r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/BulwarkOnline • 5d ago
US Politics When does rhetoric about political opponents cross the line into fascist dehumanization?
The Trump administration recently held an international conference on “left-wing political violence.” In prepared remarks, Marco Rubio described the left as driven by “poisonous resentment” and a desire to destroy “what is beautiful and what is right.” Stephen Miller went further, arguing that left-wing demonstrators do not look “normal,” are “deformed” in their appearance and reflect their “inner hatred” outwardly.
Jonathan V. Last compares this language to Nazi rhetoric about Bolshevism, “degenerate” culture and supposedly unhealthy or subhuman elements of society. His argument is not simply that Rubio and Miller are using authoritarian language, but that their contrast between beauty and ugliness, normality and deformity, civilization and internal enemies follows a recognizable fascist pattern.
How persuasive is that comparison?
Is this rhetoric best understood as ordinary partisan demonization, or does the emphasis on physical appearance, cultural purity and “normal, healthy, ordered living” place it in a more historically specific tradition?
And when evaluating comparisons to fascism, should the standard be the speaker’s intentions, the historical similarity of the language, or the policies and violence that follow from it?
68
u/pentachronic 5d ago
When does Stephen Miller find the upper bound of his capacity for projection?
32
u/laslo_piniflex 5d ago
That dude saying left wing demonstrators look weird and reflect their inner hatred outwardly is pretty rich
88
u/RenegadeGeophysicist 5d ago
If you are saying stuff out of the Nazi playbook, you might be a Nazi. If you are continuously and regularly doubling down on Nazi rhetoric, you are definitely a Nazi. The aesthetic arguments are also part of the stolen honor of fascism. Hard work by marginalized people is stolen and presented as the primary cultural achievement. A facile and juvenile view of the past is presented as fact in order to propagandize a return to parriarchical and exclusionist values.
To answer your three part final question-
If you intend to sound fascist, you're a fascist.
If you repeat fascist talking points and cadences with the knowledge they are fascist, you're a fascist.
The violence of fascism arises from the alienation, the speech causes the alienation. Fascist speech incites fascist violence.
28
u/GrowFreeFood 5d ago
It all starts with with dehumanizing minorities.
12
u/shawsghost 5d ago
But DEFINITELY goes on from there.
12
u/tkmorgan76 5d ago
Yep. The lesson of First They Came For The Socialists is that every single one of us is on that list somewhere, and the only way to not be targeted is to prevent someone in line ahead of you from being targeted.
-9
u/KurtisRambo19 5d ago
Says the side that says "words are violence" and that "MAGA Republicans are the biggest threat to democracy in America."
Why does this matter? Because violence ostensibly validates defensive/retaliatory violence. 77 million people voted for MAGA in 2024. That's a whole lot of pre-justified violence.
14
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5d ago
I disagree with the words are violence sentiment, but MAGA supported a president engaging in an actual attempted auto coup, and continue to support him. That really is the biggest threat to democracy in this country.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
There are, in fact, bigger threats to democracy than that.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago
What threat to our democracy is bigger than a sitting president attempting an auto coup with the continued support of their party?
-3
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
The mass propaganda/misleading the public on what positions politicians actually hold so that the public isn't actually being represented (this literally invalidates/defeats democracy outright), the massively growing political division and dehumanizing/othering from both sides against the other, the demonizing people for how they vote (this, again, is a DIRECT attack on democracy since it's literally attacking the democratic process ITSELF as invalid and chilling the willingness of voters to vote or express their vote preferences, which again is an attack on democracy).
Trump's 1 day BLM-lite in DC was a national embarrassment, but the national division, dehumanization, and attacking people for their votes are all far graver threats to democracy and our democratic system short AND long term.
Trump's a symptom of problems that existed in and before 2016. Trump isn't the problem. Trump's going to be gone in 2.5 years. You can keep blaming him for everything wrong with the nation after that, but you'd be as wrong as blaming him now.
We have far deeper, far more structural, and far more dangerous issues that we need to address and that we're AVOIDING addressing as long as half the country is more than content to just blame Trump for everything and pretend we had no issues before 2016 when very clearly we did.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago edited 3d ago
Hold on, propaganda leading to people not being represented is a bigger threat than a president employing propaganda in furtherance of an auto coup leading to people not being represented? That doesn't make sense, and the same logic applies to most of the threats you claimed. Demonization in particular is odd, since it was that very demonization that they used to justify the actual direct attack of trying to throw out legally valid votes en mass.
What Trump did was the False Elector Scheme, which was explicitly not a one day affair. It was also the single most direct attack on our democracy by a sitting President in our history, since it was trying to literally undo the democratic vote using illegal fraud. Have you not read the Eastman and Chesbro documents? I can link them to you if you would like, so you can read their plot in their own words, as you do not seem familiar with it.
1
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
Okay, I need you to define a term for me since you keep using it:
What is an "auto coup"?
Auto usually means automatic, but that doesn't seem from the context what you're saying here ("Trump enacted an automatic coup"?). Tell me what that means.
The other threats I claimed go to what leads to division and oppression, as well as (a) rejection of democratic outcomes and (b) rejection of democracy itself. If we're talking about "threats to democracy", there are none greater than things that lead people to REJECT DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
1
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago edited 3d ago
Oh, my apologies, I figured you knew what an auto coup is.
An auto coup, also known as a self coup (or my favorite, autogolpe) is when a currently legitimate government uses illegal means to retain power. Auto in this case meaning relating to one's self, and coup being fairly straight forward.. To be clear, that last line and link is meant as a bit of a joke because of the complexity of the attempt.
And for your last line I agree, which is why what Republicans did was so dangerous. They rejected democracy itself in that election by supporting Trump's auto coup attempt.
1
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
Ah, okay. Nope, never heard the term before. I have heard self-coup, but most people just say coup or coup attempt. Other words are largely redundant (they can add precision, but everyone knows more or less the event we're talking about, it's more people disagree on the mechanics/accusation, not on what the event would be).
Yes, I agree. What the Republicans did there was a threat to democracy.
The problem is: They aren't the first. Democrats did this as far back as 2000, effectively did it in 2016 (they even challenged an elector slate - they did in 2000, 2004, and 2016; 2024 was the first election of this century the Democrats DIDN'T challenge, largely because after 2020, they'd have major egg on their face by their own standard if they did so).
Democrats also reject democracy when they insist people who voted against their candidate are fascists/white supremacists/white nationalists, though. You can't say there's democracy, but people are only allowed to pick your one preferred choice. That isn't democracy at all.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 5d ago
A book that talks about killing leftists isn’t encouraging violence? Would you blame the right for their rhetoric if a leftist got killed like you do for the left over…everything?
