Why does he refuse to condemn them?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2020, 08:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Lol you haven't had a "reply" yet.

Your inane condescension does not indicate a desire to discuss this seriously.  Take your sanctimony and kindly keep it to yourself.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself.  I'm keeping it civil in the spirit of the forum, in person I'd have an earthier response for your smugness. 

[hollodero]

(10-08-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I largely give serious responses, just not when the question isn't serious.  In your case I am happy to reply as requested in the hopes that you follow suit.  First off, my disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is well known.  They are so loaded that they automatically terminate any serious dialogue.  By choosing to make a direct comparison to Hitler you are indulging in this behavior.  Of course no one with any knowledge of Hitler, with the benefit of nearly 100 years of hindsight and analysis, would read anything into his comments on this topic as anything other than what it was.  Even back then Hitler made his intentions largely known.  Contrast that with Trump.  Is Trump definitively stating that Scandinavian Caucasians have superior genes?  Is Trump even definitively saying that white Minnesotans have superior genes?  If so superior to what?  

He's addressing a crowd.  He stated people in Minnesota have good genes.  He did not exclude any groups living in Minnesota from that statement.  He did not precede his statement with a chapters long diatribe about the superiority of the "Aryan" race compared to the "subhuman" Jew or "insert ethnic minority here".  So while you, and rational others such as Hollodero, can find his comments disturbing and flirting, at best, with the concept of eugenics, a direct comparison to Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf is wholly inappropriate because of what Trump did said, but far more so because of what he did not.  So, insanely inflammatory comparisons to Nazis and Hitler aside, the direct comparison doesn't even withstand scrutiny without those loaded comparison.

Quite simply, and I honestly ask that you not give me a two page answer to this because I find them ponderous (no insult here, I'm being honest), comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis will almost always be met with disdain on my part because of what they represent and how insanely prejudicial they are.

I find that well argued.

What I'd like to add concerning my perspective: I'd rather say he was flirtatious with people believing in eugenics and a superior race. Trump himself, I don't really know what he believes, I don't think he consciously considers anyone but himself superior really. But he is also quite the unreflected person that is influenced by many voices, directly and through media consumption, that very much include the extreme right-wing and the grey areas to actual white supremacists.

And these extremist groups demonstrably do like him, all the David Dukes and friends. I assume they do not see any ambiguity in what Trump says here. For they never did with anything. And a big reason is that Trump, wittingly or unwittingly, keeps using expressions and ways to say things that they consider an endorsement. So goes the theory.

Also, Trump definitely refused to denounce QAnon. I find it surprising how little that is discussed. That man just likes anyone who likes or pretends to like him, to an embarrassing extent. I think it includes extremists that like him.

[Dill]

(10-08-2020, 09:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Your inane condescension does not indicate a desire to discuss this seriously.  Take your sanctimony and kindly keep it to yourself.  You're not fooling anyone but yourself.  I'm keeping it civil in the spirit of the forum, in person I'd have an earthier response for your smugness. 

Suddenly the guy who launches into threads laughing at everyone else's stupidity can't handle an "lol"?  They guy who daily belittles others because "they deserve it"?   I don't buy it. 

Elucidating a general principle of textual interpretation, followed by three examples, does indicate a "desire to discuss this seriously."

You said "happy to reply as requested in the hopes that you follow suit." I followed suit.

You can still respond if you leave the drama behind and explain what the point of the analogy was.

(Hint: it doesn't compare Trump to Hitler.)

[*PhilHos*]

(10-08-2020, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lets go back to the example I used before.

What if President Trump said "I support the feminist movement but I think it is okay for a husband to smack his wife around a little if she does not obey him"?

Would you praise Trump for supporting the feminist movement?

What if he said it 19 times?  Would that make a difference?

No, but I also wouldn't claim that he never said he supported the feminist movement. 

[*PhilHos*]

(10-07-2020, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: PS appreciate the rational responses. We can talk about this stuff without getting all crazy.

(10-07-2020, 02:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Imagine two people are reading Mein Kampf and happen upon a passage in which Hitler praises "the German people."

