The Unvaxinated = the Taliban

[Dill]

(08-31-2021, 09:53 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The danger is to everyone in this country. Inflammatory speech like this only furthers the divide and emboldens some to demonize fellow Americans.  We've seen over and over (and over, and over, and over) again what this is doing to this country.

It's even worse with statements like this which are rather ambigious.  Is he talking about anti-vaxers, or people who remain unvvacinated?  Is he talking about MAGA people?  Is he talking about the Proud Boys?  Is he talking about Republicans?  While there may be an answer to this in his own mind, to the people reading it it's up for interpretation.

There are consequences for labeling people as Nazi's, or facsists, or now the Taliban, just as there are consequences for the low IQ people who believed the DNC is filled with pedophiles.  Whether you look to January 6th, or the Antifa/Protesters meeting Kyle Rittenhouse and Co., or any number of confrontations that play out on our streets almost daily, this type of language helps no one.

Forgetting all of the above, and the danger in using descriptions and language like this, this is just downright offensive and inaccurate.  One only needs to read about what the Taliban did to that folk singer a few days ago to know there is no comparison to be made to anything that is occuring here.  And that's just a singular example. 

Thanks for these discussion points, Wes.  

1. The connotations of "Taliban" don't send my attention to anti-vaxxers. It is likely that Moore is refering to our politicized religious right.  When "leftists" compare the Taliban to American conservatives, the point of comparison is not cutting of fingers or beheading people, but the inclination to restrict women's and gays civil rights, the promotion of which they find "inflammatory." "The left," on the other hand, finds this inclination itself inflammatory. It is a common "leftist" theme that American conservatives like to reference the challenge to women's and gay rights in places like Afghanistan, but not the challenges to them here in the US. Is it your argument that, if Taliban behead people, these common "conservative" tendencies between Taliban and American conservatives should not be acknowledged, let alone examined--because that would be "offensive," "inacurrate," and "divisive"?  If I say that both are responses to globalization, am I "demonizing fellow Americans"? 

2. More importantly, you've referenced "consequences for labeling people as Nazi's or fascists." So, a question: Are you familiar with the recent work of Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder? Both have studied authoritarian regimes for many years. Concerned by the internal collapse of democracies around the world into authoritarianism, and immensely disturbed by the number of authoritarian red flags suddenly appearing in U.S. politics, they have drawn on their knowledge to write warning books about the state of our current politics. https://www.amazon.com/How-Fascism-Works-Politics-Them/dp/0525511830
https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Twenty-Lessons-Twentieth-Century/dp/0804190119/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=snyder&qid=1630450580&s=books&sr=1-1&asin=0804190119&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

They seem to think there are consequences for ignoring the history of authoritarian politics, namely history repeats itself. That doesn't mean "nazism," specifically, will rise again, rather that new forms of authoritarian or even fascist style politics could come to dominate our political processes under other names, driven by economic and social crises of the sort we are experiencing now. One thing is clear though--the goal of such books is not to compare Americans to "scum." It is rather to make us aware of "system failure": The kind of political behaviors and tendencies which break down the "firewalls" protecting democracy from authoritarian rule--like the concentration of party allegiances in a single leader, and creating legal mechanisms for exploiting chaos--then creating the chaos.  

How does this sort of scholarship fit into you your view of "danger" to our country. Is it part of the problem, mere "labeling" and the equivalent of a Trump tweet demonizing other Americans, or is it actually addressing the problem, helping us understand what is going wrong and how to fix it? 

If you think the latter, then oughtn't we be able to distinguish between scholarship and tweets intended to inflame and knowledge intended for our guidance? If you think the former, would you go so far as to maintain that such scholarship be suppressed, for fear it would only "inflame" our politics and demonize Americans? 

3. Regarding the "demonization of fellow Americans": the premise of this thread seems to be that I, dill, advocate comparing people I disagree with to "scum" in order to "polarize people and stir up hatred." I defend any old Nazi comparison. That, itself" seems rather an instance of "demonization," doesn't it, since I don't do any of those things?  

E.g., I have refused to call any human beings "scum" or "animals." SSF and I disagree on this. Before you joined our exhalted company, Wes, he didn't shy from calling me a supporter of ISIS and MS-13 precisely because I wouldn't follow him in calling them "animals."  But after lumping me with ISIS, he now he insists it's a very bad thing to compare one's political opponents to "the worst human scum you can," like ISIS. Something he now insists he has ALWAYS opposed. Has the leopard changed his spots?  

I don't think so. He claims I'm the demonizer now, and wants to generate a group response to contain my "hatred." But I don't think he is out to stop verbal abuse, "division," and demonization of other posters; he just wants comparison of right wing US politics to authoritarian regimes, especially those based in scholarship on such, to stop.