Alan: You will find the prelude to this most recent installment of my discussion of "Trump and Trumpistas" with friend ZZ at https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2019/04/my-facebook-discussion-with-friend-zz.html
***
ZZ: So your response is, basically, "Ad hominem personal attacks work, and the ends justify the means."Alan: Yes, I am arguing that "ad hominem" attacks work.
I am also spotlighting the truth that "ad hominem" attacks are not necessarily "bad" but can work toward honorable and beneficial ends.
I am not currently arguing that "the end justifies the means" although I am open to that discussion.
Once an individual moves beyond the indisputable fact that "ad hominem attack" is a "logical fallacy" and then acknowledges that "ad hominem attacks" can ALSO be appropriate tools for drawing attention to the personal shortcomings of public figures, then ad hominem attacks become acceptable -- even necessary -- criticisms of essentially destructive people like Trump, Bannon and Stephen Miller - The Unholy Trinity.
In fact, given the large percentage of citizens who do not read thoughtful, methodical, well-reasoned writing, "ad hominem" critique can be the best -- and sometimes the only -- way of "getting through."
Ponder that.
Donald Trump, Wikiquote
It's Not Just That Trump And His Lickspittles Lie: They Lie More Brazenly Than Satan Himself
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2017/06/its-not-just-that-trump-his.html
Steve Bannon
Wikiquote
Stephen Miller
Wikiquote
It is a fact, for example, that Hitler was a mofo.
It is not necessary to read William Shirer's "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich" to reach this conclusion. But it is useful -- even crucial -- that people who won't read Shirer's book come in contact with ad hominem arguments that clarify his abomination.
Of course you can't get through to everybody:
It is a fact -- plain as potatoes -- that Trump and the lion's share of followers -- millions of whom applaud the above meme -- call to mind Hitler's brown shirts during the run-up to Kristallnacht.
"Pittsburgh Rabbi Told Trump That Hate Speech Led To Synagogue Massacre"
(Although I may be over-dosing you with factual, well-documented argument, please riffle through this post.)
Must-See Video Mash-Up Of Trump's Violent Racism
I have studied "the biographical facts" of these dangerous, destructive, ill-informed, ideological suckholes and I declare with complete confidence that "the good Germans" are usually uncaring (and often cruel) people.
These psycho-spiritually deformed devotees swarm around Trump like flies around shit and they are willing accomplices who parasitize the life-blood of Civilization while claiming to restore the all-white Neverland myth of "a home on the range where the deer and the antelope play and the skies are not cloudy all day."
The Golden Age that never was - and never will be.
George McGovern Comments On America's Ideological Divide
("Liberalism: A Defense Of The Future Against The Past" is an unusually insightful essay.)
My conscience will not let me stand idle, and so I call these people on the carpet for their stuporous, ignore-ant support of non-representative authoritarian governance, neo-fascist erosion of The Rule Of Law, widespread racism, a hard-on for white supremacy, the persistent quest to replace Democracy with Theocracy, and -- in the case of "family separation" -- child abuse, kidnapping and a kind of "human trafficking" that has placed hundreds (if not thousands) of these children into "homes" that cannot be located because nobody knows Where The Fuck they are.
Please note that I have changed my previous adjectival reference from "stupid" to "stuporous."
You are right.
Often, Trumpistas are not stupid.
But they were stuporous when they first "signed off" on Trump and they are ongoingly stuporous if they have not yet withdrawn their support.
The word "ignore-ant" however is precisely the word to describe Trumpistas.
To argue otherwise is to duplicate Chamberlain's accommodation of the growing fascist threat.
To remain in Trump's camp, it is necessary to immerse oneself -- with willful imperviousness -- in a state of stupefaction and ignore-ance.
"The Cruelty Is the Point": Trump And Many Of His Followers Delight In The Suffering Of Their Enemies
The Atlantic MagazineI could go on.
And I would bet dollars-to-donuts that you could go on too...
ZZ: I accept that in some cases the ends DO justify the means. But I am not convinced that an ever-deepening spiral of tribal hate will get us where I want to be as a human and an American. Also, one must define what one means when one says something is "successful." Winning a an election is one metric, the country being less divided and more able to have constructive public discourse is another.
If Trump and his followers had actually read any of my intellectually rigorous criticisms of "The Despicable One" and his -- how shall we call it? -- "Republican Party," there would be, at least in theory, some chance of constructive public discourse.
But they do not read "anything" unless it is supersaturated with "confirmation bias."
For God's sake, Trump doesn't even read his National Security briefings!?!
Breaking With Tradition, Trump Skips President's Written Intelligence Briefings
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...trump...intelligence...briefings/.../b7ba569e-0c52-11...
Have you read Karen Kolbinsky's comments?