Which person would be "twisting" Hitler's words--the one who says he doesn't mean Jews or the one who says "to take his words at face value he means 'all Germans' which includes German Jews too!"?

EDIT: Isn't Mein Kampf literally Hitler's explanation of why the Jews suck (to put it extremely simply)? Not exactly an apt comparison, but then again, you jumped straight to a Hitler comparison, soooooooooooooooooo ...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-08-2020, 11:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: I find that well argued.

What I'd like to add concerning my perspective: I'd rather say he was flirtatious with people believing in eugenics and a superior race. Trump himself, I don't really know what he believes, I don't think he consciously considers anyone but himself superior really. But he is also quite the unreflected person that is influenced by many voices, directly and through media consumption, that very much include the extreme right-wing and the grey areas to actual white supremacists.

I don't think he has what a rational person would consider a consistent ideology.  I think he buffet style picks and chooses what he likes at that moment in time.  As I've stated before, he's mercurial on a lot of topics.  Also, as I said earlier, his genes comment could easily have been triggered by his seeing an attractive woman in the crowd.

Quote:And these extremist groups demonstrably do like him, all the David Dukes and friends. I assume they do not see any ambiguity in what Trump says here. For they never did with anything. And a big reason is that Trump, wittingly or unwittingly, keeps using expressions and ways to say things that they consider an endorsement. So goes the theory.

This I'll agree with, but I think the fondness for Trump from these groups has more to do with his confrontational style, and his disdain for political correctness and his ideological "opponents".  They also approve of his positions on immigration and refugees.  

Quote:Also, Trump definitely refused to denounce QAnon. I find it surprising how little that is discussed. That man just likes anyone who likes or pretends to like him, to an embarrassing extent. I think it includes extremists that like him.

Yeah, he definitely enjoys anything that paints his opponents in a negative light.  Seeing as how QAnon has frequently targeted the Democratic party (e.g. Pizzagate) his refusal to denounce the conspiracy theorist isn't really that surprising.  We all agree, the man is no deep thinker.

[*bfine32*]

(10-08-2020, 08:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Guess I should add one more question to help shorten the answer.  What was the point of the comparison? As in, what was it trying to prove? 

Trump=Hitler?

[hollodero]

(10-09-2020, 11:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think he has what a rational person would consider a consistent ideology.  I think he buffet style picks and chooses what he likes at that moment in time.  As I've stated before, he's mercurial on a lot of topics.  Also, as I said earlier, his genes comment could easily have been triggered by his seeing an attractive woman in the crowd.

Could be... weird he thinks abour racehorses then, but sure, I don't know what's in his head.

(10-09-2020, 11:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, he definitely enjoys anything that paints his opponents in a negative light.  Seeing as how QAnon has frequently targeted the Democratic party (e.g. Pizzagate) his refusal to denounce the conspiracy theorist isn't really that surprising.  We all agree, the man is no deep thinker.

That he most certainly is not, and it's the polite way to say it. It often is his best "defense" really, which is quite sad.

But just regarding QAnon. Regarding them, he said “I don’t know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate… [...] these are people that like me. And they also would like to see problems in these areas, especially areas that we are talking about, go away…. I’ve heard these are people that love our country.”

- so there is a president that clearly does not denounce or even critizise, rather applaud a group of total nutcases that the FBI calls a dangerous extremist and anti-democratic group and a domestic terrorist threat. Which imho makes it a bit harder to claim, yeah well, he did not denounce these right-wing extremists, but it is still outright mindless and crazy (you're not going that far, but many others do) to even suggest Trump has anything but clear disdain for other extremists and white supremacists...

...even though his denouncements usually go like in the debates, like "The left is way worse! Way worse! Antifa Antifa! But sure, I denounce whomever, which group exactly though, I need a specific group! Give me a name! OK, specific group, stand down and stand by. Just to clarify, I have no idea who they actually are."
Eg. how can a denouncement be more visibly hollow than that... just to be clear, I just did it for the camera, I actually have no idea who I actually "denounced" there...