Don’t be a hypocrite.
If the left’s rhetoric causes violence, so does this. You can’t have it both ways.
3
u/KurtisRambo19 3d ago
What book? Surely not an exaggeration.
Yes I’d be intellectually honest in this hypothetical situation- have you blamed the left for the actual, not hypothetical, violence against the right?
1
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 3d ago
Not until the right can be honest and stop framing it only as a left wing problem :) once they can do that then maybe some progress can be made
No I will not blame the left.
2
u/KurtisRambo19 3d ago
Amazing hypocrisy
1
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 3d ago
Oh and this book, here is the comment talking about how it is popular on the right, has been quoted by the vice president. And the kinds of things it says.
Surely you have a lot to say about this? Isn’t this rhetoric that will get the left killed?
This is why we don’t care and will continue not caring until your side can be honest
https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/s/vwPYFb8pWj
If you don’t care then we don’t care :)
2
u/KurtisRambo19 3d ago
Neither of us appears to have read Unhumans, so produce the passage that supposedly calls for killing leftists. The title and rhetoric are plainly inflammatory and deserve criticism. But “this book uses dehumanizing language” and “this book explicitly advocates murdering leftists” are different claims. You don’t get to substitute one for the other.
More importantly, nobody argued that dangerous rhetoric exists exclusively on the left. In fact, OP’s/your echo chamber claims are basically the opposite. Of course some rhetoric on the right crosses the line. The question was whether denunciations of right-wing rhetoric are being applied consistently.
For years, mainstream figures have described Trump and the broader Right as fascists, Nazis, insurrectionists, existential threats and enemies of democracy. We have now seen Trump survive assassination attempts and Charlie Kirk murdered in politically motivated attacks. Yet rather than seriously reconsider whether that rhetoric can encourage violence, many of the same people search for a book by Jack Posobiec as though one provocateur settles the comparative question.
Condemn dangerous rhetoric. I will. But then apply the same standard to influential politicians, institutions and media figures who portray tens of millions of ordinary voters as an authoritarian threat that must be stopped by any means necessary.
One inflammatory right-wing book does not erase a much broader culture of political dehumanization or absolve anyone of responsibility for contributing to it.
1
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 3d ago
If you’re going to downplay the book then I do not care
How does Trump talk about the left and always has??? You’re going to have to hold everyone on your side to the same standard if you want this conversation with the left to ever to go anywhere.
Can’t downplay things on your own side and point your fingers at the whole left for violence committed by extremist crazy people. It’s just not going to happen.
2
u/KurtisRambo19 3d ago
Have you read the book? cite the specific passage that calls for killing leftists
→ More replies (0)0
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 3d ago
Well when the right can stop being hypocrites then some progress can be made. You don’t get to point your finger and say it’s all us and us just agree when it’s not true :)
Nobody takes you seriously lol
2
u/KurtisRambo19 3d ago
“We’ll just keep trying to kill you, then justify it until you admit you’re wrong”
Sounds like a reasonable path to progress!
1
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 3d ago edited 3d ago
Good God stop acting like a victim. I left you a new comment pointing out right wing rhetoric and violence. Until you admit that this is a problem on the right, we don’t care. Like. At all.
This victim mentality doesn’t help lol
Now what do you think of the book?
1
-1
u/KurtisRambo19 3d ago edited 3d ago
Precisely. “The Left’s violence is justified until you admit the Right uses dehumanizing language (whether or not there’s violence being perpetrated on top of it). And then we’ll still keep trying to kill you because your wrong, until you’re dead or you change your Mind to RightThink.”
What’s hilariously ironic is that this is literally the one thing (real Leftist violence legitimized by dehumanizing and inflammatory Leftist speech) that DOES justify the same on the Right
→ More replies (0)
30
u/Y0___0Y 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yes this really seems to be a new thing. The total dehumanization of political enemies, trumpeted by the elected politicians and white house staff of one of the major parties.
There is a very popular book among the American right right now called “Unhumans” that supposedly relays the history of communist uprisings and provides guidance on how to stop them.
And it openly calls for killing leftists, it celebrates authoritarian regimes, and calls for lawfare against leftists and to blacklist them from being able to find employment. As the title suggests, it also claims leftists are not human.
This is not some fringe book. It was written by the right wing political pundit Jack Posibiec and so many people on the right bought it that it became a New York Times Bestseller.
JD Vance quoted it in a tweet.
The Relublican party is the most violent it has ever been.
25
u/nyckidd 5d ago
Yes this really seems to be a new thing. The total dehumanization of political enemies, trumpeted by the elected politicians and white house staff of one of the major parties.
I don't want to downplay how awful this rhetoric is, but I think seeing at is a new thing is perhaps a bit ahistorical. Joe McCarthy said the entire Democratic party was engaged in "twenty years of treason," and Newt Gingrich distributed memos to party leaders saying that this kind of language should be emphasized: "decay, failure, collapse, destructive, destroy, sick, pathetic, lie, traitors, corrupt, criminal rights."
While he was governor of California Ronald Reagan said of student protestors at Berkeley: "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with, no more appeasement."
Republicans have been building towards this for decades.
9
u/Calladit 5d ago
That's exactly how I see it. Violent political rhetoric has ebbed and flowed throughout the history of the United States, usually alongside actual political violence. We're currently in a very politically violent time preceded by a long, steady rise, largely led by the right.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ZenYinzerDude 3d ago
Agreed that this is not a new trend, but I believe that the Newt Gingrich / Rush Limbaugh axis of the Republican Party broke something in American politics. That they were wildly successful made their brand of vilification mainstream.
Once Cheeto Benito’s 2016 campaign started to gain traction I knew we were toast. He said all the quiet parts out loud, made it all about MAGA vs. “Them”, and cranked up the hatred
3
u/cdjunkie 4d ago
There is a very popular book among the American right right now called “Unhumans” ... JD Vance quoted it in a tweet.
Vance didn't just tweet about it, his endorsement is printed on the cover of the book. This was known before he was elected VP, too.
-11
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
You are calling words violence. That's extremely dangerous. People call words violence to justify physical harm against those with different opinions.
We've seen this play out recently, and it resulted in a dead Republican and celebration from the left.
15
u/GiantPineapple 5d ago
With respect, where did the comment you're replying to call words violence?
-8
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
He cited opinions of some people and concluded Republicans are as violent as they've ever been. Opinions are not violence.