It's Not Just That Trump And His Lickspittles Lie: They Lie More Brazenly Than Satan Himself
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2017/06/its-not-just-that-trump-his.htmlZZ: I agree that some % of Trump's 2016 win can be attributed to his successful use of these tactics--he beat down his primary opponents with stuff like this, and has been relentless in such attacks against anyone he dislikes or by whom he feels threatened. Will he, in the end, be successful (from his or his supporters' point of view)? I'm not sure. His damage to our judicial system is going to be long-lasting at the very least, but politically and personally his "success" remains to be seen.
Alan: "Success..." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/03/success-quotations.html
I have a well-honed sense of ironic distance, paradox and unintended consequences.
Furthermore, my shitometer is as good as anyone's.
But whether or not we use the word "success," Trump, Bannon and lesser liars like Kellyanne and The Huckster have, in less than two years, made astonishing "progress" (aka "regress") reducing a more-or-less tolerable polity to shambles - shambles from which it will be difficult to recover even if the Dems win next year.
And if Dems don't win when the election rolls around in 19 months, expect the beginning of the end.
There will be a Kristallnacht. (History will not repeat itself, but it will "rhyme.")
That said, I am not a hidebound ideologue.
In September of last year I expressed the following view that another 4 years of Trump might be a good thing.
Alan: What does an empire-in-decline look like?
Contentious?
Violent?
So cowardly that citizens kill their fellows "on suspicion" and pass laws to legalize "stand your ground" murder?
Are empires-in-decline driven by fear rather than aspiration?
Are empires-in-decline so hostile to political compromise that The Body Politic agrees on nothing?
Do empires-in-decline exhibit collapsed Social Contracts?
Do they dismiss The General Welfare on behalf of plutocrats and kakistocrats?
Is individualism lauded at the expense of communitarianism?
Does paranoid self-protectiveness prevail?
Xenophobia?
Battened hatches?
Circled wagons?
Guns everywhere... (and geometrically more on the way).
The Silver Lining:
In the long run, the collapse of empire may not be a bad thing.
Former empires are often quite livable places.
Italy. Spain. Holland. Portugal. Germany. England. Greece.
Plus there's this fringe benefit: collapse of The American Empire would put an end to the bloodiest of them all.
"You Have NO Choice," A New Frame For George Carlin's Classic Shtick "The American Dream"
(Don't miss "We Like War")
ZZ: As to my two friends who voted for Trump, you dismiss them with opinions stated as facts, claiming "it is objectively 'stupid and ignorant' to 'hate taxes.'" Calling something "objective" does not make it so.
Alan: Given that "taxes are the price we pay for civilization," "hating taxes" is objectively stuporous and ignore-ant. And not only does "tax hatred" result in monstrosities like The Tea Party, it is also true that every human being whose ignore-ance causes her to hate the a priori need for taxes -- is objectively wrong-minded (if, of course, we postulate the desirability of Civilization)
ZZ: I agree that taxes, rule of law, and the imperfection of those things are some of the prices we pay for the civilization we have. Having one false or wrong-headed belief does not make someone stupid (or ignorant). For example, I can claim with surety that the Judeo-Christian God is objectively false, yet many indisputable geniuses believe in it with all their heart.
And you're right: I will not extend an invitation to friends to come "discuss" something with someone whose opinion is unchangeable and who thinks insulting them is a fine way to have a discussion.
I am not insulting them.
I am describing them.
Furthermore, if your friends entered this discussion, I believe they would learn something important - unless they are even more ignore-ant than I suppose.
Hopefully I would learn something too.
However, keeping them at bay suggests you are fearful they will not make a "good showing."
After all, you know that you are very smart, so why not "make their case for them?"
What better way to "win at any cost?" - even at the cost of keeping "the principals" out of their own argument...
Hmm.
Sounds a bit like Trump's handlers not letting him testify before Mueller.
You "should" at least invite your friends into this discussion and let them choose if they will or won't engage.
If they are as smart as you say --- and not just "accidental" supporters of a neo-fascist, white supremacist movement fully capable of "taking the country down" by re-igniting the Civil War (which never really ended) --- let's hear their arguments.
And if they are as smart as you say -- and they do not persist in their ignore-ance by ignoring "current events," have they recanted their stuporous "single issue" commitment to the putrescent moral monster in the White House?
The claim that you will expose them to gratuitous "insult" is, in my view, another glimpse of your surprising preciousness.
In any event, I am very interested to know if they still support Trump and beseech you to send me the answer.
Also, I'm glad to see you use an ad hominem attack by alleging I'm "someone whose opinion is unchangeable."
The downside of this particular ad hominem attack is its falsehood.
I am not unchangeable as you say and, indeed, have already changed one of the two most important words in my rhetoric, replacing my inaccurate reference "stupid" with the word "stuporous."