...yeah, no benefit of the doubt indeed for me.

[Dill]

(10-09-2020, 10:44 AM)PhilHos Wrote: EDIT: Isn't Mein Kampf literally Hitler's explanation of why the Jews suck (to put it extremely simply)? Not exactly an apt comparison, but then again, you jumped straight to a Hitler comparison, soooooooooooooooooo ...

Well I said "Hitler" while we were talking about Trump, but I didn't jump straight to a "Hitler comparison"--

if by that you mean some direct comparison of Hitler's statements with Trump's.  There is no such comparison at all. I find that Hitler references are about as incapacitating as people want them to be, so do me the favor of hearing me out.

I also used Jefferson as an example, and the point of that was not to compare his views of slavery or equality to Trump's. etc.

The defense of Trump so far on this thread and others is based on a dubious linguistic analysis--what Trump means when he says "people of Minnesota" is just plain and unqualified English meaning all ***** sapiens residing within the territorial boundaries of that state, not just "all white people" or "all non-Africans." And that must be so because he says nothing about non-whites IN THAT ONE PASSAGE and no one can prove what was in his mind at the time. To assert otherwise is to "twist what Trump 'actually' says." 

But that analysis requires me to believe that after all the nasty things Trump said about African-Minnesotans throughout that speech up to that point, he suddenly, warmly, accepted them in that moment as "people of Minnesota," and so also as the bearers of "good genes," not so different from Trump himself. It also requires me to think that he was not referencing "the racehorse theory" outside its conventional eugenic import in this one instance.  (I believe my view on this is stronger than Hollo's; It's a stretch to suppose Trump's meaning now "ambiguous"; there are no special grounds for caution in this one instance.)

Since I'm unwilling to believe that Trump changed his views of Minnesotan Africans for just that one moment, and then returned to form later, I challenged the assumption upon which the "plain English" argument seems to rest--namely that the words and sentences mean what they mean independently of surrounding context, independently of the whole speech, as if in that moment, for that moment only, Trump meant exactly what Philhos or Bfine or Mickey would have meant, had they used those words in one of their posts. Because the meaning is just there in the words. 

Best way to challenge that assumption is by analogy to other texts for which my fellow forum members would likely agree that the "plain meaning" is not the plain meaning. Probably could have used a Biblical example as well, but I think Mein Kampf  works best.

If, in a passage from Mein Kampf  , Hitler claims the "the German people" are superior to others, not because they are the smartest people, but because they are the most ready to sacrifice for the nation, no one of my forum friends would agree if I claimed that in that passage, Hitler meant all German-speaking people living and working there as citizens because he does not add "except the Jews" in that moment. They would disagree (I hope) because Hitler had previously argued that Jews were not true Germans, but a stateless parasitic race, etc. From that point forward they are not included in any reference to "the German people."

In so doing, my friends would be granting that the meaning of one statement in a text can be delimited by things said before and after it. So one cannot just extract it from that text and say "Now it means what it would mean in any other context." And my friends would have to grant that this is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, not limited only to Hitler's text. And not limited to texts with racist views, or views we don't like. Same for Jefferson's use of "man" and "equality" in a text most of us like, written by a man most of us admire. 

At this point, in a rational discussion, the onus should be on Trump defenders to explain why and how Trump's speech should be excepted from this general principal. If none of us can know what is in Trump's mind, then what ground for a claim that he is suddenly all-inclusive in his definition of Minnesotans and praise for their genes? Why is THAT not "twisting"?  Could someone refute the general principle I just described via another example? If someone couldn't shake the feeling there was somehow an unfair comparison of Hitler's views to Trump's lurking somewhere in my example, he could ask for a different analogy, perhaps from the Bible, which I'd be happy to supply. My point is to refute the "proof-texting" fundamentalist approach to Trump statements, which isolates those his defenders like from those they don't.

I am assuming that rational discussion is the goal here, and not just partisan attack, defense and obfuscation, which requires far fewer words.