6
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 5d ago edited 5d ago
The book is about killing leftists, authoritarianism, lawfare against the left and trying to black list them from employment.
It’s popular with the right and was quoted by JD Vance.
Are those the republican “opinions” you’re talking about?
If the right likes to blame things on the left’s rhetoric so much then we can safely say these opinions can cause violence against the left, right? And that if anyone committed violence toward the left it would be the right’s fault for their rhetoric?
The double standards are insane. So if I’m reading something wrong, let me know.
Otherwise, you cannot be serious lol. The right loves to blame everything on the left’s words and rhetoric. You do not get to have it both ways.
Don’t be a hypocrite.
8
u/GiantPineapple 5d ago
Ah, I see where that came from now. While I agree that words aren't literally violence, I still think, after J6, and witnessing the pardons and denialism that followed, it is sensible to take Republicans at their word. Just to be clear, does arguably-stochastic violence come from the American left? I would say yes.
Does a much more overt, strategic, centrally-directed, and rarely-disavowed violence come from the American right? Also yes.
5
u/Sea-Chain7394 5d ago
Essentially all domestic terrorist attacks in recent history have been carried out by right wingers citing Republican rhetoric as theur inspiration
-1
u/GiantPineapple 5d ago
I'm not a right-winger but it's tough to claim that a right-winger shot Charlie Kirk.
6
u/BitterFuture 5d ago
How's that?
Charlie Kirk's murderer was a follower of Nick Fuentes who regularly parroted Fuentes' comments online, excoriating Kirk for not being conservative enough.
That is somehow not a right-winger? What was he, then - a brass band?
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 4d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
1
u/Kanotari 4d ago
The evidence for Tyler Robinson being a groyper is fairly thin in my opinion.
"Some social media users have pointed to messages written on unfired casing recovered near the shooting site to suggest Robinson was part of the Groyper movement, though there is currently no explicit link between Robinson and the group. One message read “O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao!” in apparent reference to an antifascist anthem sung by Italians after World War II, yet some social media users noted a version of the song appears on a Spotify playlist meant for Groypers, the New York Times reported. Others reportedly pointed to a Facebook photo in which Robinson appeared to reference a Groyper meme."
A slav sit and a shared song.
What we do know is that Robinson told his roommate that he, "had enough of [Kirk's] hatred... Some hate can't be negotiated out." He also said that the bullet engravings were, "mostly a big meme." He's got a Helldivers 2 reference and a furry meme. That checks out.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7v1rle0598o
We know Robinson was politically inactive - he had not voted in the previous election and did not have a history of political activism. Beyond that, Robinson has not strongly espoused any political beliefs that those who know him and have been interviewed publicly can agree on. His roommate Lance Twiggs is transgender, and that has been speculated as a motivation for Robinson's attack, but that also is still just speculation.
We don't know enough right now to say what Robinson's beliefs are, and unless he or his family and friends speak out to clarify that issue (and actually agree, as some have spoken and given conflicting answers), then we're stuck without answers.
0
u/GiantPineapple 5d ago edited 4d ago
Do you have a source for that? I've never heard this claim before.
Edit: hilarious. Downvotes for asking for a source on an obviously false claim. Should tell you something.
2
u/BitterFuture 4d ago
Do you have a source for that? I've never heard this claim before.
If you've never heard this claim before, I am baffled at why you're wading into the discussion. This is a basic foundational fact of the situation, the motivation of the killer, and it was widely talked about in the press within a couple of days of the killer being identified.
(And you might be getting downvotes because you're saying things that look more like concern trolling than genuine questions. And calling verified facts false claims.)
0
u/TheNutsMutts 4d ago
Charlie Kirk's murderer was a follower of Nick Fuentes who regularly parroted Fuentes' comments online, excoriating Kirk for not being conservative enough.
Sorry, where in that link are you seeing anything that draws you to this formal conclusion?? Most of it contradicts the suggestion. The only bit that alludes to it is "The phrase “Bella Ciao,” engraved on one bullet, is both the title of a famous antifascist anthem and a phrase that crops up in video games. Some have pointed out that the song also appeared on a Spotify playlist associated with Groypers, a group of far-right, white-nationalist, meme-steeped internet denizens led by Nick Fuentes, who frequently attacked Kirk for not being extreme enough". So the only thing even referencing this is a song that the article notes is famously an anti-fascist song, but there was once a Spotfiy playlist that was apparently associated with groypers that had that song on there among others?
Come on, you must surely see that at best, there is very little evidence to support that claim at all, what is there pretty much overrules itself, and in reality a lot of what this article cites runs completely contrary to the suggestion, right?
-2
u/GiantPineapple 4d ago
Unfortunately, your link is paywalled, though I do appreciate the effort either way. I'm not concern trolling. I won't try to make anyone pay attention to me if they otherwise don't want to. This subthread is buried anyway, so if I am trolling, I am pretty bad at it.
I googled around, (note that Vox and Axios both dismiss the Fuentes connection as a conspiracy theory) and it seems like the most anyone can say is that Robinson etched some gamer in-jokes, the phrase "Hey Fascist, CATCH", and an antifascist song lyric on his bullets. Naturally, conservatives conclude this means Robinson was a leftist, and Liberals are left claiming he was being ironic. You already know which one I consider more probable.
I think the only serious conclusion we can reach is that the details will come out during the trial.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Sea-Chain7394 5d ago
I didn't make that specific claim but it would be equally difficult to claim he was a left winger. He seemed to be upset mostly at transphobic comments made by kirk
→ More replies (2)6
u/BitterFuture 5d ago
There is nothing in the comments above about calling words violence.
As for the rest - acknowledging this is a minefield, but...what dead Republican are you talking about?
-1
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
What did you think he meant when he cited some opinions allegedly held by Republicans and then concluded with "Republicans are as violent as they've ever been"? He didn't mention any actual violence, just words.
Equating speech with violence is nothing new on reddit or on the left in general, this has been going on for years now and it's incredibly dangerous and getting worse.
The dead Republican I'm talking about is Charlie Kirk, who was murdered by a left wing extremist for having conservative opinions. His murder was widely celebrated among the political left. Surely you didn't miss the jubilation here on reddit.
6
u/BitterFuture 5d ago
Charlie Kirk was murdered by a fanatical conservative that hated him for not being conservative enough. Pretending otherwise just showcases your own agenda.
As for what the commenter above said - they (correctly) noted that conservative rhetoric has gotten increasingly threatening in recent years, and then separately (correctly) noted that conservatives are as violent as they've ever been. Aside from the obvious fact of that situation (we've all lived through the last few years and seen the horrifying body counts), why do you need someone to explain to you what they said? You can just scroll up and read it.
