easiest example, wanting to abridge speech is anti-American by its very definition. It is possible to have a thing that is anti-American. So I'm not sure what good it is to reject the term altogether.
- rickdeckard 11d ago
  It could e.g. be "anti-democratic" by a universal definition of democracy and civil liberties which no single country then gets to fork and redefine...
  - smallmancontrov 11d ago
    Let's suppose you had your way and the cultural concept of America as a set of ideas and values related to democracy was erased. Would the universal non-national concepts of democracy and civil liberties have been able to inspire Mike Pence to stand up to Donald Trump on January 6th?
    - rickdeckard 11d ago
      Sorry, I don't know what this conversation is about. This is not about a "concept", it is about the label itself. When the term "anti-American" is used, it is a placeholder for "against my values". Noone is ever anti-American himself, it is only a label applied upon others. That's why IMO it should be rejected when used by people in a public role, see original comment. You are free to think otherwise, which I may then label as "anti-American" in passing, while quickly moving on to you mentioning Mike Pence and some random conspiracy I have /s Again, /s/s/s/s
      - smallmancontrov 11d ago
        "Trump is misusing a term, better roll over and let him do it!" Gross.
        rickdeckard 10d ago
        Which is not what I'm saying, I'm saying to NOT let him use this term. How can you miss this fundamental aspect of what I'm repeatedly stating? "Sad."
  - 8note 11d ago
    its encoded in the US constitution, so its anti-american. it can be anti-other things too, but its certainly anti-american
- Joker_vD 11d ago
  Ah, I see, it's the same as "un-American", only without being a word too onerous to use (yet) due to obvious historical implications.
  - lioeters 11d ago
    > The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives created in 1938. Their goal was to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist ties. It was abolished in 1975. I'd heard of this but didn't realize it went on for decades. Turning it around, I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do. At least according to the values for which the nation stands (or supposed to stand).
    - Joker_vD 11d ago
      > I'd say persecuting political enemies for being "un-American" - or as a recent book declared, "unhuman" - is a very un-American thing to do Dude. Dude. You've said yourself: this Congress committee went on for almost four decades. And before it, it was Yellow Peril, or anti-Irish sentiments, or manifest destiny with its "the only good Indian is a dead Indian". So, no, it's a very American thing to do, has been since the foundation of the US and arguably from even before than that.
  - pc86 10d ago
    I'm not sure what point your trying to make? I would also say trying to abridge speech is generally "un-American" as well as "anti-American." Are you trying to differentiate between the two terms? Or are you saying because HUAC existed half a century ago that nothing can possibly be considered un/anti-American?
parineum 11d ago
Not really. America stands for something, they wrote a whole document about it. There is a big difference between being "American" and being something like "German" because Germany has existed for so long as different governments and the thing that ties it together is not an ethos, but an ethnicity. Being American is different, there's no ethnicity that makes one American, there is only it's ethos. The ideals written in the declaration of independence are American values.
- rickdeckard 11d ago
  And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country: The group elected to lead and represent this location also represent ideals and values, so THEIR ideals and values become inseparable of the location they were elected to represent. For a certain period in the mid-1900s, "German values" meant something different than it did before and after, because Germany was represented by a different leader...
  - parineum 11d ago
    > And that's the weak link of tying ideals and values to a location like a country My entire post is about exactly how this is not the case, American values are defined in a document[1]. [1]https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip...
    - rickdeckard 11d ago
      And what I'm trying to explain is, that this paper doesn't matter if it is represented by someone who doesn't uphold its content. Germany had the Paulskirche-, the Bismarck- and the Weymar-Constitution, all of them before that certain Leader elected into power. He got to define who is worthy/unworthy, decide how to read the document his party represents and change the definition of "un-German"
      - parineum 11d ago
deleted 11d ago
[deleted]
georgeecollins 11d ago
It's just the idea that vague terms get misused so much I demand the specific. "Anti" anything can just mean you aren't "pro" it enough, or not pro a particular version. So for restricting speech, you could say not honoring the first amendment or something like that. I think about this because sometimes people or ideas are described as "problematic". Sometimes for very good reason, but sometimes you find out the speaker has trouble being specific. I like to hear the specific reason when I can to understand the facts or logic. Sometimes these classifications come third hand.
rpdillon 11d ago
I mean, there are American values. The country was built around the idea of limiting the federal government's power, and adherence not a person, but to a set of values (like freedom of speech). We're explictly founded on the concept of rule of law. Through that lens, it is very clear what anti-American means: adherence and loyalty to a person instead of a set of values, expansive government overreach, erosion of individual liberties, including the ability to express dissent.
- iamnothere 11d ago
  It was also built around a process by which those values can be codified and changed to reflect changing times, i.e. the amendment process. Which we have forgotten about entirely.
- cestith 11d ago
  What Trump and his followers mean by it, though, is that any disagreement with Trump on policy, strategy, tactics, procedure, or belief is anti-American. The way they use the term "anti-American" is anti-American. Therefore the term outside of context is meaningless. It's been coopted, twisted, and perverted.
flir 11d ago
Is it exists, something must be antithetical to it. (Truth is its just rhetoric and it doesn't mean much of anything. That's why its main use is as a cudgel).
- saltcured 11d ago
  Clearly, the southern Indian Ocean and a tiny slice of the Antarctic coast are the most anti-(US of) American. It only involves a swathe of South-East Asia and China once you are inclusive of South America... ;-)
RobRivera 11d ago
I disagree. I would define confidently that Anti-American is aligned with Anti-Constitutional. By definition, it is this nation's founding document and treatise. An the Supreme Court's ultimate role is to affirm or deny nebulous case law as aligned with the Constitution.
- rickdeckard 10d ago
  For you that might be a confident definition, for others it might not mean "anti-constitutional" but "against the declaration of independence", for even others it might not create any clear association at all. That's because something being "American"/"anti-American" is not sufficiently defined in this context. It triggers a highly subjective assumption of what it means, allowing people to evoke "us vs. them" solidarity without actually taking a position. Example: I can (probably) break your assumed association by stating "women owning credit-cards is anti-American". It (probably) doesn't fit your mental model of what being "anti-American" means, but women were in fact not allowed to own credit cards in US until 1974. So my definition might be more in-line with the era of the constitution than yours. That's a blunt example. Now imagine I use "anti-American" in a context of "law and order" and then keep talking. People instinctively glance over it because they create the meaning by taking their personal association of being "American" and invert it. You may feel like agreeing but I might actually say the complete opposite of what you think. That's why IMO the phrase should be rejected from people in a public role.
bryanrasmussen 11d ago
If you will not say what something is against, then it is by definition for nothing. on edit: fixed grammatical error, based on bad keyboard gesture moving stuff around.