[Dill]

(10-09-2020, 01:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill Wrote: Guess I should add one more question to help shorten the answer.  What was the point of the comparison? As in, what was it trying to prove? 

Trump=Hitler?

I'd say no.

But I'm willing to reconsider if you show me how a hypothetical example of readers "twisting" Hitler's words gets us to Trump=Hitler.

Where does the identification occur?

[samhain]

(10-08-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I largely give serious responses, just not when the question isn't serious.  In your case I am happy to reply as requested in the hopes that you follow suit.  First off, my disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is well known.  They are so loaded that they automatically terminate any serious dialogue.  By choosing to make a direct comparison to Hitler you are indulging in this behavior.  Of course no one with any knowledge of Hitler, with the benefit of nearly 100 years of hindsight and analysis, would read anything into his comments on this topic as anything other than what it was.  Even back then Hitler made his intentions largely known.  Contrast that with Trump.  Is Trump definitively stating that Scandinavian Caucasians have superior genes?  Is Trump even definitively saying that white Minnesotans have superior genes?  If so superior to what?  

He's addressing a crowd.  He stated people in Minnesota have good genes.  He did not exclude any groups living in Minnesota from that statement.  He did not precede his statement with a chapters long diatribe about the superiority of the "Aryan" race compared to the "subhuman" Jew or "insert ethnic minority here".  So while you, and rational others such as Hollodero, can find his comments disturbing and flirting, at best, with the concept of eugenics, a direct comparison to Hitler's statements in Mein Kampf is wholly inappropriate because of what Trump did said, but far more so because of what he did not.  So, insanely inflammatory comparisons to Nazis and Hitler aside, the direct comparison doesn't even withstand scrutiny without those loaded comparison.

Quite simply, and I honestly ask that you not give me a two page answer to this because I find them ponderous (no insult here, I'm being honest), comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis will almost always be met with disdain on my part because of what they represent and how insanely prejudicial they are.

Indeed this disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is on the record here more than once.

Disdain for actual Nazis or white Nationalist Violence?  Not so much.

I guess the old sticks and stones/words saying works in reverse for some people. 

Didn't even need 2 pages.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-09-2020, 03:45 PM)samhain Wrote: Indeed this disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is on the record here more than once.

Disdain for actual Nazis or white Nationalist Violence?  Not so much.

I guess the old sticks and stones/words saying works in reverse for some people. 

Didn't even need 2 pages.

I'm going to ask you nicely one more time, cut this trying to label me as some white supremacist or Nazi sympathizer crap out.  I'm not going to tolerate it.  I do find the complete lack of condemnation for your baseless and hyperbolic accusation amusing though.  I suppose you guys only mind when it's one of you feel is being treated unfairly.

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2020, 10:41 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No, but I also wouldn't claim that he never said he supported the feminist movement. 

So why should we give a shit when he says something that he obviously does not mean?

You keep frothing at the mouth about how often he says he condemns white supremacy, but apparently you don't care if he is telling the truth or not.  That is a ridiculous position if you ask me.  I would never praise a person for making comments when I can tell they are lying.

It is clear that he has said the words that he condemns white supremacy.  I will give you that.  The difference between the two of us is that I actually care if he is telling the truth.  Apparently you do not.  And in most cases that is what it takes to defend Trump.  A total disregard for the truth.

[hollodero]

(10-09-2020, 03:45 PM)samhain Wrote: Indeed this disdain for Nazi and Hitler comparisons is on the record here more than once.

Disdain for actual Nazis or white Nationalist Violence?  Not so much.

I guess the old sticks and stones/words saying works in reverse for some people. 

Didn't even need 2 pages.

Why do you keep argueing in that manner? That is completely uncalled for.

[Dill]

(10-09-2020, 03:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to ask you nicely one more time, cut this trying to label me as some white supremacist or Nazi sympathizer crap out.  I'm not going to tolerate it.  I do find the complete lack of condemnation for your baseless and hyperbolic accusation amusing though.  I suppose you guys only mind when it's one of you feel is being treated unfairly.