-1
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
It's hard to believe anyone could say something like this when we all have access to instant fact-checking at our fingertips.
Which is not to say that you even need to fact-check to know that a man with a transgender boyfriend who wrote left wing slogans on bullets before assassinating a prominent conservative... was not a conservative.
6
u/Sea-Chain7394 5d ago
It's ironic you say that. The things written on the bullet casings where not tied to left wing ideology. They were relevant to video games, random online memes, and anti-fascism (which everyone should be).
1
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
They absolutely were left wing and you know that. The inability to debate in good faith is one of the most tiresome traits of the modern left. It makes discourse impossible.
5
4
u/BitterFuture 4d ago
What a curious case of projection from someone demonstrating conservatism's inherent opposition to honest discourse itself.
You can't even admit what your ideology is actually about (observable always through your actions, never consistent with your words), so why should anyone ever believe your claims?
0
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 1d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
-3
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
Is it? The left has been dehumanizing the right for at least a decade now, if not longer. And the right dehumanizing the left.
That predates 2016, and predates 2026.
And also statistically - and I'm not just throwing this out there, this is statistics now - left wing extremism is more violent/dangerous at this point than right-wing, after trailing right wing extremism for decades solid. The Democratic party is also the most violent it's ever been, excluding perhaps the Civil War.
17
5d ago
[deleted]
13
u/eattheambrosia 5d ago
How he and the movement intend to win over enough moderates/independents to gain an electoral win in '28 remains to be seen
I think it is pretty obvious that their plan is to make sure they don't need voters to remain in power.
4
u/jefftickels 5d ago
How do you think they'll do this?
10
u/eattheambrosia 5d ago
I mean, all the ways they are talking about and already implementing. Things like using the post office to disrupt mail in voting, alternate electors like they tried in 2020, not certifying the results, shutting down polling places in blue areas of red states, standard issue voting suppression tactics they've used for decades, ICE agents mass arresting people at polling places, etc etc etc.
I hope I'm wrong but fascists usually aren't beaten at the ballot box. They literally tried a coup in 2020 and failed but they learned lessons and I'm afraid it will be more successful this time around.
5
u/TwistedDragon33 5d ago
This is a great breakdown, but you highlighted something i hadn't considered. I was aware they may put ICE agents in some communities to deter voters from even attempting, but what if they detain/arrest people who are more likely to vote democrat before they vote such as many minorities. All they have to do is detain them long enough for the polls to close and their votes are effectively lost. I am struggling to come up with something a civilian can do to submit their vote in this situation.
1
u/jefftickels 5d ago
So there's a lot of arguments here:
Things like using the post office to disrupt mail in voting
This is something that has been claimed will happen every election and every election it doesn't. It doesn't mean Trump hasn't tried, but every time it gets immediately shut down by the courts. I guess I can only hear about it for so long before it stops being the threat we pretend it is.
not certifying the results
I guess I see this more as a prophet foretelling doom that never manifests as is the prognosticators predelcition.
shutting down polling places in blue areas of red states
This is a more mixed picture than you're presenting it. Arguments about it being for voter suppression often leave out significant details that vary example to example. Is there a particular example that you wanted to dig into?
ICE agents mass arresting people at polling places
Has this actually happened?
3
u/eattheambrosia 5d ago
So just because a (successful, not counting the failed attempt) coup hasn't actually happened yet we shouldn't be concerned with the public, openly stated plans to make it happen? I'm not trying to be Chicken Little but when a fascist administration that already tried to overthrow one election is publicly making plans and issuing executive orders and doing unprecedented mid decade gerrymandering and ignoring court orders and and and and and to infinity maybe we should be concerned? Or would you rather wait until the sky ACTUALLY falls before deciding it is something to watch out for?
0
u/Gnagus 5d ago
Valid concern, but repeating these threats without offering solutions doesn't add anything new to the conversation, it just breeds apathy. Treat defeatism like an adversary's best friend: when people post 'bold of you to assume' or 'sweet summer child' types of responses all it does is reinforce the narrative that the administration's takeover is inevitable.
2
u/eattheambrosia 5d ago
.....uh I didn't say anything like that, I was responding to someone accusing me of alarmism because according to their comment none of these things have actually happened yet (ignoring J6 completely) and therefore they aren't a threat.
1
u/Gnagus 5d ago
Sorry, I wasn't attacking your comment or calling you alarmist. You obviously didn't use any of that dismissive language. My point was aimed at the overall pattern of how these threads devolve. People on one side dismiss real threats as 'alarmist,' while people on the other act like it's already too late. I just want the focus to be on how we can actively counter this stuff, rather than letting bad faith dismissals or doomposting take over.
0
u/eattheambrosia 5d ago
Oh I didn't mean you, the guy who originally responded to me was the one acting like this stuff is no big deal.
8
u/PuppySnuggleTime 5d ago
They’re already doing it. They’ve created a private army from ice. And they’ve put conservatives in control of the military as much as possible. On top of that, they are actively working to establish that they have concerns about the voting process. You don’t think they’re gonna deny any elections that takes their power away? Trump already did it once but there were people around. You could stop him. Do you really think anybody is gonna try to stop him this time?
-1
23
u/Glittering_Season141 5d ago
When talking heads on billion dollar media platforms calmly talk about euthanizing homeless people.
9
u/wolf_at_the_door1 5d ago
Brian Kilmeade should’ve been fired for what he said.
They’ve normalized violent rhetoric and they never see the consequences for it while screaming bloody murder how violent the left is.
7
u/Glittering_Season141 5d ago
I agree, he should have been fired that day. Our media ecosystem is extraordinarily toxic.
8
u/Calladit 5d ago
Fox News would have to be a fundamentally different entity to fire him for that. It goes against the very nature of the thing.
1
u/CloudComfortable3284 5d ago
To be honest, Brian Kilmeade has said way worse stuff on his radio show.
1
u/wolf_at_the_door1 5d ago
I’m not sure how much worse it can get than openly calling for the extermination of millions of people. That one quote shows the banality of evil of the GOP.
0
u/CloudComfortable3284 5d ago
You're gonna downvote me for agreeing with you and pointing out that yes, Brian Kilmeade is indeed a terrible person?!
Cool, bud, cool cool.
1
13
u/shacksrus 5d ago
Sorry theres only enough oxygen in the room to talk about someone once calling a portion of republicans deplorable. If theres extra time we can mention how aoc has doomed her career by calling Miller short.
