Trump: Jews who vote D are ignorant and disloyal

[Dill]

(08-23-2019, 01:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Good for you. 

Dill Wrote: Further, criticizing others' political choices isn't telling them whom to vote for.

It is if your criticizing their political choice of who they're voting for. 

Dill: And we do get to criticize others' views in a liberal democracy.

We do. Doesn't mean all criticism is acceptable or morally right.

Or did you mean "who am I to criticize opposing views in a democracy"?

Nope. I said what I said. I meant what I meant. No hidden messages.

Any criticism of political choices of people voting for the other side can be cast as "telling others whom to vote for."  If I argue that you should vote for Biden I am arguing, at the same time, that you should NOT vote for Trump, even if I don't mention Trump by name. No way around that. And if telling people whom to vote for--or not--is unacceptable, then debate over political issues is itself unacceptable.  That follows from what you "meant."  

But it looks like there is another issue you are sliding over here in this and previous posts.  There is a difference between civil, rational political "criticism" accountable to public record, and "shitting" on people. If a female reporter writes an NYT article criticizing Trump's trade policy because it measurably hurt soybean farmers, that would be an example of the former. If Trump then tweeted she was a "pig" for criticizing his policy, and the failing NYT was "fake news" for publishing her article, that would be an example of the latter. 

One problem with current public discourse is that there are so many who see no difference. Any one who criticizes anyone in whatever mode is "shitting" on them. No such thing as neutral analysis--all is ATTACK motivated by some vaguely assigned "hate," which separates political judgment from any accountability to a factual record.  

So yes, "all criticism is not morally right."  But Trump is the best current exemplar of criticism that is "not morally right," e.g., when he says people who criticize the US for residual racism "hate" America or Jews who vote Democratic are "disloyal" or the free press is the enemy of the people because it publishes articles critical of his behavior and policies.  

And you defend Trump in the same manner, when you say that people only "bash" him because they "hate" him.  To say this is to say that his own behavior does not draw the "bashing." Thus separating him from personal accountability for his own actions.  It is to imply, or say directly, there is no legitimate criticism of Trump.

The inverse side of this mode appears when you assume that questioning peoples' political choices is "saying they aren't allowed to be an individual and have individual thoughts and opinions."  Framed thus, the only thing that could "allow" them to be an individual is no criticism at all.  "Shitting on" or no criticism--you are not recognizing any other options here.