Well I didn't "condemn" it because 

1) Exactly when do "us guys" feel we are being treated unfairly? YOU've twice accused me of being a racist, and denounced me as a supporter of ANTIFA, ISIS, and more if I took the time to review. (At least twice moderators have removed posts you've addressed to me before I could even see them; so who knows what else.) No one else in this forum has done anything like that. And others have similar stories to tell. I've never responded to you in kind, and my reminders of common civility you've met with "amusement" and complaints of "condescension." Same when I've asked you to stop verbal abuse of others. You demand a level of respect and deference from others that you don't feel they deserve in turn. So when I see a post like Sam's, I don't know his history with you, but I assume something that went around just came around. I can't be sure that he's the problem.

2) In this case I don't think you were labelled a "white supremacist" or whatever. You condemn "both sides" and "all violence," sure, but then go on and on about "the left" and Portland and contest any characterization of far right militia as the more serious problem. So I understand why Sam might have been moved to note that imbalance again in your quick rush to obfuscate a perfectly good discussion of Trump's words at the mention of "Hitler"--without even understanding the point. Not the first time. There is absolutely no reason why the mention of Hitler has to automatically be a "comparison" or shut down discussion even if it were.  No reason it MUST have the nefarious effects you claim it must and every time--unless you make it so.

For the record, I think everyone should follow the rules in place right now, and not personally attack other board members by calling them racist or white supremacists or ISIS supporters (unless they themselves identify themselves as such).  I don't like the constant drama of people denouncing and accusing others. 

  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-09-2020, 07:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I didn't "condemn" it because 

1) Exactly when do "us guys" feel we are being treated unfairly? YOU've twice accused me of being a racist, and denounced me as a supporter of ANTIFA, ISIS, and more if I took the time to review. (At least twice moderators have removed posts you've addressed to me before I could even see them; so who knows what else.) No one else in this forum has done anything like that. And others have similar stories to tell. I've never responded to you in kind, and my reminders of common civility you've met with "amusement" and complaints of "condescension." Same when I've asked you to stop verbal abuse of others. You demand a level of respect and deference from others that you don't feel they deserve in turn. So when I see a post like Sam's, I don't know his history with you, but I assume something that went around just came around. I can't be sure that he's the problem.

2) In this case I don't think you were labelled a "white supremacist" or whatever. You condemn "both sides" and "all violence," sure, but then go on and on about "the left" and Portland and contest any characterization of far right militia as the more serious problem. So I understand why Sam might have been moved to note that imbalance again in your quick rush to obfuscate a perfectly good discussion of Trump's words at the mention of "Hitler"--without even understanding the point. Not the first time. There is absolutely no reason why the mention of Hitler has to automatically be a "comparison" or shut down discussion even if it were.  No reason it MUST have the nefarious effects you claim it must and every time--unless you make it so.

For the record, I think everyone should follow the rules in place right now, and not personally attack other board members by calling them racist or white supremacists or ISIS supporters (unless they themselves identify themselves as such).  I don't like the constant drama of people denouncing and accusing others. 

  

Duly noted.  I have now been called a fan of Hitler by one of your buddies and told I was craving an opportunity to kill someone by another.  Yet you never see those or if you do you don't see it as a problem.  I certainly give as good as I get but I have never stooped to that level.  But justify it however you want.  I guess this is one more example of "it's ok when we do it" from you.  Your hypocrisy is so glaring we could power a city with it.

[Dill]

(10-09-2020, 07:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Duly noted.  I have now been called a fan of Hitler by one of your buddies and told I was craving an opportunity to kill someone by another.  Yet you never see those or if you do you don't see it as a problem.  I certainly give as good as I get but I have never stooped to that level.  But justify it however you want.  I guess this is one more example of "it's ok when we do it" from you.  Your hypocrisy is so glaring we could power a city with it.

No, I truly haven't seen any post in which you were called a "fan of Hitler" or told you were "craving an opportunity to kill." But I've seen how you "intentionally exaggerate" my statements, so I'd have to see the posts to judge for myself, and what led up to them.

And why isn't calling me a racist and iSIS supporter "stooping to that level" or lower?  

To this day I have never responded in kind, so how were you ever "giving as good as you got" if you never got? You were just flat behaving badly to derail arguments not going your way. I have documented this process before, e.g., on the China thread in the old forum--people debating civilly, then suddenly your personal attacks, out of nowhere, and not returned by me or anyone else. Same with my most recent "keeper" on another thread.  A pattern.

To repeat, I have never responded in kind, so how is this one more example of "ok when we do it" when I've never done it? 

YOU are the one who has personally attacked me, repeatedly; I have never personally attacked you, not once, never (though you've tried to load that charge onto the occasional "LOL").  Yet there you are going on about me justifying my behavior "however I want," as if I were the one personally attacking others but demanding they lay off me.

So how can ANY of this add up to my "glaring hypocrisy" and not yours?

It cannot.  

The way out of this is to STOP THE VERBAL ABUSE of any forum member. Stop casting that behavior as "giving what you got" or something others brought on themselves.

PS I've not seen anything in any post of yours that justifies a claim you support Hitler or defend/flirt with white supremacy. If I see someone conclude that on no evidence, I' ll be happy to denounce that as toxic behavior.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-09-2020, 08:30 PM)Dill Wrote: No, I truly haven't seen any post in which you were called a "fan of Hitler" or told you were "craving an opportunity to kill." But I've seen how you "intentionally exaggerate" my statements, so I'd have to see the posts to judge for myself, and what led up to them.

That's because they were deleted, but you were around to see them.

Quote:So how can ANY of this add up to my "glaring hypocrisy" and not yours?

It cannot.  

It's rather simple, you condemn me for doing it but somehow never see when it happens to me.  Although there is an example on this very page.

Quote:The way out of this is to STOP THE VERBAL ABUSE of any forum member. Stop casting that behavior as "giving what you got" or something others brought on themselves.

I've actually made a concerted effort to do exactly that since the restart.  I have not seen the same commitment from you or your buddies.  We could probably all do a better job in this regard.  You could also start holding everyone accountable to the same standards.  Your position would have a lot more credibility if you did.

[Dill]

(10-09-2020, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's because they were deleted, but you were around to see them.

It's rather simple, you condemn me for doing it but somehow never see when it happens to me.  Although there is an example on this very page.

I've actually made a concerted effort to do exactly that since the restart.  I have not seen the same commitment from you or your buddies.  We could probably all do a better job in this regard.  You could also start holding everyone accountable to the same standards.  Your position would have a lot more credibility if you did.

No idea of these deleted points, "around" or not.

I've explained my views on the above example. 

I have to hold myself accountable to standards first. No change in that commitment from the old board. 

But I take your point about holding others accountable as well.  If my support helps, then I will gladly give it. 

Henceforward personal attacks aren't ok from "my buddies" or anyone else. Community effort.

PS You've a perfect right to think ANTIFA a greater threat than militias or whatever. There are all kinds of things like that reasonable people can disagree on.  We'd be unable to debate at all if NOT criticizing some group, or criticizing it insistently enough, made us suddenly a supporter.

[hollodero]

(10-09-2020, 08:30 PM)Dill Wrote: No, I truly haven't seen any post in which you were called a "fan of Hitler" or told you were "craving an opportunity to kill."

The latter post did occur pretty much as stated, albeit some time ago. Regarding the former, there was a deleted post in this thread that of course I shall not repost verbatim, but believe me it was pretty unambiguous.

I have a different take than SSF on many things. On this, I don't. What he addresses has nothing to do with good or bad discussion style, but with inacceptable discussion style. And there are quite a few examples of that.

I don't want to put you in the wrong over those two instances, for you probably were not aware of those. But in general I share the observation that there is less willingness to call out people/posts from people from the perceived "own side". Which sure applies to both sides. Both sides imho have blind spots regarding their own behaviour, and the tone of their posts (from oneself or others), while they willingly see the same fault at others from the other side.

How fatal it is that there's always the split in two sides is tragic in its own way, but that seems to be the way it is.