Out of All the Irresponsible Actions...

[Dill]

(11-10-2020, 02:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So of course Trump supporters oppose what Trump opposes--the "deep state" and Democratic "worst excesses" like "socialism" and "the Biden crime family."  He is a "bulwark" against the fears that he and his right wing backers have worked decades to generate. And as Max Weber reminds us, "Charisma" is not IN politicians and prophets, but is projected onto them by followers. That's why his odious and vulgar behavior has no traction outside the right wing bubble, but produces adulation inside it.

Here is where you really veer off the highway of logical analysis and buy wholesale into partisan positions.  If you're attempting to persuade the undecided with this post I'd have to guess you failed miserably.  Labeling anyone who doesn't adhere to your positions as robotic simpletons is no way to win them over with your argument.

Quote:Every single Trump supporter might not be credulous. But millions certainly were/are, and continue to be--played now by fears of new "Dem excesses," Trump endorsed rumors of myriad instances of voter fraud in swing states which criss-cross their blogs and Facebook and Twitter accounts faster than they can be refuted. 

Again, further proof, if any was needed (might be?).  You see your ideological opponents as credulous simpletons, willing to believe anything if it fits into their preconceptions.  You don't see your opponents as people of intelligence capable of nuanced thought or feeling.  You, apparently, and forgive me if I am wrong, see them as ideological robots.  For a man as aged and learned as yourself this position is surprisingly absolute and brooks no dissension, at least without extreme rebuke.  I might postulate that your own position is as credulous as those you claim to abhor, but I don't like to traffic in such absolutes.  I'll simply chalk it up to your dislike for Trump and hope for an improvement within the next few years.

Three quick points here.

1. You do not refute my arguments here at all. you offer impressions and (quite judgemental) advice and generally talk around and about them.  

2. Of course I "brook dissension." But to be effective, to meet argument as argument, that dissension should take the form of factual refutation of observations and measures offered. 

3. The first question here is whether actually, factually, and determinably there are millions of Trump voters who believe in conspiracy theories, spread in part by the president himself.  If observation establishes that there are such, then that fact can't be disestablished or refuted because it would make those voters "credulous simpletons" or "ideological robots."  

And if it can be established, that hardly makes me "credulous" or "surprisingly absolutist."