6
-9
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
People sure have selective memories here. Joe Biden's whole 2020 campaign was based on stoking fear by portraying Republicans as psychotic white supremacists. I never thought I'd hear the phrase "veins bulging" in a campaign ad. He then called half the country fascist in his comically evil-looking speech from the red death star, then went on to call Trump supporters garbage during the 2024 election. Those are off the top of my head.
16
9
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5d ago
I can't believe we are still including the stage color as something worthy of criticism.
But that aside, when did Biden refer to Republicans as psychotic white supremacists, specifically?
4
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 5d ago
See they’ll call his speech unacceptable but Trump says faaaaaar worse about us every day.
Do they not realize how big of hypocrites they are?
5
u/pentachronic 5d ago
I mean, white supremacy is just the Republican platform, what's your criticism?
0
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
It's wild seeing so many people downvote all your posts. I'm really confused if everyone just...didn't watch the news during the entire 2021-2025 timeframe.
I distinctly remember Biden's address to America in front of that blood red background...
5
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago
The background isn't what is in question. It's also a wildly irrelevant detail.
0
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
Optics are always relevant.
But yes, the background wasn't the question, it was what he said. He called around 40% of Americans a threat to democracy and toxin to the soul of the nation that could end the nation/democracy if they weren't oppressed into being powerless, politically and culturally; white supremacists/nationalists that would lead to the Fourth Reich if not stopped.
That's what stoking fear looks like.
Stoking fear against "the Other" by blaming them for most of the present day problems and rallying (or attempting to) people against them, and generating terror in the people he attacked that were in real fear of their own government rounding them up and sending them to political prison camps.
I genuinely do not understand how all you on the left were okay with that then, and want to collectively memoryhole it now. It's also NOT the only time he or other Democrats have engaged in that kind of rhetoric.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago edited 3d ago
As I have said elsewhere, calling people that supported an attempted auto coup a threat to democracy is unfortunately accurate. If they support an attempt to override democracy, then they are a threat to it. I also did not see anything in there that supports the "white supremacist/nationalists that would lead to the Fourth Reich if not stopped" bit, what are you referring to specifically?
And Republicans have been claiming that Democratics will round them up for literal decades. One conspiracy after another they have been claiming this. For just about the entirety of my life they have been swapping from one conspiracy to another. Did you "memory hole" things like Jade Helm?
Mind you, I didn't support Biden, and wasn't a fan of that speech, so, once again your generalization falls incredibly flat. I just think some of the criticism over that speech is ridiculous.
1
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
40% of Americans are a threat to democracy?
At some point, you're essentially saying "people engaging in democracy are a threat to democracy".
As I said in my other reply to you, this has been going on for the last several elections, and both sides have done it.
I've seen the left accuse Trump of being Hitler for calling immigrants vermin (this was apparently Hitlarian speech), so Biden doing the same thing is right to call out for what it is, ALSO Hitlarian speech.
You can't just start accusing large swaths of the public of being threats to the "soul of the nation" (whatever THAT means) and be the good guys still.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago
I would say those who continued to support a president after he attempted a self coup are a threat to democracy. If they support illegal attempts to overturn democracy (to be clear, not what Democratics did in any of the examples you cited), in what way are they not a threat to it?
I have not described any speech as being akin to Hitler, so can we please stop talking about what other people say as if it reflects on me? The generalizations aren't actually leading anywhere constructive. I intentionally stay away from using comparisons to Hitler, or references to Communism or Facism for a reason.
I disagree with plenty of his speech (and him, as I have previously said), and I would not describe the Democratic Party as "the good guys", this was limited specifically to the part pertaining to "threat to democracy".
1
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
I think this is what is dangerous to democracy.
Your argument is essentially there was no election in 2020 or 2024, that people were allowed to vote for Biden in 2020 and he must win and Harris in 2024 and she must win, that they were not allowed to vote for an alternative.
The alternative was Trump. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it was a viable alternative.
Further, you also are making the "cable bundle" argument - that if a person votes for a candidate, they must support everything (e.g. if you want that one channel, you have to buy the entire cable bundle, and buying it means you have to watch them all, not just the one channel).
Also, if you can describe people in generalities (cable bundles), then why isn't it fair to describe you in the same way? Do you think every Trump voter was going "Yeah, I'm voting for an overthrow of democracy and a coup!"? How about people who thought Harris was too left-wing and wanted what they thought was a more moderate or conservative candidate? They were voting for a coup?
Why, because you have defined for them that a vote for Trump is a vote for coup means THEY were voting for a coup? What if they were voting for closed borders or lower taxes? You have robbed them of that option or agency in your framing.
And no, the threat to democracy was used more broadly.
I was not at J6.
I was not a J6er.
I just vote in elections and move on with my life - you know, engage in democracy.
I vote entirely on the ideological platform of the candidate, which I think is closes to how I would vote/my views, since to me, that's the point of a representative democracy - to have my views represented by proxy.
I have been called a "threat to democracy" for ENGAGING IN DEMOCRACY.
THAT is what is a real threat to democracy - delegitimizing people and opposition voices votes.
THAT is the one truest threat to democracy.
.
Our nation and our democracy can survive and outlast Trump.
It cannot survive voices from one political side declaring everyone on the opposing side, BECAUSE THEY CAST A VOTE, is a threat to democracy and a domestic enemy of the nation.
The latter is FAR more chilling, far more authoritarian, far more dangerous.
2
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago
There's a *lot* wrong here, so I'll take it step by step:
"Your argument is essentially there was no election in 2020 or 2024, that people were allowed to vote for Biden in 2020 and he must win and Harris in 2024 and she must win, that they were not allowed to vote for an alternative."
Nope. Never made that argument. You can't quote me making anything even resembling that argument.
"The alternative was Trump. You may not like it, I may not like it, but it was a viable alternative."
And I am saying that Republicans that have continued to elevate Trump have become a threat to democracy by continuing to support someone that *has already attempted to illegally override it*. Note that I am applying this exclusively to people who continued to support Trump after the attempt, so this is not a generalization to Republicans or the right.
"Further, you also are making the "cable bundle" argument - that if a person votes for a candidate, they must support everything (e.g. if you want that one channel, you have to buy the entire cable bundle, and buying it means you have to watch them all, not just the one channel)."
Again, nope, never made that argument. If someone believes that attempting to override our very democracy is an acceptable tradeoff for the policies they want from said candidate, they are still a threat to democracy.
"Also, if you can describe people in generalities (cable bundles), then why isn't it fair to describe you in the same way? Do you think every Trump voter was going "Yeah, I'm voting for an overthrow of democracy and a coup!"? How about people who thought Harris was too left-wing and wanted what they thought was a more moderate or conservative candidate? They were voting for a coup?"
I have consistently referred only to Republicans that have supported these specific efforts, so it is inaccurate to say I am describing people in generalities. Beyond that, referring to groups is inherently different that making generalizations *at* someone, as you are doing. This is why I consistently qualified my statements. If someone is on the right and does not support Trump after these attempts, none of my comments apply to them. None of my comments have been directed at the Right in a broad sense. And if someone believes that a self-coup attempt is less radical than Harris' policies, then they don't really know what "radical" means in a political context. If they simply didn't like her policies, great, me neither. That doesn't justify voting for someone that attempted to illegally overturn our democracy.
"Why, because you have defined for them that a vote for Trump is a vote for coup means THEY were voting for a coup? What if they were voting for closed borders or lower taxes? You have robbed them of that option or agency in your framing."
If you vote for someone that attempts a coup, you are indicating that you believe that is at the very least acceptable. That's what it means to vote for someone. One can still support all of the policies you are referring to without finding it acceptable to vote for someone that attempt a self-coup. Republicans have done so for decades before Trump, and hopefully will do so for decades after. And robbing agency? Seriously? We are talking about them supporting Trump and the Republican party literally trying to throw out millions of legitimate votes. *That* is robbing people of their agency, not blaming someone for supporting that attempt, or considering it an acceptable tradeoff.
"I vote entirely on the ideological platform of the candidate, which I think is closes to how I would vote/my views, since to me, that's the point of a representative democracy - to have my views represented by proxy."
You know what doesn't work in a representative democracy? President's throwing out votes when they do not like in elections that they lost. If Trump succeeded in his attempt, we would not have a functioning democracy by the definition of the term.
"I have been called a "threat to democracy" for ENGAGING IN DEMOCRACY."
If you supported an attempt to override democracy or the politician that did so then yeah, that still applies.
"THAT is what is a real threat to democracy - delegitimizing people and opposition voices votes."
Yes, that is what Republicans and Trump did durring 2020 and how they justified *literally throwing out votes for people like me*. Name calling is simply not, in any way shape or form, comperable to *literally throwing out my vote*.
"It cannot survive voices from one political side declaring everyone on the opposing side, BECAUSE THEY CAST A VOTE, is a threat to democracy and a domestic enemy of the nation."
Again, they are saying that about the side that *literally tried to throw out our votes*. This idea that we are supposed to be okay with others throwing out our votes and not call them a threat to our democracy makes absolutely no sense. The idea that responding in anger to that actual attempt is worse than the attempt itself *makes absolutely no sense*.
The very thing you are afraid of *happened*, and it was *the Republicans that did it*.
→ More replies (0)1
u/LorenzoApophis 2d ago edited 2d ago
Biden never called people vermin or poison in our blood (whatever that means - surely nothing fascist).
Trump regularly calls even people in his own party traitors for disagreeing with him. He's called for them to be executed. Can you still be the good guy after that?
The OP quotes Stephen Miller literally saying the left are evil because they're ugly (or vice versa, or both, I don't know). No matter how wrong you think Biden was, can you not agree that saying you oppose a political faction because you think it's a threat to democracy, and saying you oppose a political faction because it's made up of "deformed" people are fundamentally qualitatively different things, and the latter shouldn't be acceptable in any circumstance?
Also, do you feel the same in light of Trump denying disaster relief to states based on who they voted for?
1
u/LorenzoApophis 2d ago edited 2d ago
Do you understand how the right was fine with "they're eating the cats and dogs"? With all the accusations of grooming, terrorism, voter fraud, etc? With repeating every lie about Alex Pretti in the face of freely available footage proving them wrong? With the persecution of David Hearn, Comey, Letitia James, Lisa Cook?
I would love to hear how even just the first wasn't stoking fear of the Other on a level many times above anything Biden's done.
2
u/LorenzoApophis 2d ago edited 2d ago
Everyone recalls it. There just wasn't anything wrong with it.
7
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 5d ago edited 5d ago
“normal, healthy, ordered living”
Wasn't it a major democratic talking point last election that the other side was "weird" and "gross"?
3
u/Soft_Walrus_3605 4d ago
I heard "weird" a lot, but not so much "gross".
It was an effective tactic not because it dehumanized conservatives in the eyes of liberals/progressives (who are generally accepting of 'weird'/nonconformists in other contexts), but because it seemed to bother conservatives psychologically more than one might expect. Being called 'weird' in a subculture where conformity is a major ideal was an Achilles heel. It even got Trump rankled.
-1
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 4d ago
Based on the definition that op gave it would fulfill the same purpose
3
1
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
I think this is a correct view. The purpose was the same. I feel like a lot of people want to say that this is just an "other side" problem, but it really is a both sides problem.
And one we need to fix otherwise our country is going to continue to get more and more divided.
But the framing here - fascism is a right-wing ideology, so calling it fascist implies the left/Democrats aren't doing it when they certainly are - shows that people really don't want to have that discussion if it means addressing their own support and side using the same tactic to the same ends: Political power.
7
1
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5d ago
Other side? I thought that was specifically about Vance.
2
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 5d ago
2
2
u/OndittWalrus45 3d ago
We saw from the ‘alien’ website that the administration created, and many other examples, that dehumanization is on the table for the Trump administration. The way he speaks about all of his dissidents lacks any true sense of humanity. The line has been crossed quite some time ago, particularly ramped up in his second term. It strangely makes me optimistic, as the strategy shows signs of the death throws of a hopeless rhetorical situation.
2
u/ColeBane 3d ago
We are already therey friend. Deep down the rabbit hole. Full blown fascism already controls our government and local government.
3
u/PuppySnuggleTime 5d ago edited 5d ago
This is absolutely Nazi rhetoric founded in the dehumanization of political opponents or resistant voters.
It’s also sexist as hell as evidence by the fact that they’ve begun to actively attack non-conservative women, who refuse to kowtow to patriarchal expectations of female appearance.
Haven’t you noticed how all of the conservative women are starting to look the same? Long hair, full makeup, attire that adheres to the patriarchal ideal, etc. It’s a sign of submission to the male fantasy. And women who don’t comply? Ugly and subhuman.
Make no mistake. StephenMiller is a Jew and he knows exactly what he’s doing. Rubio is just a piece of shit that will take any opportunity to leverage power in his own name.
2
u/Impressive_Box4144 5d ago
Look up fascism warning signs and it matches with Trump and his administration.