I will also mention the likelihood that I am significantly more latitudinarian and accommodating than you think.
Spot-On Truth-Teller Donald Trump: The Most Important Thing Said At The Republican Debate
ZZ: My Godwin's law reference was more tongue-in-cheek than serious; I do agree that you can compare Trump to lots of historical figures, Hitler included. I personally try to avoid doing so because I don't find it productive, but fair enough.
ZZ: I do not think it would be wise to make Spanish an official language because the US doesn't have an official language, and I like it that way.
I agree with you. It is better not to have an official language.
Even so, my rhetorical flourish was illuminating - as is the following similarly-themed post.
"Alright, I Was Wrong... Mexico Will Pay For The Wall"
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspo
ZZ: I'm being "precious" not about the specific neologism, but about the idea that the way to make the US a better place is to insult people with whom we disagree.
To call my view of Trump and Trumpism an "insult" to Trumpistas -- and to suggest that I admit to a "disagreement" while retracting my moral judgment concerning the essential madness of Trump supporters -- is like the precious disingenuousness of Fox News claiming to be "fair and balanced" by devising televised "debates" that put climate scientists on the same panel with members of The Flat Earth Society.
"The Guardian: John Oliver's Viral Video Is The Best Climate Debate You'll Ever See"
And you remain strangely reluctant to sound the alarm.
Shades of Chamberlain's accommodation?
ZZ: I'm spending a lot of time discussing this with you because I think it's important. I'm pretty sure I would agree with 95% of your political opinions, and so this is to some degree a case of the left eating its own. But I refuse to succumb to the right-wing idea that winning is everything, that unity is to be had at all costs because winning is everything, or that anything like cruelty should have a comfortable place in my personal repertoire.
Winning is not everything.
I voted against Jimmy Carter's re-election and 3 of my 4 favorite presidents are Republicans.
Furthermore, my Dad was a dyed-in-the-wool "Roosevelt Democrat" who pounded the pavement for Democratic candidates into his '80s.
Nevertheless, he voted for card-carrying socialist Norman Thomas in 1948.
And he voted for Eisenhower -- both times -- because he thought Adlai Stevenson would not be an ineffective executive. (Oddly, my sister and I have long thought Adlai was the Democratic politician most like my Dad.)
ZZ: I am familiar with the Borowitz Report. I love political humor, and I think that the best partisan political humor is funny to both sides, or at least acknowledges that both sides are fundamentally human.
Please send me a few URLs that connect to funny right-wing humor. (P.J. O'Rourke is a red herring.)
Again, I am very eager to be directed to genuinely funny right-wing comedians.
However, my working hypothesis is that the concept of a "funny right-winger" is as close as I'll get to a good laugh.
Concerning "fundamental humanity..."
It is a fact that -- for many human beings -- being stuporous and/or being ignore-ant IS fundamentally human.
Make no mistake.
Hitler was fundamentally human.
Goering was fundamentally human.
Goebbels was fundamentally human.
Mengele was (perhaps) fundamentally human.
Himmler was fundamentally human.
Eichmann was fundmentally human. (Read Thomas Merton's view of 'the other Adolf': "Eichmann, Sanity And Normality." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/07/thomas-merton-adolf-eichmann-sanity-and.html)
ZZ: To me, taking the gloves off does not automatically include punching below the belt, nor does it include punching someone's kids. Dirty pool is dirty pool, and once I feel the urge to start sacrificing my principles to win, I really need to think hard about what that means.
Setting aside my memes (which I consider this era's "political cartoons"), please probe my online essays: http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/
And while you're poking around, please identify at least a few titles (with links) where, on balance, I play dirty pool, punch below the belt and sacrifice principles to win.
Best Trump Memes From Pax On Both Houses
Referring to Trump's Base as "Trumpista" is not an insult, much less the kind of dirty pool dehumanization you allege.
It seems to me that a lion's share of Trumpistas do their best to dehumanize others by first dehumanizing themselves.
Trumpistas have stunted themselves with self-imposed small-mindedness and ferocious determination to replace any kind of well-considered epistemology with whole-cloth lies -- then they lie to cover up their lies (in infinite regress) -- and end their "feast" with a "chaser" of fake news and alternative facts.
Yet you are hot under the collar because I call these people "Trumpistas?"
If they are "conservative," what are they "conserving?"
And if they're "Republican," what -- prithee -- do they have in common with The Party of Lincoln?
They are, in fact, Trumpistas - most of them lickspittle devotees of a personality cult.
Again, have you read Karen Kolbinsky's comments?
In the Old Testament, one of Yahweh's first enjoinders is to "name the animals."
If we do not give Trumpistas their "true name" -- or at least a name that is not another lie like "conservative" or "Republican" -- we have no place to "make a stand," particularly at this critical moment in history when a properly taxonomized stand needs to be taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment