Trump, where do you stand on him now?

[Dill]

(11-19-2020, 11:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:There are non-supporters, though, who don't vote for Trump and don't attend his rallies, and are often willing to grant he is a boor, yet when his racism, misogyny or authoritarian behavior are criticized, they step forward to criticize the critics.  When Trump critics remark on chaotic and unprecedented turnover of WH staff, and the demeaning public treatment of those fired, these non-supporters are quick to remind us that there is turnover in every administration and Trump has a right to have people who will carry out his views, not their own. His Muslim ban was "not really" a Muslim ban, and so not really a very public attempt to scapegoat a world religion. Complaints about insults to allies, and cabinet picks with no experience and nepotism, are just "butthurt" because Hillary lost.  See: "normal" nothing really out of the ordinary here. Supporters do this too, of course. 

This argument is lacking as it ignores the very real possibility that the criticism of Trump's critics can be wholly justified.  You deal in a lot of absolutes for someone who claims to pride themselves on the quality and subtlety of their arguments.

So clearly people can normalize Trump's behavior without supporting him, just as they can support him without normalizing it.  It would be absurd to argue that people can only normalize Trump's behavior if they are supporters.

Alternatively it would be equally absurd to assume everyone criticizing Trump isn't guilty of what they are accused of in return.  You don't "see it" just like you don't "see it" when your friends casually throw around serious accusations.  I'd hesitate to say this was intentional, but the evidence that it is seems to be mounting.

You questioned the possibility of any substantive distinction between "normalizers" and "supporters" of Trump. 

The job of my argument then was to show what it showed--that Trump supporters may be distinct from Trump normalizers. 
And you haven't shown any factual or logical flaw in that argument.

It doesn't ignore "the very real possibility that the criticism of Trump's critics can be wholly justified." Sure it "can" be and other hypotheticals; but it's up to someone who thinks he show mis-criticism of Trump's behavior is a more serious threat to the Republic than Trump's behavior to demonstrate that. Just saying it "can" be does no more than draw another red herring across the trail.

My task is to explain/argue why people ought to be listening to the critics who recognize what Trump actually does, instead of normalizing and minimalizing bad behavior. There is no "dealing in absolutes" at all. As you are using the term, anyone who criticized anyone would be guilty of "absolutism." 

Finally, continually accusing me of not being able to "see" posts whose existence you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate, is just nonsense.  Evidence cannot "seem to be mounting" when it is not even there.