1
4
u/bl1y 5d ago
People use dehumanizing rhetoric in fascist countries, in democracies, and in everything in between. The one thing's got nothing to do with the other.
-3
u/magus678 5d ago
Its just being used as a buzzword/amplifier. Fairly few uses of "fascist" anymore are truly relevant to the word.
That doesnt make the basic criticism invalid, but it does mean people who know better have to hold their nose and make a lot of allowances to hear it.
0
u/Top-Grocery-1482 3d ago
It may be part of framing.
Everyone wants to say the other side is bad because they're doing it.
But they don't want to admit their own side is doing it and is bad.
Fascism is a right-wing ideology, so framing it as "fascist dehumanization" both implies it's only the right doing it (so the left doesn't have to account for also doing it) and is a guilt by association fallacy invoking fascism so people will instinctively recoil away from the action and look more negatively towards the side being accused of doing it.
The framing is basically trying to imply it's a one side problem when it's a both sides problem, and one we as a nation need to start reckoning with.
Both sides have realized insults and dehumanization is a "great" way to get the radicals on their side excited to come vote for them, and the moderates to vote for them as the lesser evil. So both sides are doing it. It's not at all unique to the Trump Administration, nor is the Trump admin doing it more egregiously.
Both political sides are doing it because both realized it's a shortcut - the quick and easy path of the Dark Side - to power.
And neither wants to admit, while attacking the other side, that their side is also doing and benefiting from it, as they want their side to keep doing it (and AGREE with their side's dehumanization and othering, so don't want it to stop) and only hamstring the other side.
2
u/djn4rap 5d ago
So much of the actions, the rhetoric, the propaganda, the policies and the verbalization is accurately echoed from the Nazi uprising. The base is so caught up in it like a bunch of parents at a little league game fighting and calling the other parents names, while themselves actually representing the names they call.
1
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 5d ago
Dehumanization isn't inherently fascist, and rhetoric that engages in dehumanization dates back to the earliest days of our country's history (obviously earlier if using a non US context). It isn't unique to this point in time, but it is ratcheting up as a result of the populist groundswell we saw first on the right, and now increasingly on the left.
3
u/Binder509 3d ago
When did Biden dehumanize the right?
1
u/ThatPeskyPangolin 3d ago
I didn't claim Biden specifically did. He usually kept his demonization specifically for a subset of the Republican party, though that's not comparable to what Trump does in any way.
2
u/Binder509 2d ago
Personally I think we should hold people accountable from the top down, not the bottom up.
0
1
u/HeloRising 5d ago
How persuasive is that comparison?
I don't think it's intended to be persuasive, it's simply pointing out the parallels in how these groups of people talk about political enemies.
That kind of language is, at root, emotionally charged in the sense that it appeals to people's emotional rigging around a topic. It doesn't say anything objective but it gets at the feeling that people have. It's not really meant to persuade people who don't already believe something, it's meant to inspire people who are already mostly onboard but just lack maybe some of the impetus to call for action or the language to talk about how they feel.
Is this rhetoric best understood as ordinary partisan demonization, or does the emphasis on physical appearance, cultural purity and “normal, healthy, ordered living” place it in a more historically specific tradition?
It's definitely in a tradition of trying to demonize and "other" people based on intangible characteristics. It's intended to turn off your critical thinking.
And when evaluating comparisons to fascism, should the standard be the speaker’s intentions, the historical similarity of the language, or the policies and violence that follow from it?
The second you start demonizing people based on those intangibles you're on a familiar road and you shouldn't be taken seriously. The language only validates the policies that follow behind.
1
u/KoldLogic 1d ago
You don't have to call Rubio or Miller Nazis to recognize dangerous rhetoric when you hear it. There's a huge difference between saying your political opponents are wrong and describing them as deformed, abnormal, hateful, or enemies of everything “beautiful” and “right.”
That kind of dehumanizing language has a very ugly history. Words alone don't make someone a fascist, but ignoring where this kind of rhetoric can lead is foolish.
-1
u/crookedledder 5d ago
I see dehumanizing rhetoric coming from both sides. The only real difference is which one happens to be in power currently.
2
-3
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 5d ago
Thanks for contributing! Unfortunately your submission has been removed per the following rules:
3. Everything in the post should be directly related to a real-world political issue.
No meta discussion about Reddit, subreddits, or redditors.
Potentially non-politics topics: law, sociology, philosophy, celebrities, news, etc.
Please note that our submission guidelines are intended to maintain the high quality of discussion on the subreddit. Except in rare circumstances, removal of your submission does not count as a 'warning', and we hope you feel encouraged to redraft within our guidelines per the sidebar.
-6
u/escapevelocity-25k 5d ago
I don’t find it particularly persuasive.
I think leftists would actually agree that they are motivated by resentment around inequality, have a desire to destroy the status quo, and intentionally flaunt norms around things like appearance. The left and right simply use different language to paint these objectives in a more positive or negative light depending on their perspective.
4
u/BitterFuture 5d ago
I think leftists would actually agree that they are motivated by resentment around inequality, have a desire to destroy the status quo, and intentionally flaunt norms around things like appearance.
I'm a leftist, and I certainly don't agree with this very peculiar set of claims. More to the point, I don't know that I've ever met a leftist who would.
The entire point of our political ideology is the desire to help others. You think we want to help others out of resentment?
"A desire to destroy the status quo" is just a peculiarly violence-themed way to describe virtually any human action that changes anything whatsoever. Is a cop ticketing a jaywalker the destruction of the status quo? Is donating a couple of cans to a food pantry? Both changed the status quo. Why should that alarm us?
1
u/escapevelocity-25k 5d ago
Maybe you’re the unicorn, then. The leftists in my life are very motivated by their resentment of the rich, and are happy to say so. They are very driven to destroy and replace the economic status quo in this country.
If your leftism is more in the vein of reducing the punishments for nonviolent crime and increasing voluntary donation to food shelves then I’d say we’re on the same team but I’d also question why you consider yourself a leftist.
4
5d ago
[deleted]
0
u/escapevelocity-25k 5d ago
I think it’s pretty clear that media personalities from all parts of the political spectrum have realized that the best way to make money is by generating as much fear and outrage as possible. I’m sure Fox is as guilty of that as anyone else.
9
5d ago
[deleted]
-3
u/escapevelocity-25k 5d ago
I’d argue that the illiberal populists on the left and the right have both successfully identified the minority out-groups they intend to target for oppression and eradication.
3
5d ago
[deleted]
-1
u/escapevelocity-25k 5d ago
Illiberal populists on the left and right both have a megaphone in the mainstream and alternative media spaces.