pc86 11d ago

> When Trump refuses to peacefully transfer power to his victorious opponent When did this happen? I didn't realize Biden wasn't inaugurated. I could have sworn he was the President for 4 years.

smallmancontrov 11d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_Unit...
- pc86 11d ago
  I'm skimming the "Aftermath" section and I'm not seeing where Biden's inauguration was cancelled or Trump retained power or anything else? If Trump "refused to peacefully transfer power" how was power peacefully transferred to Biden exactly on schedule the same way it's happened in every other election? I do see this happened on Jan 7th though: > 7:10 p.m.: Shortly after Twitter unlocked Trump's account, Trump released a video statement condemning the violence at the Capitol, saying that "a new administration will be inaugurated" and that his "focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly, and seamless transition of power" to the Biden administration.
  - smallmancontrov 11d ago
    The American people deserve to know that President Trump and his advisors didn’t just ask me to pause, they asked me to reject votes, to return votes, to essentially overturn the election. To keep faith with the oath that I made to the American people and to almighty God, I rejected that out of hand and I did my duty that day. - Vice President Mike Pence This is why the Jan 6 crowd was carrying around an improvised gallows and chanting "hang Mike Pence." The crowd was there to serve as a pretext for what Trump wanted Pence to do, but Pence refused to do it so the self-coup attempt failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot Show me where this happened in every other election.

deleted 11d ago

[deleted]

caseysoftware 11d ago

> The "American Experiment" isn't an empty concept, but it is about democracy and law and rights as opposed to conservative cultural values, and when people in power start to argue that the former must be sacrificed for the latter they certainly deserve to be clowned on. Not because they are wrong to imagine an American Ideal, but because they have its contents exactly backwards. From the many responses on this thread, it appears that many either don't want a defintion of "pro-American" or "anti-American" or "an American Ideal" or don't have one but these are core to your point. How would you define each?

gaze 11d ago

if you're explaining, you're losing

zahlman 10d ago

> When Trump calls Democrats "enemies from within," He did not say this. Please spare me the part where you show me the things that you think establish the claim. I have already seen them and they do not establish the claim. At best you are intentionally conflating "Democrats" collectively with specific individuals who happen to be part of the Democratic party. I could continue on with the rest but you get the idea.