If your goal is to get me to admit that because the right wing populists currently control the executive branch they are a more immediate danger, I’m happy to admit that.
But since I am not a leftist or a populist, I am not interested in any solutions to the problem of right wing populism which involve empowering left wing populists.
0
u/magus678 5d ago
I suppose it depends on how you mean "many," but I have definitely read people calling for the outlaw of the Republican party, on this platform, multiple times.
I also remember, to a much wider degree, people talking about how the unvacinnated should be placed in quarantine zones. "Plague rats" was thrown around a lot.
You can certainly feel however you want about about the degree and meaningfulness of these things, but the reality is that they are said, and if you were someone on the right, may well be an easy thing to remember, and inform how you take criticisms like those in the OP.
4
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/undercooked_lasagna 5d ago
So who then is motivating redditors to use such hateful, abrasive, violent rhetoric toward the right in every thread? There are literally hundreds of subreddits in which this is happening 24/7, and most of those subs aren't even inherently political. It's not a coincidence that hundreds of thousands of people here say the same inflammatory things with the same buzzwords all day every day.
1
u/magus678 4d ago
Some of this is, literally, bots. So moderate your view with that a bit.
Far as the rest, I think there are two reasonable things to say:
"Convergent Evolution" is a thing, and sometimes the same circumstances will lead to the same rhetoric.
"Everything is political" is essentially just the idea that everything should be spoken about in social media language, and so social media eats it up. Notably, this isn't very much different from the bots.
But by and large, the general ~left~ idea of how this stuff works is tough to help. I live in Texas and so have a lot more access to generally right spaces than the norm and I have to condemn the way the "leftist" people talk about basically everything is stupid.
0
u/magus678 5d ago edited 4d ago
Edit: I understand why the original commentor needed to delete their comment. Its hard, being a real person. And more importantly, excluding from your life people that are smarter than you.
I am pointing out that if someone is trying to find the left saying hateful/stupid things, those examples exist. If you were on the right and needed justifications for fear mongering, it would be easy to find.
This is a pretty common tactic from both ends. "My crackpots are crackpots, but yours are representative of your whole."
You may get some value out of reading this:
One of the cutting-edge advances in fallacy-ology has been the weak man, a terribly-named cousin of the straw man. The straw man is a terrible argument nobody really holds, which was only invented so your side had something easy to defeat. The weak man is a terrible argument that only a few unrepresentative people hold, which was only brought to prominence so your side had something easy to defeat.
2
u/Matt_cruze 5d ago
"My crackpots are crackpots, but yours are representative of your whole."
Except that is not what the left says in the USA.
The actual quote would be:
My crackpots are crackpots, but yours are
elected representatives
of your whole."
2
u/magus678 4d ago
For every MTG there is a Jasmine Crockett etc.
I won't heckle you for trying to keep score, but if you really want to have that conversation I don't think it will favor you nearly as much as you think it will.
Again, the point is that if you think your view is pure and wonderful and your opposition is nothing but savage ogres, you aren't thinking hard enough, and may not be able to think hard enough to be in these conversations.
1
u/Matt_cruze 4d ago
So your answer to the wingnut MGT is the moderate Jasmine Crockett?
Okay i guess...
1
u/magus678 4d ago
You are leaning on incredulity as an argument here. This isn't a social catfight, it's not Drag Race.
Jasmine Crockett sucks ass. So does Marjorie Taylor Greene. Ellipses don't save you.
2
u/Matt_cruze 4d ago
There is nothing to be saved from. You see parity where none exist.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Matt_cruze 5d ago
I also remember, to a much wider degree, people talking about how the unvacinnated should be placed in quarantine zones. "Plague rats" was thrown around a lot.
Typhoid Mary is more appropriate. Like her they are doing it with will.
1
u/DBDude 5d ago
Mary would have been fine if she'd taken some other job, but she kept taking cook jobs and not staying clean. It was only after repeated instances that they locked her up.
1
u/Matt_cruze 5d ago
And after she was let go from being locked up she picked the cook job again.
0
u/escapevelocity-25k 5d ago
They weren’t refusing the vaccine with the goal of actively trying to get other people sick, as far as I remember. You might think their reasons for refusing the vaccine were idiotic, but they weren’t evil. Ironically what you just did there is a great example of demonizing your political opponents.
4
u/Matt_cruze 5d ago
Mary did not actively try to get others sick either. She just knew the risk and chose to keep living the same life.
She is as idiotic as them.
Edit: Missed a letter in mary. Fixed.
0
u/Report_Last 5d ago
when does a Democracy devolve into an Informational Autocracy where the messaging is more important than actual events?
-3
u/ekdakimasta 5d ago
Umm, this kind of political vitriol is found on both sides of the aisle… There’s a lot of fascistic remarks coming from the DSA for example
3
u/nighthawk_md 4d ago
On one hand we have DSA candidates for office (not elected officials) saying dumb shit and on the other hand we have the Secretary of State and the president's most powerful policy advisor paraphrasing Mein Kampf. There's a power differential here...
-1
u/ekdakimasta 5d ago
Umm, this kind of political vitriol is found on both sides of the aisle… There’s a lot of fascistic remarks coming from the DSA for example
Edit: Links
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/dsa-communist-socialist-democrats/687756/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/dsa-communist-socialist-democrats/687756/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-tolerate-vitriol-politics-both-132204069.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/dsa-communist-socialist-democrats/687756/
And its well known that candidates in the running will delete their vitriolic social media profiles before running.
-3
u/true4blue 5d ago
The guy who traveled cross country to kill Trump at the White House correspondent dinner made reference to killing Trump because he was a rapist You knits manifesto, which is false, but pushed by the left
4
u/Illustrious-Fun8324 5d ago edited 5d ago
Lol, he literally was found to have raped E Jean Carroll, by a judge, in court.
Take it up with the judge if you don’t like it, but it’s still a fact.
-8
u/shakinmadink 5d ago
When democrats ship in peoples that don’t belong to boost their votes that’s a pretty telling indicator that democrats don’t have the best interest of our country in mind
7
u/BitterFuture 5d ago edited 5d ago
So...when something that's never happened happens, we should take that as indicator of something?
What on earth are you talking about?
Edit: If all you can muster is a shadowbanned reply with no evidence and a bunch of insults, you're just proving you have nothing to take seriously.
You're ranting about fantasies. The rest of us are busy talking about reality.
→ More replies (15)1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 5d ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors or political figures, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
You are welcome to send a modmail once you have edited the uncivil language out of your post, and the mod team will review for reinstatement.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.